Yearn.finance (YFI) yields are plunging: is this a risk for the Ethereum DeFi darling?

It’s fair to say that it’s been a slow past few weeks for the decentralized finance space. Due to a confluence of trends including but not limited to DeFi becoming crowded, venture capital firms launching “industrial-scale farms,” and Ethereum-based coins dropping, the yields offered through the top “farms”  have plunged.

Case in point: Yearn.finance‘s yCRV/yUSD vault, one of the protocol’s most popular products, now offers an annualized yield of around 15 percent — far below the 60-100 percent offered just weeks ago.

That’s not to say 15 percent is bad — it’s at least ten times the yield you could get at a traditional bank. But, some fear that YFI could decline because its valuation is somewhat dependent on high yields.

DeFi yields are dropping: Is Yearn.finance threatened?

At launch, YFI was a coin with zero intrinsic value. But the market rapidly bid the coin to the point where it traded as high as $44,000 per coin at recent highs. The reason why the market was so bullish on Yearn.finance was because fees were implemented that would effectively allow holders to obtain dividends on their coins.

But as these yields have dropped, so have those dividends.

That’s an issue when many in the space were buying YFI in hopes of using it as a yielding investment.

According to Andrew Kang of Mechanism Capital, though, dropping yields aren’t a pressing concern.

He noted in a recent Twitter thread that Vaults, currently the product that Yearn.finance is known for, is only one of many products inside an ecosystem being built by the Ethereum protocol’s developers.

Lead developer Andre Cronje is currently working on StableCredit, yInsure, yTrade, and others, which will enable YFI holders to capture yield through fees charged on decentralized trading, insurance, and lending.

Kang continued by noting that it currently is only early days for Vaults, meaning the strategies being used to farm yield are relatively secure and simple for testing’s sake:

“We’re still in an early era of yield generation in crypto. There tons of lending platforms & AMMs about to launch that will introduce even more areas for yield. For those that don’t want to be rotating crops daily, Vaults are a perfect solution. The LM rewards are a cherry on top.”

Lou Kerner, a partner at CryptoOracle, also isn’t worried about Yearn.finance’s dropping yields.

Kerner recently released an extensive blog post in which he asserted that Yearn.finance is the “future of DeFi.” He added that by extension, this means it is the future of finance, referencing the oft-touted sentiment that DeFi will take over traditional financial mechanisms in the coming years and decades.

Like Kang, Kerner is extremely optimistic about Yearn.finance’s other products such as StableCredit. The investor thinks that this product could act as a “black hole” for Ethereum-based liquidity, driving YFI higher if the proper incentive structure is set up.

DeFi set to rebound

Another thing to consider is that all of DeFi is set to rebound moving forward, making a YFI recovery a matter of if the rest of the space bounces back.

Synthetix’s founder Kain Warwick recently asserted in a Twitter post that from how he sees it, DeFi and crypto are in the earliest innings of a growth cycle as opposed to near the end of one.

Kang has echoed this, noting that DeFi may still be undervalued relative to fundamentals or at least not at the point of a bubble.

The post Yearn.finance (YFI) yields are plunging: is this a risk for the Ethereum DeFi darling? appeared first on CryptoSlate.

Chinese state-endorsed public chain to act as a global DeFi bridge, says Conflux CEO

Chinese Free Trade Zone is open to experimenting with permissionless DeFi applications.

Conflux Network, a permissionless blockchain project which is endorsed by the Chinese state, told Cointelegraph on Sept. 22 that the project has officially launched its Tree Graph Research Institute with the Shanghai government. 

According to Fan Long, CEO of Conflux, the Tree-Graph Blockchain Research Institute will experiment with local states to build a regulatory compliance platform that can bridge global DeFi applications and government regulations. He added that: 

“DeFi is a new world and while it appears as though it may pose a challenge for regulators, they appear willing to listen. At this stage, the most important thing is to maintain a reliable communication channel between two sides— the DeFi innovators and the regulators.” 

When it comes to new techniques and innovations, the Chinese government has shown signs of tolerance for experimentation in the past. Fan indicated that the complexity surrounding DeFi and other relevant distributed innovations will make open communication crucial for continued legislative acceptance. He stated that: 

“Regulators need a reliable way to learn what the new technique is about and where it might lead us to. Innovators need a way to understand the concerns and red lines of regulators.” 

At the moment, Conflux is working with the Shanghai government on several sandbox projects. Fan told Cointelegraph that these projects include integrating blockchain borrowing and lending services into Shanghai’s Pudong Development Bank, and leveraging the Shanghai free trade zone’s unique regulatory framework to devise a unique stablecoin for the region, The CEO explained: 

“Shanghai Free Trade Zone is outside of capital control of China where RMB is offshore with its own set of rules, so we are trying to come up with some regulation breakthroughs with experimenting under the free zone framework.” 

