Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

You know that Algorand and Solana supports a bigger number of TPSs that Ethereum and with lower fees and different consensus mechanisms, if you don't know that I am talking about someone that tries to show expertise but don't have any real one. It is a fact.

Initial investors are also contributors. The number allocated initially is really huge.




I also know that Solana had frequent outages and issues where they could resolve their transaction sequence, because their hardware and connectivity requirements make it prohibitive for "casual enthusiasts" to run a node.

And if "initial investors are also contributors", then you are just parroting the "Ethereum is pre-mined" from Bitcoiners, and we can safely end the discussion here.


Again you are not following the argument, you cherry picked Solana, Algorand didn't have any issue. Follow logical argumentation please...


I didn't mention Algorand because its overall network is a blip compared with Ethereum and Solana in any metric, and it can barely be considered as Battle-Tester in a "real world" scenario.


Do you have a paper for that?


TVL for Algorand, 111M USD: https://defillama.com/chain/Algorand

TVL for Ethereum, 53B USD: https://defillama.com/chain/Ethereum

If doing DeFI on Algorand is so much better/cheaper than on Ethereum, then why is it only 1/500th of Ethereum's size?

Mind you, it seems that this calculation is not attributing "bridged" TVL as related to the chain size and activity. If it were, there are 330 Billion USD that depend on Ethereum's base layer security.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: