Reposting after was mistakenly removed by mods (since resolved - Thanks)submitted by xSeq22x to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]
A frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important.
For better formatting see https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b
CosmosCosmos is a heterogeneous network of many independent parallel blockchains, each powered by classical BFT consensus algorithms like Tendermint. Developers can easily build custom application specific blockchains, called Zones, through the Cosmos SDK framework. These Zones connect to Hubs, which are specifically designed to connect zones together.
The vision of Cosmos is to have thousands of Zones and Hubs that are Interoperable through the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC). Cosmos can also connect to other systems through peg zones, which are specifically designed zones that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Cosmos does not use Sharding with each Zone and Hub being sovereign with their own validator set.
For a more in-depth look at Cosmos and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Cosmos on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
PolkadotPolkadot is a heterogeneous blockchain protocol that connects multiple specialised blockchains into one unified network. It achieves scalability through a sharding infrastructure with multiple blockchains running in parallel, called parachains, that connect to a central chain called the Relay Chain. Developers can easily build custom application specific parachains through the Substrate development framework.
The relay chain validates the state transition of connected parachains, providing shared state across the entire ecosystem. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. This is to ensure that the validity of the entire system can persist, and no individual part is corruptible. The shared state makes it so that the trust assumptions when using parachains are only those of the Relay Chain validator set, and no other. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. The hope is to have 100 parachains connect to the relay chain.
For a more in-depth look at Polkadot and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see my three part series — Part One, Part Two, Part Three
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Polkadot on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
AvalancheAvalanche is a platform of platforms, ultimately consisting of thousands of subnets to form a heterogeneous interoperable network of many blockchains, that takes advantage of the revolutionary Avalanche Consensus protocols to provide a secure, globally distributed, interoperable and trustless framework offering unprecedented decentralisation whilst being able to comply with regulatory requirements.
Avalanche allows anyone to create their own tailor-made application specific blockchains, supporting multiple custom virtual machines such as EVM and WASM and written in popular languages like Go (with others coming in the future) rather than lightly used, poorly-understood languages like Solidity. This virtual machine can then be deployed on a custom blockchain network, called a subnet, which consist of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance.
Avalanche was built with serving financial markets in mind. It has native support for easily creating and trading digital smart assets with complex custom rule sets that define how the asset is handled and traded to ensure regulatory compliance can be met. Interoperability is enabled between blockchains within a subnet as well as between subnets. Like Cosmos and Polkadot, Avalanche is also able to connect to other systems through bridges, through custom virtual machines made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin.
For a more in-depth look at Avalanche and provide more reference to points made in this article, please see here and here
(There's a youtube video with a quick video overview of Avalanche on the medium article - https://medium.com/ava-hub/comparison-between-avalanche-cosmos-and-polkadot-a2a98f46c03b)
Comparison between Cosmos, Polkadot and AvalancheA frequent question I see being asked is how Cosmos, Polkadot and Avalanche compare? Whilst there are similarities there are also a lot of differences. This article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions. I want to stress that it’s not a case of one platform being the killer of all other platforms, far from it. There won’t be one platform to rule them all, and too often the tribalism has plagued this space. Blockchains are going to completely revolutionise most industries and have a profound effect on the world we know today. It’s still very early in this space with most adoption limited to speculation and trading mainly due to the limitations of Blockchain and current iteration of Ethereum, which all three of these platforms hope to address. For those who just want a quick summary see the image at the bottom of the article. With that said let’s have a look
CosmosEach Zone and Hub in Cosmos is capable of up to around 1000 transactions per second with bandwidth being the bottleneck in consensus. Cosmos aims to have thousands of Zones and Hubs all connected through IBC. There is no limit on the number of Zones / Hubs that can be created
PolkadotParachains in Polkadot are also capable of up to around 1500 transactions per second. A portion of the parachain slots on the Relay Chain will be designated as part of the parathread pool, the performance of a parachain is split between many parathreads offering lower performance and compete amongst themselves in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. The number of parachains is limited by the number of validators on the relay chain, they hope to be able to achieve 100 parachains.
AvalancheAvalanche is capable of around 4500 transactions per second per subnet, this is based on modest hardware requirements to ensure maximum decentralisation of just 2 CPU cores and 4 GB of Memory and with a validator size of over 2,000 nodes. Performance is CPU-bound and if higher performance is required then more specialised subnets can be created with higher minimum requirements to be able to achieve 10,000 tps+ in a subnet. Avalanche aims to have thousands of subnets (each with multiple virtual machines / blockchains) all interoperable with each other. There is no limit on the number of Subnets that can be created.