Compared with the central bank’s digital currency, or CBDC,  Fan pointed out that  although a CBDC will allow the central government to maintain control of the financial activities, it would be hard for such a centralized form of digital currency to be accepted outside of China. 

Conflux is trying to either create a free zone stablecoin or build a public permissionless cross chain for the CBDC.

The project, which began its life as a research project at Tsinghua University, has been working to provide a robust and cheap framework for developers to build decentralized finance applications. Fan explained that: 

“Conflux Network seeks to provide a POW network with transaction speeds an order of magnitude faster. The key enabler technique is a novel DAG-based ledger structure together with an optimistic concurrency control to achieve a consistent order of transactions among all the nodes in the network.”

Fan believes that DeFi projects will only be able to go mainstream through willfully enacted compliance measures which evolve alongside government regulations. Blockchain and DeFi are new areas for regulators. Although he cannot speak to how regulators will go about this, his predicts that: 

“Decentralization will make it more difficult for regulators to control DeFi products, but there are still possibilities to exercise controls at the boundary between the decentralized world and the centralized world.” 

The Shanghai Municipal Government, one of the states endorsing the project, is interested in exploring how the city can leverage blockchain techniques to integrate traditional finance with decentralized financial services, says Fan.

In order to connect global DeFi projects and regulations, the company also created the Conflux Open Defi initiative. 

Members include: Sequoia Capital, Blockpower Capital, Antelope Holdings, dForce, DeBank, and MCDEX along with Chinese state support through the Shanghai Science and Technology Committee. Fan says Open DeFi aims to unite Eastern and Western DeFi markets through three globally focused program tracks: risk management, new liquidity strategies, and incubation & innovation.

Congress sees two new bills looking to chart CFTC and SEC regulatory turf in crypto

A big day for crypto legislation in the United States.

Two major crypto bills were introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday. One aims to establish which cryptocurrencies are securities. The other looks to put regulation of exchanges in the hands of the country's commodities regulator.

The securities bill

The Securities Clarity Act, from the office of Representative Tom Emmer (R-MN) establishes a new distinction in securities law between an investment contract and the "an asset sold pursuant to an investment 22 contract, whether tangible or intangible (including an 23 asset in digital form)."

The new bill is basically a direct response to recent controversy over the Simple Agreement for Future Tokens framework under which currencies like EOS were distributed and which caused immense controversy in the case of Telegram. If passed, the act would restrict the Securities and Exchange Commission from pursuing digital assets on the basis of the initial contracts under which they were sold.

...and the commodities

Representative Mike Conaway (R-TX), with support from a number of co-signers from the Blockchain Caucus, introduced the Digital Commodity Exchange Act to the House Agriculture Committee. 

Conaway may be less familiar to Cointelegraph's readers than Emmer, but his position on the Agriculture Committee is critical. Today's bill would put crypto exchanges under the jurisdiction of the CFTC, which answers to the Agriculture Committee. That registration would save exchanges from the patchwork of state-by-state licensing required of money service providers.

Though the new bill would seem to put retail crypto under the same rules as commodities exchanges, it is careful to leave space for the SEC for sales involving "a securities offering or transaction associated with a digital commodity presale."

Commissioner Peirce wants to see the SEC approve a Bitcoin ETF

At least one leader at the SEC is in favor of seeing a Bitcoin ETF approved in the US.

In a virtual fireside chat with the D.C. Bar, SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce criticized the commission’s long-standing resistance to a Bitcoin ETF.

Moderator Ashley Ebersole asked about the SEC’s highly public dissatisfaction with a long series of Bitcoin ETF proposals in the U.S. Peirce, who is often known as "CryptoMom," responded with opposition to those rejects: “I’ve been pretty outspoken about my disagreement with my colleagues on disapproving some of these exchange-traded products.”

Bitcoin is not uniquely volatile as a base investment for an exchange-traded fund, Peirce argued. “I would like us to look at how we’ve looked at similar products in the past. Many other products that we have are based on products that are messy,” she continued. “You can still have an orderly product built on top of it.”

Ji Kim of Gemini Trust continued along the same line of questioning as to what the SEC’s concern with a Bitcoin ETF is. Peirce answered “You can’t assume that markets are not going to function if they’re not subject to the exact same sort of regulation as securities markets are.”

I do think that Bitcoin markets are mature. There’s a lot of money in there now, there’s a lot of very sophisticated players in this space and there’s been a lot of work done to regularize the trading with Bitcoin particularly. I would say that the markets are mature enough to build something else on top of.

