What makes or breaks Blockchain: Gavin Wood 5 standards

We forget the maximum market and noise-what really determines the success of Blockchain in the long run? Ethereum Gavin Wood, co -founder, who formulated the term “Web3”, and later Polkadot, sets his five main criteria for Blockchain evaluation.

In an exclusive interview with forbes, Crypto Og explains what distinguishes promising Blockchains regardless of those governed by failure. It also provides useful measures and provides an explicit analysis of the most popular Blockchains today.

His approaches makes it easy to understand the price dynamics in the original cryptochar currencies of Blockchains. Why does the maximum ETH market – from $ 575 billion at its peak 2021 to $ 394 billion today? Why did Seoul rose to the highest level in the previous highlands ever to $ 115 billion, while the Polkadot point, which was launched at the same time, decreased to 9 billion dollars? Looking at behind the current assessments, Wood determines the main factors in playing.

Gavin Wood’s 5 Blockchain Standards

There are hundreds of existing Blockchains, each with unique technology (more or less), use cases, and adoption levels. To reduce noise, Gavin Wood sets five basic criteria for evaluating Blockchain capabilities:

1. Steadfastness. The web3 spine combines the flexibility between encryption, decentralization, game theory to protect Blockchain against attacks and ensure long -term stability.
2. performance. More than just expansion, performance measures the efficiency of the network and ends the tasks.
3. generality. Blockchain’s ability to support various applications and programming.
4. accessibility. Ease that users, developers, applications and robots can interact with the network.
5. Coordination. The system’s ability to maintain a fast and consistent contact across its network.

Gavin Wood resides Blockchains

Flexibility: Non -negotiable

While Blockchains can give priority to different characteristics, one is not negotiable. This standard is the most difficult to evaluate, the most long, but more important. Javin Wood,

“These cases that ignore decentralization and flexibility should not be considered.”

“We see L2S on Ethereum, which contains a fixed authentication group run by a specific company, right? It is clear that this is not a web 3.”

The Blockchain elasticity measurement is often summarized to assess the degree of decentralization. Wood determines many questions to evaluate them: Who makes the protocol decisions? Does governance have clear or low barriers in front of entry? There is also the Nakamoto coefficient, which measures the number of limbs that will take it to the network. Finally, Wood draws attention to “more prevalent concepts”, such as whether one entity can determine a narration and “mainly transcends the ecosystem and suffocates other accounts.”

It seems that the founder of Polkadot is happy with decentralization, citing a high Nakamoto laboratory. In fact, according to NakaflowPolkadot is now 149. This means that it will take at least 149 independent auditors to disrupt the network. In comparison, other major Blockchains are often recorded much less – for example, Solana 19 and ETHEREUM only 2.

The barriers are still a source of concern. It is described by Maurantonio Caprolo, a research scientist in Kaust in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, who has co -authored many papers on Bolkadot with Professor Roberto de Petro as high.

Until 2022, the average share needed to enter the active auditor group was about 1.8 million points ($ 32 million at the time). […] This minimum is still high even at the time of writing this report, and it is practically preferable to share entities that can afford the costs of a large amount of distinctive symbols. ”

By applying the final flexibility scale, the ETHEREUM weakness becomes clear. Blockchain is often criticized for the huge Vitalik Buterin effect. Conversation X post – “The person who decides the new EF [Ethereum Foundation] The leadership team is me.

One may ask: Will Bolkadot risk, given the presence of a prominent Javin Wood, also that his narration is formed by him? Wood admits that his name bears weight, but confirms the ruling that the Bolkadot community is driven. It cited successful proposals led by society, such as reducing the rate of inflation in DOT, as evidence of decentralized decisions.

the Polkassembly Governance platform Society’s inputs are also easy, with the launch of OpenGov in 2023. However, the researchers note, “Since this system is still in its early stages, more time and data will be needed to verify whether OpenGov successfully relieves the central tendencies that we have noticed under” Al -Hakam 1 “, the former Polkadot governance model.”

Performance: at what cost?

Performance strategies via Blockchains vary, but the frequent challenge is their balance with decentralization and cohesion.

Take ethereum. Wood explains: “First, they were a burning solution, as they would build EVM fragments in the networks … Then they got rid of all these things in favor of L2 solutions. Basically, they did nothing and allow others to build chains and a kind of securing them using Ethereum . ”This led to the loss of cohesion and even security. According to Wood, “Ethereum with L2S is not really ethereum because L2S does not provide the same security guarantees.”

Solana, according to Lod, Duhtah decentralization.