ResultsAll three platforms offer vastly superior performance to the likes of Bitcoin and Ethereum 1.0. Avalanche with its higher transactions per second, no limit on the number of subnets / blockchains that can be created and the consensus can scale to potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot claims to offer more tps than cosmos, but is limited to the number of parachains (around 100) whereas with Cosmos there is no limit on the number of hubs / zones that can be created. Cosmos is limited to a fairly small validator size of around 200 before performance degrades whereas Polkadot hopes to be able to reach 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit only a small number of validators are assigned to each parachain). Thus Cosmos and Polkadot scores ✅✅
CosmosTendermint consensus is limited to around 200 validators before performance starts to degrade. Whilst there is the Cosmos Hub it is one of many hubs in the network and there is no central hub or limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created.
PolkadotPolkadot has 1000 validators in the relay chain and these are split up into a small number that validate each parachain (minimum of 14). The relay chain is a central point of failure as all parachains connect to it and the number of parachains is limited depending on the number of validators (they hope to achieve 100 parachains). Due to the limited number of parachain slots available, significant sums of DOT will need to be purchased to win an auction to lease the slot for up to 24 months at a time. Thus likely to lead to only those with enough funds to secure a parachain slot. Parathreads are however an alternative for those that require less and more varied performance for those that can’t secure a parachain slot.
AvalancheAvalanche consensus scan scale to tens of thousands of validators, even potentially millions of validators all participating in consensus through repeated sub-sampling. The more validators, the faster the network becomes as the load is split between them. There are modest hardware requirements so anyone can run a node and there is no limit on the number of subnets / virtual machines that can be created.
ResultsAvalanche offers unparalleled decentralisation using its revolutionary consensus protocols that can scale to millions of validators all participating in consensus at the same time. There is no limit to the number of subnets and virtual machines that can be created, and they can be created by anyone for a small fee, it scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is limited to 200 validators but no limit on the number of zones / hubs that can be created, which anyone can create and scores ✅✅. Polkadot hopes to accommodate 1000 validators in the relay chain (albeit these are split amongst each of the parachains). The number of parachains is limited and maybe cost prohibitive for many and the relay chain is a ultimately a single point of failure. Whilst definitely not saying it’s centralised and it is more decentralised than many others, just in comparison between the three, it scores ✅
CosmosTendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within 6 seconds. Cosmos consists of many Zones and Hubs that connect to each other. Communication between 2 zones could pass through many hubs along the way, thus also can contribute to latency times depending on the path taken as explained in part two of the articles on Cosmos. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
PolkadotPolkadot provides a Hybrid consensus protocol consisting of Block producing protocol, BABE, and then a finality gadget called GRANDPA that works to agree on a chain, out of many possible forks, by following some simpler fork choice rule. Rather than voting on every block, instead it reaches agreements on chains. As soon as more than 2/3 of validators attest to a chain containing a certain block, all blocks leading up to that one are finalized at once.
If an invalid block is detected after it has been finalised then the relay chain would need to be reverted along with every parachain. This is particularly important when connecting to external blockchains as those don’t share the state of the relay chain and thus can’t be rolled back. The longer the time period, the more secure the network is, as there is more time for additional checks to be performed and reported but at the expense of finality. Finality is reached within 60 seconds between parachains but for external ecosystems like Ethereum their state obviously can’t be rolled back like a parachain and so finality will need to be much longer (60 minutes was suggested in the whitepaper) and discussed in more detail in part three
AvalancheAvalanche consensus achieves finality within 3 seconds, with most happening sub 1 second, immutable and completely irreversible. Any subnet can connect directly to another without having to go through multiple hops and any VM can talk to another VM within the same subnet as well as external subnets. It doesn’t need to wait for an extended period of time with risk of rollbacks.
ResultsWith regards to performance far too much emphasis is just put on tps as a metric, the other equally important metric, if not more important with regards to finance is latency. Throughput measures the amount of data at any given time that it can handle whereas latency is the amount of time it takes to perform an action. It’s pointless saying you can process more transactions per second than VISA when it takes 60 seconds for a transaction to complete. Low latency also greatly increases general usability and customer satisfaction, nowadays everyone expects card payments, online payments to happen instantly. Avalanche achieves the best results scoring ✅✅✅, Cosmos with comes in second with 6 second finality ✅✅ and Polkadot with 60 second finality (which may be 60 minutes for external blockchains) scores ✅
CosmosEvery Zone and Hub in Cosmos has their own validator set and different trust assumptions. Cosmos are researching a shared security model where a Hub can validate the state of connected zones for a fee but not released yet. Once available this will make shared security optional rather than mandatory.
