The Ethereum killer storyline part 2 might be beginning

[nelson4lov]

I don't know mate,  throughout crypto's supposedly storyline, there are not success so far,

a. There is this thought that Ethereum is the so called Bitcoin killer, as it overtake Bitcoin in early to mid 2018, but that didn't happen, and others dub it "the Flippening"

b. Ripple as well, in the same breathe that time, that it will overtake Bitcoin, "The Rippening" as they dub it.

Both didn't succeed, so I doubt that by 2024, we could be hearing this so called "X" killer mentality, in my opinion. SOL is just hype, just like ADA in 2020 and others who had their chance to challenge Ethereum before.

I was there for the flippening and rippening moments and none of them happened and a lot of Ethereum and Ripple fanatics have abandoned the idea for now because they have bigger problems competing with these newer horses like Solana/SUI/aptos, etc than to compete with Bitcoin and lose (again).

Having high TPs right now is a meme because everyone knows that if any of these chains handle anywhere near the volume that Bitcoin or Ethereum faces, they'll bend the knees as well. Solana itself has been down close to 5 times over the years and they had to *restart the blockchain * to get it work again.

[markm]

Maybe "don't beat them join them" could come to mind here?

Things like GRouPcoin, DeVCoin, IXCoin, I0Coin, heck even NaMeCoin, by merged-mining alongside bitcoin, seem to present a possibility of provisioning a bit of bandwidth for themself and not actually competing with bitcoin but, rather, simply offering its miners some potential extra income?

I have not tracked what has been happening with merged mining alongside litecoin but maybe it is time for the original scrypt coins, TeneBriX and FairBriX, to look into merged mining too if they didn't already?

-MarkM-

[bbc.reporter]

[...] higher TPS is beginning to be an important argument for the success of other blockchains.

The discussion about TPS is missing the point that TPS is always a function of centralization. The more TPS a layer-1 blockchain claims to allow, the more capacity/bandwidth/CPU/RAM requirements for full nodes. You have to pay a quite high performance computer already to operate an Ethereum full node, but with Solana "at full capacity" it is even worse. Solana compared to Ethereum has basically the same relation as BSV to Bitcoin.

For a simple SOL node you already need 128 GB RAM and a 12-core CPU and a 10 Gbps network connection, so called "RPC nodes" (which are the real full nodes) need even more. ETH "only" needs a 16GB RAM computer (see here), while a Bitcoin node can run still on the year-long standard of 4MB RAM. SOL claims to have >4000 nodes, but that number seems to include light nodes (correct me if I'm wrong here) which process the blockchain in real time but don't store it fully.

Ethereum is increasing its capacity via Layer-2's, like Bitcoin, and this is the way to go IMO. Not every tiny speculative memecoin transaction or every cup of coffee bought has to be recorded by all full nodes on the world. It's just a matter of resource allocation. I'm myself not a big Ethereum fan but even less a Solana (and even less a BNB/Tron) supporter.

If really Solana had discovered a breakthrough in bandwidth usage that can often be adopted by other blockchains like ETH and BTC too.

I also distrust predictions from such an "objective"    source like VanEck which are those who have applied for an US Solana ETF.

And at $143 SOL is quite far away from its ATH of $260 (current price is 55% of its ATH). Not much more than Ethereum (currently $2450, ATH $4800, so it's at 51%).

On centralization and higher transactions per second, I very much understand and I very much agree on the argument. However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. After Ethereum's DAO hack, the argument for developers presently is if a blockchain is attacked or hacked, the development team can reverse transactions and continue very much like nothing has happened hehehe. Also, development teams can hire lawyers and they appear to that they can get help from the government to prosecute hackers.

In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

[markm]

Well I suppose that as long as this planet is what the Traveler RPG would call "balkanised", government is itself decentralised, not sure if that makes it "fair enough then" though.

-MarkM-

[d5000]

However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. [...] In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

Yes, you may be correct that some investors and developers may not care about centralization risks.

However, Solana has still to do a huge amount of catching up with Ethereum. A *5 of the market cap -- assuming that Ethereum price doesn't increase anymore -- isn't an easy task for an already somewhat established altcoin like SOL which is currently struggling to reach even towards its old highs of >$200. I think it could be easier if Solana had some "real" technical advantage which was impossible to copy on ETH without changing it completely. But ETH itself is moving towards a layer-2 fueled high TPS model via its rollups.

