> and choosing to use ETH2 as their mainnet substrate chain instead.
But why exactly? Until ETH1 is in the ETH2 chain ecosystem ETH2 is just another blockchain platform, providing no network effects.
ETH2's big selling point was higher throughput but bridges are already starting to commoditize access to more throughput from ETH1. ETH2 could provide smoother access than the bridge interfaces provided by other chains. (I'm speaking of bridges both to and from ETH1 and within the bridge blockchain's ecosystem like IBC)
It's not that I don't think ETH2 could win this. There's a clear path to victory.
- ETH1 integrated ASAP, going all in on expanding ETH1 capacity and bringing it under ETH2
- Provide a subchain interface that's better than IBC or any other cross-chain interface on the market
- Fullnode tooling that really works well (partial syncing for block availability, seamlessly syncs multiple chains etc)
Once you have these you can keep ETH1 users via network effect and provide access to more capacity more easily than other potential platforms.
But I don't see a clear plan from ETH2 to do either of those things. Cross chain communication is a theory-only problem devoid of the extremely polished tooling it will need to win and ETH1 under the beacon chain doesn't even seem to have a plan.
The difference is that ETH1 will bridge to ETH2 in the future, and therefore by choosing ETH2 as your substrate, you’re predicting that transaction costs for sibling-transactions crossing from your chain to ETH1 will become cheaper when that happens.
A similar promise cannot be made for any other substrate network, as ETH1 isn’t going to bridge to any other substrate network.
Since it’s not like sub-chain mainnets can pack up and move house after they’re launched, when launching one, you have to make choices based on how things will be, rather than how things are. It’s sort of like choosing a city to build a corporate headquarters in, based on what the civic infrastructure is likely to look like in 20 years.
There are bridges to and from Ethereum right now. I use them every day because I need a fast sidechain for my application.
Choosing ETH2 is predicated on the assumption that ETH1 will be bridged more cheaply and easily than existing bridges can provide and that the opportunity cost of waiting is worth it.
I had to make that decision personally, decided I can't wait for ETH2, so we're using a bridge that's available today and building an ecosystem elsewhere.
Several other product leads that I know are making the same decisions, they can't just put their lives on hold and trust that ETH2 will solve problems for which there's no public timeline or even a public solution.
But why exactly? Until ETH1 is in the ETH2 chain ecosystem ETH2 is just another blockchain platform, providing no network effects.
ETH2's big selling point was higher throughput but bridges are already starting to commoditize access to more throughput from ETH1. ETH2 could provide smoother access than the bridge interfaces provided by other chains. (I'm speaking of bridges both to and from ETH1 and within the bridge blockchain's ecosystem like IBC)
It's not that I don't think ETH2 could win this. There's a clear path to victory.
- ETH1 integrated ASAP, going all in on expanding ETH1 capacity and bringing it under ETH2
- Provide a subchain interface that's better than IBC or any other cross-chain interface on the market
- Fullnode tooling that really works well (partial syncing for block availability, seamlessly syncs multiple chains etc)
Once you have these you can keep ETH1 users via network effect and provide access to more capacity more easily than other potential platforms.
But I don't see a clear plan from ETH2 to do either of those things. Cross chain communication is a theory-only problem devoid of the extremely polished tooling it will need to win and ETH1 under the beacon chain doesn't even seem to have a plan.