PolkadotShared Security is mandatory with Polkadot which uses a Shared State infrastructure between the Relay Chain and all of the connected parachains. If the Relay Chain must revert for any reason, then all of the parachains would also revert. Every parachain makes the same trust assumptions, and as such the relay chain validates state transition and enables seamless interoperability between them. In return for this benefit, they have to purchase DOT and win an auction for one of the available parachain slots.
However, parachains can’t just rely on the relay chain for their security, they will also need to implement censorship resistance measures and utilise proof of work / proof of stake for each parachain as well as discussed in part three, thus parachains can’t just rely on the security of the relay chain, they need to ensure sybil resistance mechanisms using POW and POS are implemented on the parachain as well.
AvalancheA subnet in Avalanche consists of a dynamic set of validators working together to achieve consensus on the state of a set of many blockchains where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. So unlike in Cosmos where each zone / hub has their own validators, A subnet can validate a single or many virtual machines / blockchains with a single validator set. Shared security is optional
ResultsShared security is mandatory in polkadot and a key design decision in its infrastructure. The relay chain validates the state transition of all connected parachains and thus scores ✅✅✅. Subnets in Avalanche can validate state of either a single or many virtual machines. Each subnet can have their own token and shares a validator set, where complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. It scores ✅ ✅. Every Zone and Hub in cosmos has their own validator set / token but research is underway to have the hub validate the state transition of connected zones, but as this is still early in the research phase scores ✅ for now.
CosmosThe Cosmos project started in 2016 with an ICO held in April 2017. There are currently around 50 projects building on the Cosmos SDK with a full list can be seen here and filtering for Cosmos SDK . Not all of the projects will necessarily connect using native cosmos sdk and IBC and some have forked parts of the Cosmos SDK and utilise the tendermint consensus such as Binance Chain but have said they will connect in the future.
PolkadotThe Polkadot project started in 2016 with an ICO held in October 2017. There are currently around 70 projects building on Substrate and a full list can be seen here and filtering for Substrate Based. Like with Cosmos not all projects built using substrate will necessarily connect to Polkadot and parachains or parathreads aren’t currently implemented in either the Live or Test network (Kusama) as of the time of this writing.
AvalancheAvalanche in comparison started much later with Ava Labs being founded in 2018. Avalanche held it’s ICO in July 2020. Due to lot shorter time it has been in development, the number of projects confirmed are smaller with around 14 projects currently building on Avalanche. Due to the customisability of the platform though, many virtual machines can be used within a subnet making the process incredibly easy to port projects over. As an example, it will launch with the Ethereum Virtual Machine which enables byte for byte compatibility and all the tooling like Metamask, Truffle etc. will work, so projects can easily move over to benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. In the future Cosmos and Substrate virtual machines could be implemented on Avalanche.
ResultsWhilst it’s still early for all 3 projects (and the entire blockchain space as a whole), there is currently more projects confirmed to be building on Cosmos and Polkadot, mostly due to their longer time in development. Whilst Cosmos has fewer projects, zones are implemented compared to Polkadot which doesn’t currently have parachains. IBC to connect zones and hubs together is due to launch Q2 2021, thus both score ✅✅✅. Avalanche has been in development for a lot shorter time period, but is launching with an impressive feature set right from the start with ability to create subnets, VMs, assets, NFTs, permissioned and permissionless blockchains, cross chain atomic swaps within a subnet, smart contracts, bridge to Ethereum etc. Applications can easily port over from other platforms and use all the existing tooling such as Metamask / Truffle etc but benefit from the performance, decentralisation and low gas fees offered. Currently though just based on the number of projects in comparison it scores ✅.
CosmosCosmos enables permissioned and permissionless zones which can connect to each other with the ability to have full control over who validates the blockchain. For permissionless zones each zone / hub can have their own token and they are in control who validates.
PolkadotWith polkadot the state transition is performed by a small randomly selected assigned group of validators from the relay chain plus with the possibility that state is rolled back if an invalid transaction of any of the other parachains is found. This may pose a problem for enterprises that need complete control over who performs validation for regulatory reasons. In addition due to the limited number of parachain slots available Enterprises would have to acquire and lock up large amounts of a highly volatile asset (DOT) and have the possibility that they are outbid in future auctions and find they no longer can have their parachain validated and parathreads don’t provide the guaranteed performance requirements for the application to function.
AvalancheAvalanche enables permissioned and permissionless subnets and complex rulesets can be configured to meet regulatory compliance. For example a subnet can be created where its mandatory that all validators are from a certain legal jurisdiction, or they hold a specific license and regulated by the SEC etc. Subnets are also able to scale to tens of thousands of validators, and even potentially millions of nodes, all participating in consensus so every enterprise can run their own node rather than only a small amount. Enterprises don’t have to hold large amounts of a highly volatile asset, but instead pay a fee in AVAX for the creation of the subnets and blockchains which is burnt.
