Why is it said that the DeFi ecology of Ethereum is the king
Today, I saw a recent video interview with He Yi, the co-founder of Binance, on the Internet, talking about DeFi and Binance’s smart chain.
He has great expectations for the Binance Smart Chain, and said that he hopes that the Binance Smart Chain can eventually surpass Ethereum's DeFi ecologically. He Yi gave two reasons for this: the first is that the performance of the smart chain is much stronger than that of Ethereum; the second is that the cost of the smart chain is much lower than that of Ethereum, and the experience is much better than that of Ethereum.
These two reasons are undoubtedly objective facts. They are not only the advantages of smart chains, but also the advantages of many other public chains (such as EOS, TRON, Ontology, etc.) over Ethereum.
Does that mean that the smart chain will surpass the ecology of Ethereum in the future?
This actually involves a topic that has been debated quite fiercely for a long time: what is the core that determines the ecology of the public chain. What kind of ecology on the public chain will become the final king?
Before discussing this topic, I must say,Even if there is finally a public chain king in the blockchain field, it does not mean that other public chains will disappear completely. On the contrary, other public chains are likely to still exist, and even play well in their own small areas.
This is like a large number of digital currencies appeared in the early years, and they were expected to catch up with Bitcoin, but most newcomers and friends may have never heard of them. How many people have heard of Peercoin? Namecoin? ..., but they still exist, and there are still a group of diehard fans, but after all, they are only the fringes of this ecology, and I am afraid they will never return to the center of the stage.
Let’s go back to the competition of the public chain ecology.
In the existing public chain ecology, there is no doubt that Ethereum is the target of all public chains. Its old problems are obvious, and it has been criticized or even scolded by new and old leeks one after another: congestion, low performance, and high handling fees.
This old problem was "learned" two years ago, at the beginning of 2018.
At that time, a refreshing game "CryptoKitty" (CryptoKitty) was launched on Ethereum. This game is very simple, that is, users trade some novel and cute virtual cats. This game looks nothing new now, but it was the first game in the blockchain field at that time, so it was sought after by many people, and many people went to buy those virtual cats. The popularity of the game soon led to congestion in Ethereum and high handling fees.
It is also true that people pinned their hopes on EOS, another public chain that had the most hope of defeating Ethereum. EOS has low transaction fees and high performance, and these two aspects are far better than Ethereum. But EOS has one of the biggest problems: the centralization feature is too obvious: there are only 21 nodes.
Although many people made sharp criticisms about 21 nodes and centralization as early as that era, these criticisms did not attract everyone's attention. People thought that with its high performance and low transaction fees, EOS would soon be able to win.
However, these years have passed, and the ecology of EOS has always been developing tepidly. Ethereum, which has poor performance, high handling fees, and is sometimes congested like a country road, is thriving and has spawned the DeFi ecosystem.
It stands to reason that DeFi, an ecology in the financial field, is naturally suitable for public chains with fast transaction speed and low handling fees. EOS or Tron should be the first to strike first, right? Why was it born on Ethereum, which has poor performance and high handling fees?
There are too many arguments and reasons in the industry about why the ecology of EOS cannot rise, and why DeFi did not rise first on EOS or TRON but first on Ethereum. But in my opinion, most of the points here don't go straight to the core. The core is: extreme decentralization.
Why is extreme decentralization so important? That’s because only extreme decentralization can minimize barriers to entry, guarantee security, and provide a fair, just, and open platform. Only such a platform can maximize the enthusiasm of the community, allow the growth of the ecology to flourish, and allow free creativity to run wild.
The "invisible" efficiency and benefits brought about by these extremes are far greater than the visible poor performance and high handling fees.
On this platform, not only can you not see that the founder of the platform arbitrarily announces that he does not support a certain project because he is dissatisfied with the low share given by the project party, but you will see Vitalik shouting that DeFi’s income is unreasonable, there are bubbles, and investment Under the circumstances that investors should participate cautiously, new projects emerge one after another, but players are more enthusiastically pursuing them.
This is the essence of the blockchain, and this is also the core of the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem that will surely become the king.
Then let's look back at Binance's smart chain, does it have these "extreme"? None at all. It is still caught in the myths about performance and handling fees that people had a few years ago.
As I said earlier, smart chains and similar public chains may also experience short-term prosperity, and even give birth to some stories of getting rich overnight, but such platforms will only be like comets that flash in the universe, not May become the sun that shines forever on the earth.
Note that I am by no means saying that performance and handling fees are not important, but that if the premise of extreme decentralization is lost, nothing is important; only under the premise of ensuring the ultimate decentralization, talk about improving performance and It is important to reduce the handling fee.
