English
7965
|
Research Question: When the market discusses Ethereum’s “antifragility” and “composability”, are these characteristics truly unique? In the past two years, Ethereum has been frequently described as a system that "experiences crises but emerges stronger." We compared Ethereum, Solana, BSC and Avalanche through 6 measurable indicators, trying to answer: Which characteristics are the unique moat of Ethereum, and which are just common features of mature public chains? 1. Evaluation framework: 6 measurable indicatorsAntifragility can be broken down into three dimensions: system availability reflects infrastructure maturity, crisis recovery speed measures governance efficiency, and ecological obsolescence rate indirectly measures system resilience through the TVL recovery curve. Composability can also be disassembled: the number of protocol interoperability depends on the degree of standardization of the technology stack, the degree of liquidity aggregation reflects capital efficiency, and the developer reuse rate is a leading indicator of long-term moat. These six indicators cover three levels: technology, capital, and talent, and are better able to evaluate long-term value than a single TVL or TPS. 2. Data Comparison: Key Differences among Three GroupsSystem availability: Ethereum has maintained a 10-year record of zero complete outages, with a 90-day availability rate of 99.86%. Solana has experienced a total of 10 major outages since 2021, 7 of which were caused by client bugs. It was almost once a month in 2021-2022, but it improved significantly from 2023, and after February 2024, there were no major accidents for 262 consecutive days. BSC took the initiative to suspend for several hours due to a cross-chain bridge attack in October 2022, but this was a governance behavior rather than a technical failure. Crisis recovery speed: After the DAO incident in 2016, Ethereum took 33 days from the attack to the hard fork execution, and went through complex processes such as community voting, developer coordination, and miner upgrades. Solana's recovery speed is much faster - it took less than 1.5 hours to restart in April 2022, and about 5 hours in February 2024. But the price is that every downtime is accompanied by 10-20% user loss. BSC urgently contacted 26 validators, suspended the chain within 12 hours and froze 430 million U.S. dollars (the total attack amount was 566 million). The actual loss was only 110 million. Ecological data: In 2025, Ethereum will account for 60-63% of the total TVL of DeFi (about 9.65 billion US dollars), Solana will account for about 1.2-1.3 billion (8-10% share), and BSC will account for about 790 million (12% share). In terms of developers, Ethereum has 31,869 active developers (including L2) and Solana has 17,708. However, Solana added 7,625 developers in 2024, and its annual growth rate of 83% surpassed Ethereum for the first time. In terms of GitHub submission activity, Solana has had 800+ submissions in the past three months, making it the most active among L1. 3. Two key casesCase 1: Ethereum DAO incident - the long-term value of slow governance On June 17, 2016, The DAO was attacked and 3.6 million ETH (14% of the supply at the time) was transferred. The community debated for 33 days, and finally 89% of the computing power supported the hard fork. Opponents continued to use the original chain, forming Ethereum Classic. The key in this case is not the speed of recovery, but the establishment of governance consensus. Ethereum spent a month of controversy in exchange for long-term governance trust. The objective result is that the ecology restored TVL within 3 months after the crisis, and more stringent smart contract audit standards were born. The DAO incident is still considered to have "shaped Ethereum today." Case 2: BSC cross-chain bridge attack - efficiency and controversy of centralized rescue On October 6, 2022, BSC Token Hub was attacked, and hackers forged two withdrawals of 1 million BNB each. The team immediately contacted 26 validators (out of a total of 44 validators) and reached a consensus within a few hours to suspend the blockchain. About 430 million US dollars are frozen on the chain, and the actual loss is controlled at 20%. This "pause button" sparked a core discussion: If a chain can be paused by 26 entities, is it still "decentralized"? Judging from the financial losses, BSC’s response is undoubtedly more effective. ； From the perspective of principle consistency, Ethereum’s community voting is more in line with the ideal of decentralization. The advantages and disadvantages of different governance models depend on the dimensions of evaluation. 4. Conclusion: Uniqueness and CommonnessFeatures unique to Ethereum: First, a history of zero downtime. There has been no complete shutdown of the consensus layer in 10 years, which is unique among mainstream public chains and is the basis of institutional trust. Second, decentralized governance that passes the stress test. The DAO incident proved that the community can reach consensus under extreme circumstances. This kind of governance system is not available in young public chains. Third, a deeply composable DeFi ecosystem. The TVL of the Top 3 protocols reaches US$8.6 billion. Liquidity aggregation of this scale is currently irreplaceable. Common characteristics of the industry: First, technical stability can be achieved iteratively. Solana's improvement from 2023 onwards proves that high-frequency downtime is not a fate. Second, a developer ecosystem can be established quickly. Solana will surpass Ethereum in the number of new developers in 2024, indicating that the attractiveness of the technology stack can catch up in the short term. Third, liquidity aggregation is a natural law. The TVL of each chain is highly concentrated in the head protocol, which is not a special advantage of Ethereum. Investment inspiration: If minimizing system risks is important, Ethereum’s zero downtime record and mature governance are still the best choice. Institutional money has a very low tolerance for uncertainty. If you value growth potential and technological innovation, the developer growth rate and technology iteration speed of emerging chains such as Solana are worth paying attention to, but you need to accept higher technical risks. If execution efficiency and rapid response are valued, governance models such as BSC that are close to traditional finance are more practical in certain scenarios, at the cost of giving up some decentralization principles. Long-term follow-up suggestions: We recommend the following six indicators as a continuous monitoring framework: system availability (quarterly), number of consensus layer failures (annual), crisis recovery time (event level), TVL concentration (monthly), number of active developers (quarterly), and number of new protocols launched (monthly). Antifragility is not a static label, but a system property that evolves under stress. Ethereum’s advantage is that it has experienced enough stress tests, but this does not mean that other public chains cannot build similar resilience. For investors, understanding the difference between "uniqueness" and "commonality" can help price risk premiums more accurately. Data sources: DefiLlama, Electric Capital developer reports, Ledger Status, official incident reports of each public chain. |
|
|
|
|
|