ResultsAvalanche provides the customisability to run private permissioned blockchains as well as permissionless where the enterprise is in control over who validates the blockchain, with the ability to use complex rulesets to meet regulatory compliance, thus scores ✅✅✅. Cosmos is also able to run permissioned and permissionless zones / hubs so enterprises have full control over who validates a blockchain and scores ✅✅. Polkadot requires locking up large amounts of a highly volatile asset with the possibility of being outbid by competitors and being unable to run the application if the guaranteed performance is required and having to migrate away. The relay chain validates the state transition and can roll back the parachain should an invalid block be detected on another parachain, thus scores ✅.
CosmosCosmos will connect Hubs and Zones together through its IBC protocol (due to release in Q1 2020). Connecting to blockchains outside of the Cosmos ecosystem would either require the connected blockchain to fork their code to implement IBC or more likely a custom “Peg Zone” will be created specific to work with a particular blockchain it’s trying to bridge to such as Ethereum etc. Each Zone and Hub has different trust levels and connectivity between 2 zones can have different trust depending on which path it takes (this is discussed more in this article). Finality time is low at 6 seconds, but depending on the number of hops, this can increase significantly.
PolkadotPolkadot’s shared state means each parachain that connects shares the same trust assumptions, of the relay chain validators and that if one blockchain needs to be reverted, all of them will need to be reverted. Interoperability is enabled between parachains through Cross-Chain Message Passing (XCMP) protocol and is also possible to connect to other systems through bridges, which are specifically designed parachains or parathreads that each are custom made to interact with another ecosystem such as Ethereum and Bitcoin. Finality time between parachains is around 60 seconds, but longer will be needed (initial figures of 60 minutes in the whitepaper) for connecting to external blockchains. Thus limiting the appeal of connecting two external ecosystems together through Polkadot. Polkadot is also limited in the number of Parachain slots available, thus limiting the amount of blockchains that can be bridged. Parathreads could be used for lower performance bridges, but the speed of future blockchains is only going to increase.
AvalancheA subnet can validate multiple virtual machines / blockchains and all blockchains within a subnet share the same trust assumptions / validator set, enabling cross chain interoperability. Interoperability is also possible between any other subnet, with the hope Avalanche will consist of thousands of subnets. Each subnet may have a different trust level, but as the primary network consists of all validators then this can be used as a source of trust if required. As Avalanche supports many virtual machines, bridges to other ecosystems are created by running the connected virtual machine. There will be an Ethereum bridge using the EVM shortly after mainnet. Finality time is much faster at sub 3 seconds (with most happening under 1 second) with no chance of rolling back so more appealing when connecting to external blockchains.
ResultsAll 3 systems are able to perform interoperability within their ecosystem and transfer assets as well as data, as well as use bridges to connect to external blockchains. Cosmos has different trust levels between its zones and hubs and can create issues depending on which path it takes and additional latency added. Polkadot provides the same trust assumptions for all connected parachains but has long finality and limited number of parachain slots available. Avalanche provides the same trust assumptions for all blockchains within a subnet, and different trust levels between subnets. However due to the primary network consisting of all validators it can be used for trust. Avalanche also has a much faster finality time with no limitation on the number of blockchains / subnets / bridges that can be created. Overall all three blockchains excel with interoperability within their ecosystem and each score ✅✅.
CosmosThe ATOM token is the native token for the Cosmos Hub. It is commonly mistaken by people that think it’s the token used throughout the cosmos ecosystem, whereas it’s just used for one of many hubs in Cosmos, each with their own token. Currently ATOM has little utility as IBC isn’t released and has no connections to other zones / hubs. Once IBC is released zones may prefer to connect to a different hub instead and so ATOM is not used. ATOM isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for ATOM as of the time of this writing is $1 Billion with 203 million circulating supply. Rewards can be earnt through staking to offset the dilution caused by inflation. Delegators can also get slashed and lose a portion of their ATOM should the validator misbehave.
PolkadotPolkadot’s native token is DOT and it’s used to secure the Relay Chain. Each parachain needs to acquire sufficient DOT to win an auction on an available parachain lease period of up to 24 months at a time. Parathreads have a fixed fee for registration that would realistically be much lower than the cost of acquiring a parachain slot and compete with other parathreads in a per-block auction to have their transactions included in the next relay chain block. DOT isn’t a fixed capped supply token and supply will continuously increase with a yearly inflation of around 10% depending on the % staked. The current market cap for DOT as of the time of this writing is $4.4 Billion with 852 million circulating supply. Delegators can also get slashed and lose their DOT (potentially 100% of their DOT for serious attacks) should the validator misbehave.