I think if SOL achieves to get at least close to 30-40% of ETH's market cap, then the technical concept to achieve high TPS will probably be discussed ferociously in the altcoin community, and the winner could depend on the answer which one is "better" "objectively". And I think that a L2-fueled model is indeed superior as simply it has overall inferior costs and can scale much, much better. On a L2-fueled blockchain in theory each citizen on the earth could release their own token. The tradeoff - complexity - can be hidden via the interface once the tech matures.

For me it would be interesting what happens if SOL (or any other "ethereum killer", TRX for example is growing much faster than SOL but has a lower marketcap) and ETH come closer though, if ETH is able to defend its position or if ETH investors tend then to panic and sell more coins when the #2 status is seriously challenged. I'll be eating popcorn at the sideline

[jaberwock]

I believe Solana has the capacity to flip Ethereum. At least the owner and lead developer of Solana believes in the project unlike Ethereum where the owner Vitalik Buterin is dumping ethereum

Even though there are also other good candidates in this regard but I also think that Solana is far better than them. It is because it is also bulkier other than just being popular and has the same use case as ETH.

It is sad to know that there are devs who are only after the money, in a way that they will dump most of their coin/tokens supply but even them, they also believe on their project that it will rise in value because that is the only way for them to profit. I do not know if it's really true that ETH dev (Vitalik Buterin) is dumping its ETH to the max level but even if let say yes, I'm still quite impressed to the fact that he keeps on developing it and didn't drop his project right after profiting just like the others out there.

[bbc.reporter]

However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. [...] In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

Yes, you may be correct that some investors and developers may not care about centralization risks.

However, Solana has still to do a huge amount of catching up with Ethereum. A *5 of the market cap --

Does this imply that Solana is very much undervalued or it might be Ethereum is overvalued? If this positive netflow on Solana will continue while the negative netflow on Ethereum will also continue then it appears that the market capitalization on one of these blockchains is a mistake hehehehe.

Also, what is the latest news update on Vitalik's sharding? Is he continuing this to be his solution for scaling Ethereum?

[Abiky]

On centralization and higher transactions per second, I very much understand and I very much agree on the argument. However, my argument is that it appears that no one is anymore considering this as an issue. After Ethereum's DAO hack, the argument for developers presently is if a blockchain is attacked or hacked, the development team can reverse transactions and continue very much like nothing has happened hehehe. Also, development teams can hire lawyers and they appear to that they can get help from the government to prosecute hackers.

In any case, we can witness that developers, users, investors, venture capitalists and other people causing high net inflows on Solana do not anymore care about some centralization. They want a blockchain where they can use it cheaply and create projects that are not restricted by low transaction capabilities.

Nobody cares about the damaging effects of centralization. Everyone just wants to make money. Investors buy a coin with the hopes of turning a profit in the long run. Only true crypto enthusiasts and libertarians are interested in decentralization. Solana may be centralized, but it's far superior than Ethereum in terms of performance and cost-efficiency. Of course. This leads to network stability issues in the short term. Why do you think Solana has been a constant victim of network outages? Ethereum has been running smoothly since day one. I know there was a "rollback" of Blockchain transactions in the past. But it was all done in good faith to help protect investors. Miners agreed to it, and developers made the move.

You won't find any other altcoin as reliable as Ethereum is. The high fees and slow confirmation times is the price you pay for unmatched decentralization, security/reliability, and censorship-resistance. Same goes for Bitcoin. Any project that claims it's the next "Ethereum Killer" would be nothing more than overhyped. Remember EOS? That used to be the "Ethereum Killer" until people got tired of it and moved on to the next big thing. I'm guessing history will repeat itself with Solana. Just you wait and see.

[bbc.reporter]

@Abiky. Also, you might have forgotten an argument that is beginning to be much more agreeable. This argument is the people who use defi, who play games on blockchain, who trade on decentralized onchain exchanges and other types of onchain participants only want to have cheap fees and a good experience. Does Ethereum give this type of good experience? We can be quite certain the answer for this is it ca mot because it is very expensive to use.

On the other side of the argument, why is Solana getting very positive netflows? This is certainly because Solana has attention of the community and very much might continue to have this attention. This forced developers and venture capitalists to invest their time and money on bringing more development on Solana than on Ethereum, I reckon.

[markm]

Maybe it is like SWIFT vs credit/debit cards.

SWIFT is apparently slow but when it comes down to something, somehow SWIFT is still used internationally between banks.

-MarkM-

[d5000]

Does this imply that Solana is very much undervalued or it might be Ethereum is overvalued?

Do I smell a little shilling for a certain coin here?

If one coin has positive "netflows" (I guess you mean flows from exchanges to self-hosted wallets and vice versa) and another one negative ones, but the second one is 5* away, then it can take years to catch up, or never.

