I know the market state now is tough but still it doesn’t change the fundamentals and my post is about ones. I got into blockchains and wanna know properly how they work. I studied the concepts but am still researching and wanna see the community opinions.
In most blockchains there is a problem of growing the blockchain size. So if blockchain wants to last longer than \~5 years, it has to limit the scalability (that what Ethereum does) so that the size of the blockchain does not grow too fast. So, validators are forced to store this entire state forever, and the size of the state also slows down the transaction speed a little. That is, Ethereum understands that it is impossible to write data to their blockchain state size faster than the storage of this data becomes cheaper, otherwise it will not be profitable for validators to store them in the future. But other blockchain offer higher scalability (like Fantom, Solana, Everscale, NEAR), does it mean they do not care about the future and their users and holders in 10 years? Or do they offer something really worthwile?
**Ethereum** TPS shows me 30 currently. A new step and rollups towards sharding gave us low prices and increased speed of transactions. Roll-ups are about the execution side of the problem only and do not solve the data storage. And as L2’s scale next, there will be enormous data amounts that can give us very expensive transactions. As for data storage on Ethereum validators store data forever and have to compete with each other for the right to record data to the blockchain state size at an auction, because as i mentioned in Ethereum it is impossible to write data to their blockchain state size faster than the storage of this data becomes cheaper. Otherwise it will not be profitable for validators to store them in the future. That’s why its scalability is limited. I still hope they will provide new solutions to this next year.
**NEAR** introduces the solutions of sharding with composability – you can call any contract on any shard within the same transaction. A single account can be isolated in its own shard and suddenly it has the processing power of an entire L1. NEAR shows 1k TPS. They use a different from Ethereum approach to data storage. The amount of gas that a transaction costs does not depend on the amount of data in the transaction. They introduce storage staking – the contract owner must block on the account balance the amount of tokens that is necessary to store all the data in the contract. Tokens that are blocked on the account ensure data storage is not available for use and it might be deleted – so validators do not compete with each other unlike Ethereum. That is good for transaction prices.
**Fantom** has around 25k TPS. That’s huge and a nice sign for me, but also they introduce two interesting technologies to back it up: DAG and Lachesis. DAG allows swift validation of transactions while Lachesis provides security to the multiple chains deployed within the ecosystem. However, considering storage fees I get a little confused. A new node has to sync with the chain from beginning to end. If a chain grows at maximum speed, syncing will never complete since the chain will grow faster than a node can sync. Raising prices normalizes overall traffic by lowering demand. This means that the node needs to store the sheer amount of data. As the chain grows, nodes need ever-growing amounts of storage, and read/write times can take longer. So it seems like data storage slows down the networks and increases fees but as the network is developing and offering new technologies I think Fantom is able to offer new solutions soon.
The infinite sharding in **Everscale** can process a potentially huge number of transactions per second due to the fact that shards are added dynamically. However, it is not free, and the shards become slower to complete. As a result, with the addition of a large number of shards, the time to execute transactions increases (but we should consider the fact that the number of transactions per second can be extremely large). Everscale sets the TPS at 64k – more than others I know. And look, they have an interesting concept of storage fees. Each contract pays for its storage on the network, and as a result it makes no sense to limit the pace of recording to the network as the contract pays for its storage for a while that will be then deleted. Therefore, they provide recording to the network at a certain price, and thus users should not compete with each other for the right to record (similar to NEAR). Seems like Everscale can also be there among scalable and secure blockchains in 2023.
**Aptos** is the new blockchain I see quite often but mostly it has a bad reputation as it is connected with FTX and its collapse. Still it is claimed to be able to process 160,000 transactions per second but at the moment its TPS is around 23, much lower than what was promised initially. But I need to watch for these guys more.
So do you think any of them can compete with Ethereum in 2023? Do their technological solutions change the future of blockchains or these are just another step to nowhere?