DragonFly Capital 谈变与不变

We fundamentally believe that there’s going to be…Bitcoin isn’t the only thing that’s going to succeed in the space. There are going to be other investments that succeed at least in the rough order of magnitude as a Bitcoin or Ethereum, but they might look very different from a Bitcoin or Ethereum, and it’s way too early to call now and say what are the patterns of how those investments are going to play out, so we try to remain agnostic and we try to, also, let our mind to be change year-over-year and not get stuck on any particular paradigm. If you were back in 2016 or 2017 and you were like okay, great. This is how value gets created in crypto you would be totally unequipped to invest in the landscape today because crypto just looks completely different than it did two or three years ago, and I suspect that two or three years from now we’ll see the same level of transformation just because the space moves so quickly.

Why don’t we just use the PolkaDot codebase for Ethereum 2.0?

Because the design goals for each are different. Run your own chain vs a cohesive integrated system

Polkadot, my impression of it is that you deploy your own parachain and can customize it and it anchors into the main chain vs eth2 where all the chains/shards are the same Seems to me eth2 is trying for better composability across the system, but both may end up similar

The general design paradigm of Cosmos is different from PolkaDot, it doesn’t have a relay/beacon chain and doesn’t require shared security. Also, Cosmos already has fully functioning code built on the Cosmos SDK framework.

Sunny 对 Cosmos SDK 架构更加自信

Cosmos’s architecture is pretty different. But PolkaDot and Ethereum 2.0 look to be slowly moving towards extremely similar architecture, so it’s probably a more reasonable starting point for repurposing infra particularly around sharding, shared security, and wasm runtimes.

I’d say I’m a bit more “confident” in the Cosmos SDK right now, based mostly on its being in production longer, but I think in the long term, both will be pretty good development targets. I imagine choice of which to use will primarily be based on preferred development language.

PoS Innovation

PoS networks like Tezos and Cosmos are decoupling from speculative cryptocurrency fluctuations as the performance of their coins is based on the health of their ecosystem, creating income generating digital asset classes. 


七哥:第七个也是最后一个问题是目前圈内对 Cosmos 和 Polkadot 的定位有各种意见,有人认为跨链是伪需求发链是刚需,有人认为发链是刚需但可以使用这两个项目的底层技术框架跟这两个项目推出的代币价值没任何关系,还有人认为跨链和发链都是伪需求,卡咩老师持什么观点和态度?

卡咩:现在跨链的定位已经很清晰了,就是同构跨,异构跨是饼,这个饼只会存在于 ETH 和 BTC 之上,BTC 的跨链到目前都没有更加合理的方案(了解 WBTC 和 TBTC 的人应该都知道)。同构跨可以理解就是创建自己的生态,和现在公链项目和 Dapp 的关系没有太大差别。这种方式在 2015 年前后就有项目践行过,这个项目叫 Bitshares,它的底层叫石墨烯,BM 希望创建一个 DAC(去中心化匿名公司),这些公司都在 Bitshares 的体系上发行股票(shares),DAC 因为众筹的事情胎死腹中,所以我们无法从历史上看到这种同构跨的结局。目前,个人判断这两个项目还是可以串接很多生态应用的,会进一步的推进区块链应用落地,带动区块链信息交互。至于代币关系,我觉得不应该这么早下定义,要相信区块链里的这帮人是非常精明的,新的 token 模型会持续出来,鉴于此,跨链和发链都是有需求的。

如果 ETH、ATOM、DOT 只选一个不投资,卡咩老师选哪个?为什么不投它?


不投 ATOM。在我扒的整个 PoS 历史过后,我认识到的一个深刻点是,区块链离落地真的还有一段距离,这段距离为什么能给人想象就是团队一直朝着既定的目标在前进,说人话就是虚的或者未落地的东西,按照这个前提,Atom 也不应该被排除在外的,因为还有 IBC 和 Ethermint,但综合比较还是选择了 ATOM。所以个人选择不代表投资建议,请大家自行判断。

Issues about Parity 和 Geth

目前以太坊主要有两个客户端,Parity 和 Geth,之前升级的时候,parity 出了个漏洞,导致很大一部分使用 parity 的节点没有同步上网络。还好有 Geth,所以抵御了这次攻击。加之 parity 宣布不再维护 parity 客户端,geth 成为唯一一个维护良好的客户端

PoS Thought

1/ Coinbase adds automatic staking for XTZ, and less than a month later, Binance introduces 0% staking fees on Tezos. Stake wars are just getting started, and things are already starting to feel a liiittle uncomfortable. A thread on centralization in Proof of Stake (PoS):

2/ Running a validator well is hard & requires technical expertise — it’s definitely not for everyone, so we let users delegate their stake to other people running validators. But this is causing stake to gravitate toward a small number of publicly-known validators.

3/ When stake becomes concentrated, collusion becomes a real risk. “Trustless” networks are replaced with networks that only trust a few. True censorship-resistance arguably goes away.

4/ So why is stake concentrating? A big part of this is the inefficiency in delegation markets. On paper, validators look the same, so delegators crowd into a few validators with a large amount of stake, decent track record, and low fees. Power laws take over.

5/ Validators have 3 ways to differentiate: 1. Pre-existing reputation 2. Fees — offer higher return to delegators 3. Differentiated services (i.e. offer better staking experience or additional crypto services)

6/ Even in an efficient validator market, stake concentrates to a few large validators who utilize reputation and scale to drive smaller validators out of the market. Binance using unsustainably low fees to undercut the market is the latest example of this.

7/ What does this mean for PoS security? Well, we can’t rely on honest & uncoordinated majority assumptions to drive security — collusion must be assumed to be possible and probable.

8/ To have true security, the economics have to check out for any single entity: profit(honestValidation) > profit(attack)

9/ In the context of PoS, this means slashing must be used to impose a cost on misbehavior. Without slashing, validators have little “commitment” to the network. Networks w lower slashing may tend to be less secure, and it seems unlikely that a slashless PoS could be secure.

10/ What can be done to combat centralization in PoS? A) Social consensus around min. staking fee — ‘require’ validators charge a sustainable fee. B) Anti-correlation penalties — slashing that rises in proportion to the amount of stake that misbehaves in the same period.

11/ C) Incentivize delegating to smaller validators — ex. Polkadot’s Nominated PoS (NPoS) that distributes rewards to validators evenly regardless of stake. This helps small validators bootstrap delegation.

12/ These mechanisms may help discourage centralization but ultimately won’t stop it. Validators will find ways around these rules. (e.g. running multiple nodes, ignoring out-of-protocol ‘rules’)

13/ It’s looking increasingly like centralization in staking may be inevitable. If this is the case, bribery for chain reorganization (i.e. Binance hack) & censorship may always be within the realm of possibility.

14/ There may only be one way to truly secure these networks long-term — Zero-knowledge Proofs. Rather than relying on economic mechanisms to keep validators honest, ZKPs make it impossible for validators to perform malicious behaviors like producing an invalid block.

15/ With ZKPs, centralization in staking networks no longer becomes a huge issue, as the value a validator can extract from an attack is decreased significantly.

16/ Networks currently trust in economics; in the future, networks will trust in cryptography. Cryptoeconomics might be just be a bandage, a short term fix to help bootstrap the crypto ecosystem until cryptography can provide real security.