These flows are also more a sign for what's happening currently and what happened in the past, without much predictive value. Basically as in the last months the Solana flows were positive in comparison to Ethereum, this can be perfectly explained by the price movements of both coins in these months, where SOL did indeed increase relatively to ETH as shown in the graph in one of my previous posts. It could have been undervalued before that movement. But -- by far -- not enough to challenge it in the market cap indicator. SOL would need at least to come close to its old ATH.

Of course this positive SOL/ETH tendency can continue, but it's not sure. I would say there's a 60% probability perhaps that SOL will continue to increase compared to ETH in the next months because of its solid on-chain activity. However, much of the ETH movement can be explained with the negative reaction to disappointing ETF inflows, and this sentiment may bottom eventually.

As an example of the limited predictive value of flows, Glassnode failed with a lot of its Bitcoin predictions based on exchange flows, often its price went up after periods of negative flows, and down after periods of positive flows.

Also, what is the latest news update on Vitalik's sharding? Is he continuing this to be his solution for scaling Ethereum?

The last info I have is that "classic" sharding was relegated to the long term. In the short term however, ETH is relying on L2s, and rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism were quite successful and have lowered ETH's fees a lot in the last year. And in the medium term, a solution called Danksharding will be implemented, which will optimize the efficiency of rollups.

[bbc.reporter]

Does this imply that Solana is very much undervalued or it might be Ethereum is overvalued?

Do I smell a little shilling for a certain coin here?

If one coin has positive "netflows" (I guess you mean flows from exchanges to self-hosted wallets and vice versa) and another one negative ones, but the second one is 5* away, then it can take years to catch up, or never.

These flows are also more a sign for what's happening currently and what happened in the past, without much predictive value. Basically as in the last months the Solana flows were positive in comparison to Ethereum, this can be perfectly explained by the price movements of both coins in these months, where SOL did indeed increase relatively to ETH as shown in the graph in one of my previous posts. It could have been undervalued before that movement. But -- by far -- not enough to challenge it in the market cap indicator. SOL would need at least to come close to its old ATH.

Of course this positive SOL/ETH tendency can continue, but it's not sure. I would say there's a 60% probability perhaps that SOL will continue to increase compared to ETH in the next months because of its solid on-chain activity. However, much of the ETH movement can be explained with the negative reaction to disappointing ETF inflows, and this sentiment may bottom eventually.

As an example of the limited predictive value of flows, Glassnode failed with a lot of its Bitcoin predictions based on exchange flows, often its price went up after periods of negative flows, and down after periods of positive flows.

Also, what is the latest news update on Vitalik's sharding? Is he continuing this to be his solution for scaling Ethereum?

The last info I have is that "classic" sharding was relegated to the long term. In the short term however, ETH is relying on L2s, and rollups like Arbitrum and Optimism were quite successful and have lowered ETH's fees a lot in the last year. And in the medium term, a solution called Danksharding will be implemented, which will optimize the efficiency of rollups.

Are you implying that if you accuse that a person was shilling a certain project then the speculation on what chain is overvalued or overvalued based on netflows is invalid? Hehehe this is very much headshaking.

Also, netflows described that total value of stablecoins that are exiting or entering the network. There is also smart contract netflows shown in Artemis where Arbitrum and Ethereum have the largest negative netflows and Solana has the largest positive netflows.

@Abiky. You have mentioned Dan Larimer's EOS. Did EOS have this much positive netflows similar to Solana?

[d5000]

Are you implying that if you accuse that a person was shilling a certain project then the speculation on what chain is overvalued or overvalued based on netflows is invalid?

At least it weakens the argument a bit and thus the arguments needs a bit more substance

When I shill for a coin (and I do shill for decentralized coins like XMR, LTC or so) then I'll usually provide some hard numbers to back up the claims. So you can do the same thing and your argument becomes stronger

Also, netflows described that total value of stablecoins that are exiting or entering the network. There is also smart contract netflows shown in Artemis where Arbitrum and Ethereum have the largest negative netflows and Solana has the largest positive netflows.

Okay, thanks for explanation.

Now to answer your question about undervaluation: this metric seems to be indirectly related with value as a long term indicator for usage (these coins "could" eventually be part of the SOL demand), but not directly, because the value can simply stay inside the stablecoins without ever being converted into SOL. Many users might be simply using stablecoins on Solana due to the lower fees but would never exchange them to SOL.

A possible strategy to answer the question about undervaluation would be to compare the stablecoin trading volume on SOL versus the SOL price evolution. If the growth of this volume is higher than the price increase, then  I would say that SOL could be undervalued. The reason is that the stablecoins are actively traded for SOL and thus can indeed form part of the demand, and not only hodled in stablecoins (or used for stablecoin payments).

