Execution and well-conceived integration are a mandatory minimum of realizing the potential of new innovations. Grab a coffee (or hot chocolate if you're @greg), sit back, and relax, we're going on a deep dive.

I like baking /goodbread and building apps on web3 protocols. DevRel @ ENS Labs. gregskril.com

BDFL of Quilibrium, Eng @ Farcaster, ex-Coinbase, always opinionated, never hydrated

/quilibrium

Amazing thread, this is what I come to FC for. I understood *some* of these words; does it mean that Quilibrium’s commitment scheme offers an alternate way that Ethereum *could* use to face its future scaling challenges post full danksharding, and if so, what’s been the EF’s reaction so far if any? 1000 $degen

PhD in aviation ∩ climate science | Aviator, diver, ETH maxi, nexialist | Host of /diving /ethfinance /eth-staker /geopolitics /science /singapore /thomas

Making the leap from their existing structure would be the largest undertaking they could ever do. Structurally, even their account model would have to change, so I understand why they didn't do it, because even for their original sharding plan, their account model would still similarly need to change.

The latter-most – but I view it through the lens of not crypto, but rather a general replacement for how things are built on the web.

Thanks! So what’s your vision for Quilibrium then: to be a technical proof of concept of how scalability can be done, to serve as a sidechain for existing blockchain designs that struggle to scale, to become a leading L1 with its own utility and use cases, etc?