AvalancheAVAX is the native token for the primary network in Avalanche. Every validator of any subnet also has to validate the primary network and stake a minimum of 2000 AVAX. There is no limit to the number of validators like other consensus methods then this can cater for tens of thousands even potentially millions of validators. As every validator validates the primary network, this can be a source of trust for interoperability between subnets as well as connecting to other ecosystems, thus increasing amount of transaction fees of AVAX. There is no slashing in Avalanche, so there is no risk to lose your AVAX when selecting a validator, instead rewards earnt for staking can be slashed should the validator misbehave. Because Avalanche doesn’t have direct slashing, it is technically possible for someone to both stake AND deliver tokens for something like a flash loan, under the invariant that all tokens that are staked are returned, thus being able to make profit with staked tokens outside of staking itself.
There will also be a separate subnet for Athereum which is a ‘spoon,’ or friendly fork, of Ethereum, which benefits from the Avalanche consensus protocol and applications in the Ethereum ecosystem. It’s native token ATH will be airdropped to ETH holders as well as potentially AVAX holders as well. This can be done for other blockchains as well.
Transaction fees on the primary network for all 3 of the blockchains as well as subscription fees for creating a subnet and blockchain are paid in AVAX and are burnt, creating deflationary pressure. AVAX is a fixed capped supply of 720 million tokens, creating scarcity rather than an unlimited supply which continuously increase of tokens at a compounded rate each year like others. Initially there will be 360 tokens minted at Mainnet with vesting periods between 1 and 10 years, with tokens gradually unlocking each quarter. The Circulating supply is 24.5 million AVAX with tokens gradually released each quater. The current market cap of AVAX is around $100 million.
ResultsAvalanche’s AVAX with its fixed capped supply, deflationary pressure, very strong utility, potential to receive air drops and low market cap, means it scores ✅✅✅. Polkadot’s DOT also has very strong utility with the need for auctions to acquire parachain slots, but has no deflationary mechanisms, no fixed capped supply and already valued at $3.8 billion, therefore scores ✅✅. Cosmos’s ATOM token is only for the Cosmos Hub, of which there will be many hubs in the ecosystem and has very little utility currently. (this may improve once IBC is released and if Cosmos hub actually becomes the hub that people want to connect to and not something like Binance instead. There is no fixed capped supply and currently valued at $1.1 Billion, so scores ✅.
All three are excellent projects and have similarities as well as many differences. Just to reiterate this article is not intended to be an extensive in-depth list, but rather an overview based on some of the criteria that I feel are most important. For a more in-depth view I recommend reading the articles for each of the projects linked above and coming to your own conclusions, you may have different criteria which is important to you, and score them differently. There won’t be one platform to rule them all however, with some uses cases better suited to one platform over another, and it’s not a zero-sum game. Blockchain is going to completely revolutionize industries and the Internet itself. The more projects researching and delivering breakthrough technology the better, each learning from each other and pushing each other to reach that goal earlier. The current market is a tiny speck of what’s in store in terms of value and adoption and it’s going to be exciting to watch it unfold.
For more information see the articles below (each with additional sources at the bottom of their articles)
Avalanche, a Revolutionary Consensus Engine and Platform. A Game Changer for Blockchain
Avalanche Consensus, The Biggest Breakthrough since Nakamoto
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One
Cosmos — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two
Cosmos Hub ATOM Token and the commonly misunderstood staking tokens — Part Three
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part One — Overview and Benefits
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Two — How Consensus Works
Polkadot — An Early In-Depth Analysis — Part Three — Limitations and Issues
Initiator of three proposals: run! (Proposal 1), Stone Online (Proposal 2), Donglai (Proposal 3), and Special Guest Zhang Jian.
This debate consists of three sessions: initiator statement, debating session and summary session.
The first session: Each initiator explain his understanding of FOne and the current problems FOne faced.
Proposal 1: Run
Design of this proposal:
Profit distribution mechanism + marketing effect = whether the merchant can survive.
How the Merchant, FT holder shareholder and FCoinwill distributed 100% profits:
Proposal 1: allocation for merchants is basically around 65%, and with more reasonable ladder-shaped competition mechanism.
Option 2: allocation for merchants is about 60–70%,
Option 4: only 10% for merchants which can be directly excluded, while for okex and houbi, this percentage isabout 50%
Option 3 can also be excluded: we need to ensure the interests of the head merchants, so that they can be loyal to the platform and bring new businesses.
Proposal II: stone
This proposal is to improve the enthusiasm of the merchants, to increase the transaction volume and transaction depth, so that more people actively help the FCoin platform to develop better.