“Solana strategy is to make auditors fat and make them well connected to others. Basically, this is why the Nakamoto laboratory decreases. You also need to call any of the two auditors, you need to reduce the number of auditors.”

Gavin Wood is called a “very simultaneous strategy”, as the speed is limited to the speed of one device processing and data synchronization. While this allows rapid scaling early, in the end it strikes a roof dictated by the boundaries of the devices and communication.

For wood, “the same applies to many other proof proof chains. They do not have a coherent measurement strategy, and in order to process more data, they simply reduce auditors and increase their speed.”

According to Wood, Polkadot was built differently. It can “improve through expansion, which means that we are actually not centralized with more auditors to make it faster.”

General: The real Torring is completed

The Blockchain General Gavin Wood is determined by how easy it is to translate the Web2 application into Web3. More specifically, it measures it with the scope and complexity of the accounts that Blockchain can support.

Ethereum presented the concept of Trouing to Blockchains. However, as Wood indicates, it is no less than the presentation of a real mathematical general. This is largely due to restrictions such as gas limits and ban sizes. Accounts should end within the limit of mass gas, restricting the complexity of the problems they can solve.

Bolkadot, with the parachute model, aims to raise some of these restrictions. Presses carry out their own logic within a web environment, as long as the calculations are completed within a few seconds. This preparation allows umbrellas to deal with much larger data sets. Currently, ETHEREUM allows about 15 million EVM gas per block. For Polkadot, this number is equivalent to 18 billion gas.

However, Polkadot, like Ethereum, is still quantitative and not qualitative. It measures calculations, but it mainly does not change its scope. This is about to change with the upcoming jam. It promises to enable “communication”, where calculations can be suspended and resumed between the blocks.

Professor Solla Luka, head of the Blockchain Initiative at the University of Nicosia, believes that the removal of mono -mass account could be a major penetration. Explain:

“Although other Blockchains has mechanisms to deal with complex accounts (for example, layer 2 solutions, optimistic optimistic), currently, no Blockchain does not provide a built -in continuity mechanism similar In support of more complicated applications and general purposes, especially for advanced applications such as complex financial tools, widespread data processing, and AI/ML on the series.

Coame: filling gaps

The cohesion is a major challenge to Blockchain. Ethereum L2S struggles with this, as well as Polkadot umbrellas. As Wood describes it, it works in isolated environments, and the reactions across the chain are generally slow and expensive, and perhaps unsafe unless the joint sequence system is presented. However, such a system would bring its own challenges, because it requires superpowers to perform the sequence, which will inevitably lead to centralization.

Wood admits that cohesion was not a major axis of Bolkadot. While last year witnessed many integration and bridges, umbrellas are still struggling with them.

This issue also indicates by the founder of OrIGintrail Tomaz Levak. His company develops a desci (decentralized science) protocol designed to regulate and connect the real world data for AI and Enterprise applications. It runs on its Polkadot umbrellas. Levak notes that although “the possibilities of performance and customization that Polkadot’s artistic design were completely unique to meet the needs”, he wants to see “infrastructure for bridges with other Blockchain ecosystems.”

Access: Test of the usage

It is a common impression in space that Polkadot is a good technique but it is difficult to understand. However, Wood notes that her arrival has improved significantly during the past year, thanks to the promotions of the XCM system (cross messages) and the governor of the ecological system. Likewise, Tomaz Levak notes that the ultimate users are Origentrail “rarely interact directly with the Blockchain layer, where there are friendly user interfaces that guarantee a smooth experience.”

However, the problems of cohesion remain, and thus hinder access. Wood says that JAM will work around it by providing a store for joint data, as services can be built to hide cohesion problems from the entire user.

Regarding the participation of the developer, Wood sheds lightly sheds that Bolkadot has always had many “serious” developers. In fact, electric capital Developer He explains that Polkadot Tech is ranked third in the encryption space. It is now 467 full -time developer, Solana (599) and Ethereum (3562). However, Wood believes that the actual number is higher, as the 35 teams that work on JAM work in closed source environments and are not included in the report.

Everyone in all, no Blockchain mastered all the five criteria yet. In the words of Gavin Wood,

There are somewhat performance systems, but they lack cohesion. This is the condition of Bolkadot. And when you look at a coherent system like Ethereum, it is very missing. If you look at a coherent system like Solana, it is missing flexibility and decentralization. So what we end up is that you can choose a few of these characteristics, but there is nothing at the present time providing them all. ”

The real winners will be those who adapt without compromising the basic principles of Web3. The question is: Any Blockchain will get balance first?