But as I wrote in the last post Solana has a long way to go to catch up to ETH in terms of market cap, so a long period of positive flows into the ecosystem would be needed.

Another interesting metric would be the value of all (or at least, all relevant, i.e. perhaps the top 50) tokens on ETH compared to those on SOL, including all second layers. If SOL's network value approaches the one of ETH then a "flipping" is possible in the medium/long term.

[Abiky]

@Abiky. You have mentioned Dan Larimer's EOS. Did EOS have this much positive netflows similar to Solana?

Not that I'm aware of. EOS always had little demand and low network activity. It is now long lost and forgotten. This is the fate of all projects associated with Dan Larimer. Remember Bitshares and Steem? Their concept was good, but without a proper marketing strategy, investors will just look elsewhere.

If EOS (which was often proclaimed as the next Ethereum killer) failed, what can you tell me about Solana? It's overhyped, often becoming a victim of network outages. The only reason why hype hasn't faded away yet, it's because of the "meme" coins craze. Since SOL is fast and cheap to use, whales and speculators can use the chain to "pump" memes for profit. It will never beat Ethereum, no matter which shiny-new features it gets in the long run. To say Ethereum will fall, it's like saying Bitcoin will lose traction until it's superseded by another cryptocurrency. That will never happen. There's nothing wrong with holding coins other than ETH or BTC, though. The point is to make money, right? Just buy low and sell high for complete peace of mind.

[markm]

 Their concept was good, but without a proper marketing strategy, investors will just look elsewhere.

It seems to me that puts the blame onto the marketing industry.

It seems generally to be an industry that lacks sufficient faith in its own acumen.

I always find myself thinking why should I pay some marketer who claims to be able to make a coin soar if that marketer has too little faith in their actual ability to do so to simply go ahead and do so.

The programmers had enough faith in their own coding ability to write the free open-source code, why do the marketers lack sufficient faith in their own skills / abilities to go ahead and do their part?

I dealt with a marketer back when I was involved in setting up Mountnet Internet ISP in Halifax NS way back when (before search engines, basically) and one notable thing about the marketing department was what to actually offer for sale even is up to them apparently so there ya go, it is marketers job to figure out what to sell, get hold of some of it, and get out there selling it.

If teams won't listen to marketers to the extent of altering their product to become something the marketers figure they can sell, fine, lots of teams around, marketers can shop around to pick products they can sell.

So it seems to me it is probably more the marketers lack of faith that is the problem, they should be right in there snapping up dirt cheap coins and reselling them at much higher prices; maybe we need futures markets so the marketers can secure in advance a supply so that when their efforts do multiply the value they will still be able to pick them up themselves at known ahead of time prices to keep on selling them and presumably keep on multiplying the prices of them.


-MarkM-

[werghb4562]

Decentralized-in-name-only-proof-of-60%-premined-stake scamcoin that pretends to protect its non-existent decentralization with tps limit struggles against another scamcoin better at decentralization theater. You reap what you sow.

"you know right now bitcoin transaction costs 5 cents which is fine right now because paypal's fees are even stupider but the internet of money should not cost 5 cents a transaction its kinnda absurd" -2017 vitalik buterin

[bbc.reporter]

Are you implying that if you accuse that a person was shilling a certain project then the speculation on what chain is overvalued or overvalued based on netflows is invalid?

At least it weakens the argument a bit and thus the arguments needs a bit more substance

When I shill for a coin (and I do shill for decentralized coins like XMR, LTC or so) then I'll usually provide some hard numbers to back up the claims. So you can do the same thing and your argument becomes stronger

Also, netflows described that total value of stablecoins that are exiting or entering the network. There is also smart contract netflows shown in Artemis where Arbitrum and Ethereum have the largest negative netflows and Solana has the largest positive netflows.

Okay, thanks for explanation.

Now to answer your question about undervaluation: this metric seems to be indirectly related with value as a long term indicator for usage (these coins "could" eventually be part of the SOL demand), but not directly, because the value can simply stay inside the stablecoins without ever being converted into SOL. Many users might be simply using stablecoins on Solana due to the lower fees but would never exchange them to SOL.

A possible strategy to answer the question about undervaluation would be to compare the stablecoin trading volume on SOL versus the SOL price evolution. If the growth of this volume is higher than the price increase, then  I would say that SOL could be undervalued. The reason is that the stablecoins are actively traded for SOL and thus can indeed form part of the demand, and not only hodled in stablecoins (or used for stablecoin payments).