Option 2, basic dividends plus dynamic rewards, combined with t repurchase and destruction, which can balance the interests of all parties. In early stage, trading volume can be used as the dynamic rewards standard. Later some other factors can be introduced in according to the improvement of the platform.
Proposal III: Donglai
About my understanding on FOne and current issues.
FOne’s positioning: FCoin2.0 is a technical service provider, everyone can open an exchange.
- The cold starting by transfee-mining mode was successful, but it also brought some problems. The price of FT plummeted, and investors lost faith. The platform is under lots of pressure lately.
- Although the trading experience is constantly optimized, but there is still a big gap between the first-class exchange;
2.Communitization: community users are the shareholders of the platform, shall have the opportunity to participate in community building and community development process .
- The core technology: We have had the largest trading volume in the history of the exchange, and platform security is guaranteed.
4． Self-contained traffic: we have been in the center of public opinion whether in the early stage or at the present. When our business can be stabilize or even grow, this self-contained traffic will bring us a lot of advantages then.
- Transparency: This advantage is not too obvious when price is low, but will be revealed and become one of our core competitiveness when price go higher..
5 . We are a exchange with public heart, it showed by following three things:
1 stop transfee-mining
2 used profit to buy back FT
The above is the embodiment of FCoin’s, along withthe power of the community and our technology, we can be even stronger in the future.
- used FCoin Fund to buy back FT
What can FOne exchange do?
Providing technical support and open our developing authorities, let the market to promote business and expolre more possibilities.
Following possibilities I can think of based on the exchange’s gameplay, FOne can be
1, an exchange of spot trading, like Binance.
2, an exchange of fiat month trading, like ZB.
3, an exchange of margin trading, like Huobi.
4, an exchange of futures trading, like OKEX.
5, an exchange of options trading, like JEX.
6, an exchange of transfee mining, like FCoin1.0.
7, an exchange of transfee mining, can be any feasible innovation model.
What’s more important is that not only we have Chinese uers, but from global wide.
The above non-exchange gameplay may be implemented in the short term or never be able to realized, they are just some possibilities I can think of.
- can be a game mode, developers can develop their own game projects like F3D, Zethr, ETH.TOWN, EOSBET.
- can be a virtual product trading platform, and support the trading of all virtual products, such as the services and transactions that Taobao (Ebay) does involves.
- can be an app store, to develop under the requirement of merchants.
- there are more fun ideas waiting for you to discover and participate.
The positioning of FCoin2.0 is a platform and a technical service provider. We welcome everyone to discuss the possibilities, as long as it can bring benefits and bring profits to the platform and FT holders.
Current issues FOne faced.
2, the number of main coins is insufficient, all main coins must be fully supported in the future.
- We will face the problem of trading depth at the early stage which can be solved through sharing depth. We should have larger volume and measures to encourage placing orders.
3, FCone still works as a trading zone right now. I hope it can develop as an exchange in the later stage, to support the complete domain name, independent page and so on.
5, The platform can technically support the operationsof the shops, and share the commission with merchants.
- The review process needs to be speeded up, the process can be simplified and is transparent.
Part 1: Initiator elaborate on his proposal
Proposal I: Run:
80% of the distribution is for the head merchants.20% and 30% can be understood as a competition ladder.
Proposal II: stones
Option 2 is basic dividend plus dynamic reward, combined with a repurchase destruction mechanism. This repurchase and destruction mechanism will allow some people who do not support Option 4 and Option 3 to have some leeway.
Proposal III: Donglai:
There are three reasons for the recommendation of option 3:
Firstly, it is simple. Too many rules can be a shackle for FONE which will kill too many possibilities.
Secondly, is the fairness. Encourage same standard for all merchants
The last one is the low threshold, which allow more people participate in, then FONE will have a chance to grow bigger, which means more dividends FT holders.
Reasons for the design of the 2–8 distribution ratio:
The second part of the debating: Explain the mechanism of their own proposal and the impact it may have on FOne’s prospects (3 minutes)
- Many great platform companies like Meituan, and Didi all use this golden ratio, and Tmall is even lower than this ratio.
- There are other platforms ask above 50% distribution, but it won’t work for FCoin based on current situation.
- Some operations already limited the development of FCoin, which will cause vitality losing.
- 20% will be taken from all merchants. Our income is proportional to the total income of the merchants. Only when FOne grows bigger, more profit will be brought, and more dividends can to allocated to FT holders.
Proposal I : Run
We only need simplicity and stability at this stage which can help to attract more people. That’s why I denied option 3 and 4, because they will have to change before enter the bull market.
In addition, comparing schemes 2 and 3, option 1 will save more room for the platform to engage in activities, and attract merchants. If Option 3 is implemented but don’t work. The platform will have to launch more activities, which won’t be good for a total of 4% revenue.