Regarding a recent interpretation from the Treasury’s bank regulator that banks can custody reserves for fiat-based stablecoins, Peirce noted that the SEC was paying close attention to such developments “There is a lot of regulatory coordination going on.”

Despite the new ruling, Peirce cautioned that some products advertised as stablecoins are in fact securities: “You can’t just put the label stablecoin on it and expect it to be regulated that way.”

Commissioner Peirce started her second term at the SEC last month, meaning she is set to remain on the commission until 2025.

Bitcoin OTC Crackdown, Wrapped ETH on Tron, XRP Ledger Foundation + More News

Get your daily, bite-sized digest of cryptoasset and blockchain-related news – investigating the stories flying under the radar of today’s crypto news. Regulation news China is clamping down on over-the-counter (OTC) crypto trading over money-laundering suspicions, per ChainDD. The media outlet said that the central People’s Bank of China (PBoC) is creating a

Over 100 Million People Hold Bitcoin, Altcoins Globally – Report

Crypto usership is going up at an exponential rate, per researchers at the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance, with over 100 million people worldwide now making use of cryptoassets – a massive increase from the 35 million figure the same researches identified just two years. According to a new study, the number of identity-verified cryptoasset users has shot up

Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: The vertical scaling crisis

In order to achieve blockchain mass adoption, three fundamental problems should be solved. Let’s dive into the second one: vertical scaling.

This is Part 2 of a three-part series in which Andrew Levine outlines the issues facing legacy blockchains and posits solutions to these problems. Read Part 1 on the upgradeability crisis here and Part 3 on the governance crisis as it goes live on Sept. 25.

The advent of the internet has revealed that we have a digital self that can amplify our real-world power thanks to the ability to interact with people anywhere on Earth and coordinate actions that our physical selves never could.

But our digital selves are shackled — imprisoned on private computers belonging to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, and the list goes on. These private monopolies don’t actually produce technology; rather, their product is us — our digital selves — and their entire purpose is to extract as much value from us as they possibly can.

Many people recognize the potential for blockchain technology to disrupt these private monopolies and oligopolies, but unfortunately, no specific blockchain has been able to reach beyond the walls of the existing blockchain and cryptocurrency community.

And if it did, it would not be technically capable of supporting the kind of growth and adoption needed to empower every person on Earth to take control of their digital selves. Why is that? Is it just a matter of picking the right features? Switching to proof-of-stake? Sharding?

Unfortunately, the problem is much bigger than one or two missing features and will not be resolved by the planned changes to existing protocols because the problems lie at the very foundation of how they are constructed. The very architecture limits the potential for these platforms to scale vertically.

What is vertical scaling?

Vertical scaling is how you manage the growth of a single node (computer) in a network. Blockchains are databases that never discard information. Information is only added to the database, never removed. This makes growth an even bigger problem. Not only that, but most blockchains are not designed to make efficient use of the various parts of a computer. This adds up to a big database, consuming a lot of computational resources on a given machine in an inefficient manner.

In order to compensate for these shortcomings, node operators rely on expensive enterprise-grade hardware — specifically, random-access memory, or RAM, and non-volatile memory express, or NVMe, which is what pushes network participation (node operation) beyond the grasp of ordinary people. And somehow, we’re supposed to believe that is not bad for decentralization!

But sharding!

Ironically, one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a vertical scaling crisis is the level of demand for horizontal scaling solutions.

As of this writing, an Ethereum full node still does not exceed 500 GB. That’s nothing! And yet, it is also absolutely true that a complicated, risky mechanism needs to be added to Ethereum so that its blockchain can be broken up into bits and pieces, and that precious computational resources need to be spent on simply enabling these “shards” to communicate with one another, let alone perform meaningful computations.

The problem is that horizontal scaling — sharding — is not a substitute for vertical scaling. Imagine you have a factory producing 1,000 cars per year, but there is sufficient demand for 2,000 cars. What do you do first: build a new factory or try to make more cars out of the factory you already have? Vertical scaling is optimizing the factory to produce more cars before simply building a new factory. Blockchain nodes are the “factory,” and what determines their output is how efficiently they use the components in a computer.

Speaking from direct experience, blockchains are horribly unoptimized with respect to node resource management, which makes them the perfect candidate for vertical scaling solutions.

In blockchain, there are essentially two lineages: Ethereum and BitShares. Many people might not be familiar with BitShares, but its architectural design underpins some of the most performant blockchains in the space, including EOS, Hive and Steem. While Ethereum, and the many chains that are modeled on it, remains the most highly valued general-purpose blockchain with the most decentralized applications and unique users, the BitShares line absolutely dominates in terms of raw transaction activity, making it the performance king.

