1. Explore the competitive perspectives and contradictions between Ethereum Rollups, Cosmos application chain, and SolanaIf the application specific Rollup cost is too high and the necessary technical customization is not provided, most developers will choose to publish on a shared Rollup

1. Explore the competitive perspectives and contradictions between Ethereum Rollups, Cosmos application chain, and Solana

If the application specific Rollup cost is too high and the necessary technical customization is not provided, most developers will choose to publish on a shared Rollup. This made me start to think about the application chain between Ethereum Rollups and Cosmos, as well as the perspective between Solana.

My mental model of the competitive ecosystem is simple - the easiest and largest deployment platform will have the most contagious applications.Why? Because this community has the highest acceptance of experiments, it can provide the highest opportunity for spreading applications. I have held this view since 2019.

Having to deploy your own chain or Rollup will greatly reduce the speed of experimentation, as you need to handle infrastructure and applications.

Nevertheless, for some developers, customized modifications are necessary in order to run high-performance applications. These applications cannot run on shared L1. Example:

1) DYdX:Each validator needs to run an in memory order book to achieve high throughput and complete decentralization.

2) Thorchain:Without relying on any L1, cross chain exchange without trust can be carried out.

3) ChainFlip:We need an independent network for storing assets through TSS solutions and other functions.

So, how to solve the contradiction between the competitive view that the largest ecosystem (Ethereum) will attract the most developers/applications and the inability to build key use cases within it?

I don't solve this problem.

Most developers/applications will be released on Ethereum/Solana, while specific situations that require customized modifications will be released on the application chain. My current opinion is:

1) Ethereum: The most developer/application experiments, without a doubt.

2) Solana: It is the best choice for sharing global state as quickly as possible.

3) Cosmos: Starting an application specific chain requires customized modifications, which are not supported on shared L1 or Rollup.

2. Some existing problems

Challenge 1

What makes the problem even more difficult is the emergence of zkEVM and ZkVM on Ethereum.

Zero knowledge proof is the ultimate scalability/privacy technology.

If they can be effective, it will reduce the need to initiate custom chains (speed, cost, privacy issues are addressed).

Challenge 2

Zero knowledge proof and optimistic technology are both in their early stages and have not been fully decentralized.

Both have centralized serializers to sort transactions.

Projects like dYdX now require complete decentralization. A government cannot shut down a node to stop illegal operations (with a historical transaction volume of $1 trillion!).

Challenge 3

Can Ethereum support Rollup in terms of scale?

Currently, 83MB of data can be written on Ethereum and 1.3MB on DankSharding.

If Ethereum is congested, Rollup data can be published to CelestiaDA and EigenDA.

Limited throughput may lead to high costs, but it seems unlikely to occur here due to oversupply of DA (data availability layer).

Challenge 4

Is the argument of the cosmic application chain only achievable on Ethereum?

Through Celestia, teams can launch their own Rollup and use a cheap data availability layer while customizing their execution environment.

Ethereum is an anchor point where users can dispute the proof when problems arise.

Challenge 5

Ethereum does not support unique/complex forms of experiments.

Developers do not like the limitations and inefficiency of Ethereum Virtual Machines (EVMs). This also applies to zkEVM.

ArbitrumStylus and RiscZero allow for the use of more programming languages for encoding, which is an opposing viewpoint.

Challenge 6

Time is crucial.

If the launch time of ZKL3 (or ETH's data availability layer) is too long, the development of the next bull market application will be carried out elsewhere (such as Cosmos, Solana, etc.).

Time plays an important role in determining where a project can actually be released today.

3. What do you think

If you could use ZK technology or CelestiaDA/EigenDA on Ethereum to accomplish these things, would Cosmos' argument be realized?

Currently, Cosmos' argument is clearly being implemented through specific large-scale applications.

Once Celestia/Eigen and ZK technologies are truly launched, we will need to reassess them. It is currently uncertain.

Some viewpoints are:

1) Ethereum will become the de facto global settlement layer,In this process, it surpasses Bitcoin and attracts funds from most competitors (excluding Solana, Cosmos, or any powerful competitors).

This is not a radical viewpoint, as it is already happening.

2) For Ethereum, zero knowledge proof and optimistic Rollup (in conjunction with the new data availability layer) enable for longer time spans,The need to start the application chain has decreased(Currently not mature enough). A project can be customized for release on ZKRollup with high throughput and low cost, which can address most needs.

3) Narrative warfare will shift upstream.The focus will be on the release location of the application and which community is the best: ZkEVMsvsZkVMsvs Optimistic Rollups. Ultimately, the technology will mature, which will become a competition for commercial development.

Over time, 1-2 ZkEVMs and 1-2 ZkVMs may win.

4) There are few new applications established on Ethereum L1, mainly implemented through Rollup.

5) Solana will continue to be the fastest shared global state machine on scale. allDespite facing adversity related to SBF, the community has become stronger and is undergoing upgrades (Firedancer, Jito, and ZK!).

6) Cosmos will definitely provide services for specific application chains,And in the years leading up to the complete establishment of Zk technology, these applications will likely create large communities that can communicate seamlessly. The trading volume of dYdX has reached $1 trillion, and Thorchains' trustless cross chain exchange has created their own world.

7) To the best of my knowledge,The IBC on Cosmos is extremely underestimated.As for the lack of trust in ZKL3 bridging, the development in this area is still far from mature.

It is somewhat ironic that Cosmos has already solved the bridging problem, while ZKL3 is addressing throughput and latency issues. They need each other's success to achieve greater breakthroughs.