Proposal II: Stone
The 60% dividend can guarantee the basic income of merchants, 20% dynamic rewards is a mean of macro-control to motivate the merchants and regulate their behaviors. Then these parts used for repurchaseand destruction, plus 23% of FCoin fund, which can be increased to about 30%, which expands the deflation expectation and supports FT price, which is good for everyone.
The biggest feature of this proposal is the consideration of three parties. To ensure everyone has a basic income and also encourage those who are actively participated in.
Proposal III: Donglai
Option 3 is the easiest and quickest. Since tranfeemining has stopped, and free trading for Main Board A, and FONE is now the main income source of FT holders. The sooner FONE starts, the better it is for FT holders.
It’s better not to have too many constraint in the primary development stage of FONE. Providing a fair environment and also lowering the threshold for entry, which can help to lock the FT’s liquidity, increase its application scenario, and the actual value of FT. When FT enters the positive cycle, these will become the power of development.
The third part of the debating: evaluating other competition proposals
Proposal I: Run
I will skip option 4.
Option 3 is a good option. I know exactly that okex is 50%, for option 3, merchants accounted for 80% while the platform accounted for 4%, as a technical service provider to ensure everyone’s safety, but he can only get 4% the profit, do you think this is appropriate?
Option 2 is a good solution. first It is smoother, it uses a Y=X curve, which is theoretically more elaborate than a sweeping approach. Second, it introduces destruction. Because there is no data support, I can’t explain compare with option 1 which is better. Theoretically it’s finer than the first one.Option 1 is more concise but option 2 is more complicated.
Proposal II: Stones
First of all, option 4 is obviously unscientific, 10% is attributed to the merchants which will decrease theirenthusiasm, and make trading volume and depth of the entire trading area even difficult.
About option 1, it’s much similar to my proposal II, only mine adds repurchase and destruction. Compared to option 1, I think option 2 is more scientific.
About option 3, 80% for the merchants and 20% for the platform, which leaves no leeway for everyone.
Proposal III: Donglai
The starting point of Option 1 and Option 2 is very good, but in fact there is a fatal problem which islacking of fairness, and will force some small merchants to exit from this market.
The biggest problem of option 1 is that, if the bottom 80% merchants can’t compete with the top 20, which leads to the exit. The newly-entered merchants can’t compete with the top 20, which leads to fewer and fewer stores, and less incomes of the whole patform. This is why it is necessary to ensure the fairness for everyone on the platform.
Motivating is supportive, but not in this way,.
As for option4, I said that fish can be big only water is enough. The ft holder can get more dividends only more merchants come in and bring more profits, that’s when the value of FT can really show up. 1*80% is much smaller than 100*20%.
The fourth part of the debating: defending yourself
Proposal I: Run
I will give the answer to the questions on proposal I and II.
Under the spirit of the blockchain, constant and stable is the fairest. The reason why Bitcoin and Ethereum is so powerful is that they are stable enough.
Last I would like to say something to those who supports option 3. Those who hold millions of FTs (mostly are those “holding up” on FCoin) will be able to open stores and make more money if option 3 passes. It may sees like you have more dividends, but in fact platform will lost the credibility, lost the right to maintain users. Moreover, if these people really go to play, and your resources are not enough, basic Your income is zero, what is the difference between 20% and 80% of 0, so I think we need to calm down and think carefully before making a choice.
Incentives will make users feel our responsibility. Option 3 leave us no room for manoeuvre, which is not good for later strategy. The aggressiveness of Option 2 is increasing. Repurchase and destruction can also reduce the resistance of some policies, so that it can also obtain understanding and recognitionof most users.
Now back to the positioning of FC2.0, which is a platform-based service provider. What is the most important thing about the platform? Fairness. The example I gave just now, 20%dividend is completely incapable when competing with 80% dividends. This is why the option 1 failed during the referendum. In fact, 60% is also difficult to compete with 80%. The result is inevitably that more shops will have to close. Then the early merchants have to repeat the competition again and more shop closed. And it’s the same logic for option 2.
So I request again please pay attention to our positioning, do not undermine fairness as we are a platform. As for the incentive part mentioned in Option 1 and Option 2, I think it should not be the basic rules. It should be a short-term plan for operation and promotion.
As for the other proposals, 20% dividends are too small, the total amount of dividends per day is less than three bitcoins. What we have to do now is to make the pool bigger, 3X80% is much smaller than 300X20%.
Proposal I: Run
The proposal collection from the community is a good idea. I only contribute 20% of this proposalbecause many people have made a lot of efforts before. We are the shareholders of fcoin, and we need to choose a good solution for the future development of FCoin, so that we can make profits. In the last I want to say that I have high expectations for FCoin, and I hope FCoin is getting better and better, thank you.