But as I wrote in the last post Solana has a long way to go to catch up to ETH in terms of market cap, so a long period of positive flows into the ecosystem would be needed.

Another interesting metric would be the value of all (or at least, all relevant, i.e. perhaps the top 50) tokens on ETH compared to those on SOL, including all second layers. If SOL's network value approaches the one of ETH then a "flipping" is possible in the medium/long term.

Heheheh it will not weaken the argument because your accusation that someone is a shill for Solana will certainly imply that you might be an annoyed bagholder of Ethereum. This will only distract everyone from the real argument which is based on netflows and what might happen to the future of Solana and Ethereum because of these netflows.

On overvaluing Ethereum and undervaluing Solana, I speculate that big investors and whales might have begun to notice these netflows and they are considering Solana to be undervalued if this is compared to Ethereum which might have a waiting value gathering problem because of rollups. The evidence of this is the growing community of developers, venture capitalists, investors and users.

[d5000]

I repeat: arguments are normally more convincing if there are hard numbers backing the claims, and even a "shill" can be convincing in this case . That's what is missing here in this thread regarding your argument based on netflows. The indicator seems to be part of paid packages from on-chain analysis firms, and it's also not easy to find journalistic articles about the phenomenon you describe. The article you cite at the beginning doesn't mention it. So I'd appreciate (seriously!) if you can post some stats or charts here

I have seen some on-chain data like active addresses that look indeed very positive for Solana in the short term. But the timeframe for the observed growth, which is probably also what the VanEck report mentioned when it talks about "user base", is too short to be an evidence for undervaluation. If fees are low then also the potential for manipulation or use for useless tokens/data (as everybody can see on Bitcoin SV). And again, to compare with ETH you'd have to compare the whole ecosystem, including rollups and other "ecosystem chains" like Polygon.

btw: If anything I'm a Bitcoin "shill" or "bagholder", and a happy one (not only because of the recent price increase) If there's an ETH/SOL war about rank #2, then I'll be eating popcorn watching from the sideline

[bbc.reporter]

I repeat: arguments are normally more convincing if there are hard numbers backing the claims, and even a "shill" can be convincing in this case . That's what is missing here in this thread regarding your argument based on netflows. The indicator seems to be part of paid packages from on-chain analysis firms, and it's also not easy to find journalistic articles about the phenomenon you describe. The article you cite at the beginning doesn't mention it. So I'd appreciate (seriously!) if you can post some stats or charts here

I have seen some on-chain data like active addresses that look indeed very positive for Solana in the short term. But the timeframe for the observed growth, which is probably also what the VanEck report mentioned when it talks about "user base", is too short to be an evidence for undervaluation. If fees are low then also the potential for manipulation or use for useless tokens/data (as everybody can see on Bitcoin SV). And again, to compare with ETH you'd have to compare the whole ecosystem, including rollups and other "ecosystem chains" like Polygon.

btw: If anything I'm a Bitcoin "shill" or "bagholder", and a happy one (not only because of the recent price increase) If there's an ETH/SOL war about rank #2, then I'll be eating popcorn watching from the sideline

Heheheheh some of your arguments are headshaking because you only make it appear that you are weakening the argument, however, it does not weaken this. Does an accusation that someone is a Solana shill really make the question of netflows and valuation of a chain invalid? It clearly does not make the question invalid.

Also on your other attempt to weaken the argument on netflows, if the source is a paid package, are you implying that the data on that website is not real? The negative netflows on Ethereum are not happening? Hehehehe another headshaking argument.

On Ethereum rollups, there are some people in the cryptospace who are beginning to speculate that these rollups might become vampire attacks on Ethereum mainnet. There was an article about the rollup of Coinbase where it earned $2 million in fees and it only paid onchain fees of $20,000 on mainnet.

On Ethereum vs. Solana and who will be no.2, I will certainly be watching. I am holding them hehehehhehehehe.

[markm]

On Ethereum rollups, there are some people in the cryptospace who are beginning to speculate that these rollups might become vampire attacks on Ethereum mainnet. There was an article about the rollup of Coinbase where it earned $2 million in fees and it only paid onchain fees of $20,000 on mainnet.

That only seems bad if for some reason the "victim" was not freely able like anyone else to "hold" the "vampire", so maybe you are in essence pointing out that one chain ought to be able to hold shares in another as it were; if that capability existed then the main chain only suffered due to its failure of foresight to invest in the rollup project.

If the capability did not exist, then oops looks like you have pointed out a possibly rather important feature a chain/platform needs.


-MarkM-