Proposal II: Stone
I hope that everyone will vote rationally. FOne is a good attempt. Option 4 is not good for everyone’s participation, merchants have high operating cost promotion costs, 10% will be much less for that. Thank you. FOne can be an opportunity, a big opportunity in the bear market.
Proposal III: Donglai
FCoin is under the most embarrassing period since transfee mining ended and trading fee is free for Main Board A. Even 80% dividends for FT holders, there are still less than three BTCs in total per day. It is better to let the merchants operate, and FCoinprovides support for the merchants. so that they can make the pool bigger, FT holder can have more dividends.
The main focus of Option 3 is the positioning of FC2.0. The platform is a technical service provider,should be simple in the early stage of FONE. Should be no much restrictions for merchants. At the same time, FCoin must lower its posture, play the role ofservice provider but not a regulator.
Sharing from special guest MR. Zhang Jian
I would like to end up with a few words. This debate is wonderful. Everyone is well prepared! I will share some of my ideas on the debates and about the future.
FCoin’s future revenue e is very large, and will have more types of income e. So I think as long as FCoincan keep growing, the community keeps expanding.
I think that whether it is a bull market or a bear market, I feel that we should firmly expand our community, traffic, and trading volume. The income will definitely group up, and to a bring future that everyone can’t imagine!
I have talked with many investors, even the investors of the most well-known companies on world stage. In fact, everyone who knows the truth that, the most thing to make a great company successful is the thingit originally imagined.
What I want to say is that the space that FCoin can explore in the future is very large. Therefore, as long as we hold the initial heart of community, to follow this direction. we will be able to walk out of a way that all of us can imagine. So I said that great things must have evolved but not planned!
Discover best crypto trading bots overviewed for 2020 ️. Get full info about free and paid bitcoin bots 📈 to automate your crypto currency trading, 💸 top exchanges, features and prices, 💰 the cons and pros of using these tools. In Binance’s Month 28 (October 15 to November 15, 2019), we start adding more fiat-to-crypto options on the exchange, Binance Futures offers 125x leverage and becomes a major player, and more! Bitcoin current price is $15,362.97 with a total marketcap of $285.62 B. The Bitcoin price is 0.60% up in last 24 hours. The live price chart and current market cap for Bitcoin will help you analyze investment opportunities. While our top bitcoin exchange review list is still growing with a dozen plus more in the works to add-in, we have assessed 60 and encourage everyone to bookmark this page for recent and relevant future updates and news-specific changes. How We Rank and Review the Top Bitcoin Exchanges: You will find for each of the best cryptocurrency exchanges available a list of the following principles ... Bitcoin miners get paid all the transaction fees in the block they mine. So as such, it is in their interests to maximize the amount of money they make when they create a block. So what they do is pick the 1,000,000 bytes of transactions that results them getting paid the most money. From a bitcoin miner perspective, they don't care of the value of a transaction, but just the size (amount of ... It is great that Binance only charges 0.1% for conversion from crypto to crypto but I can’t find a fee schedule on Binance, Changelly, or Robin Hood that tells me how much it costs to convert the crypto into USD, and then their fees for transfer to a external bank account. I can’t imagine Binance offers the same VERY low rate on transfer to a bank as they do on crypto to crypto exchange.
[index]          
Bonsoir à toutes et à tous, J'espère que vous avez passé un excellent weekend les amis, décidément ce deuxième trimestre 2019 est juste énorme, tant sur le p... Today we saw Bitcoin briefly climb over $8,000 before falling lower again. It remains just under this level. Last week we saw it hit its highest level so far this year climbing past $8,300 on ... 6:38 - Bitcoin Transaktionsvolumen schreibt Geschichte, HODLn im Trend, Bitcoin Bullrun? - Meine Meinung zum aktuellen Kurs - Meine Meinung zum aktuellen Kurs 13:38 - Binance Blutbad bei Matic mit ... With Binance news breaking on Friday, Nictrades shows you how she uses technical analysis to read the Bitcoin market and what trend to look for in cryptocurrency in the next 24 hours. We are using Binance Desktop Application to speed up the buy or sell order . its take arround 1 second . Links : https://ftp.binance.com/pc_pack/Binance.exe Ethereum 60-70% BTC 10-30% Others 0-30% some percent of long term dollars earning interest in MakerDao's DSR In this video I also talk about tokens I like Binance BNB Stellar XLM MakerDao MKR ... Live feed test trading Margin's new scale trading strategy bot on BTC/ETH market at Binance exchange. Trades will appear in the bottom left box panel. I will be changing the bot strategy every ...