My team, arguably, has more experience in the BitShares line than any other team on Earth, so we will focus on that design. Because blockchains in the BitShares line are capable of performing so many more transactions per second, this actually increases the importance of vertical scaling — because their blockchain state is growing so much faster.

Vertical scaling, RAM and forks

Vertical scaling, in the computing context, is essentially all about using the cheapest form of memory (disk) whenever possible and to the greatest extent possible. In the case of blockchains, the two most relevant processes are fork resolution and storing state. There are all of these different versions of the database out there (“forks”), and the nodes have to come to a consensus on which one is the “right” one. That’s fork resolution.

Now, you have an irreversible database that needs to be stored. Ideally, you want that stored on the cheapest possible medium (disk) as opposed to the most expensive (RAM).

Because you want forks to be resolved as fast as possible, you want these computations to be done in RAM (fast memory). But once the forks have been resolved and new transactions have been added to the irreversible state, you want to store this database in disk. The problem with blockchains from the BitShares line is that they achieve their performance through a design that never actually reflects the current state of the blockchain. Instead, when each block is applied, the pending transaction state is “undone,” the old values are written back to the database, and then the block is applied.

One problem with this approach is that most of the time, this means performing the exact same calculations again and writing the same state back to the database that was just there, which is extremely inefficient.

Reading and writing: The arithmetic

Even more relevant to the issue of vertical scaling is that this design means the irreversible state as a whole cannot be stored on disk without having to “pop” blocks back out of disk and into RAM to resolve forks. Not only does this increase the RAM load on a given node, but it also has very serious consequences with respect to leveraging RocksDB.

RocksDB is a database technology developed by Facebook to power its news feed. In short, it enables us to get the performance of RAM but from disk. Many blockchain projects are using RocksDB in various ways, but the problem with the database design we have outlined is that the constant need to undo pending transactions and rewrite to the database negates the benefits of RocksDB.

Facebook’s news feed is all about database reads. Consider how many posts you scroll through before you engage with a single one. For that reason, RocksDB is designed to work best when there are far more reads to the database than writes. The database design outlined above leads to so many database writes that it negates the benefits of even using RocksDB.

In order to take full advantage of RocksDB, we need to rebuild the blockchain from the ground up to efficiently ferry blocks from RAM to disk while minimizing the number of writes so as to benefit from RocksDB. We can accomplish this by eliminating the need to undo/rewrite and creating a single database that tracks irreversible state and never needs to be undone.

This would enable us to minimize RAM use in nodes by efficiently ferrying irreversible blocks out of RAM and into disk without having to bring them back. We estimate that this could reduce the cost of running a node by as much as 75%! Not only would this make node operation more accessible, increasing the number of nodes in operation, but these cost savings would ultimately be passed along to users and developers.

Limiting blockchains or limitless blockchains?

Existing blockchains are reaching the performance limits of what they can get out of a single node as a consequence of how they resolve forks and how they store their blockchain state. In this article, we have explained how database design can lead to a fork resolution process that increases RAM use as well as database writes that negate the benefits that could accrue from the use of RocksDB, ultimately leading to less efficient blockchain nodes.

The truth is that there is a lot more to vertical scaling than this single problem. Blockchain ecosystems are complex, with many components that feedback into one another. Decreasing the cost of running an individual node is critical for increasing the number nodes in operation and reducing the costs of using the network, but there are also tremendous gains to be had by minimizing network congestion, incentivizing efficient node operation and more.

Our goal is not to explain in detail how one can solve the vertical scaling problem but to give some insight into the nature of what we think is a dramatically underappreciated problem in the blockchain space. Horizontal scalability is absolutely a very important area of interest, but if we ignore the problem of vertical scalability, all we will accomplish by horizontally scaling is dramatically increasing the number of horribly inefficient nodes.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Andrew Levine is the CEO of OpenOrchard, where he and the former development team behind the Steem blockchain build blockchain-based solutions that empower people to take ownership and control over their digital selves. Their foundational product is Koinos, a high-performance blockchain built on an entirely new framework architected to give developers the features they need in order to deliver the user experiences necessary to spread blockchain adoption to the masses.

Inside the blockchain developer’s mind: The vertical scaling crisis

In order to achieve blockchain mass adoption, three fundamental problems should be solved. Let’s dive into the second one: vertical scaling.

This is Part 2 of a three-part series in which Andrew Levine outlines the issues facing legacy blockchains and posits solutions to these problems. Read Part 1 on the upgradeability crisis here and Part 3 on the governance crisis as it goes live on Sept. 25.

The advent of the internet has revealed that we have a digital self that can amplify our real-world power thanks to the ability to interact with people anywhere on Earth and coordinate actions that our physical selves never could.

But our digital selves are shackled — imprisoned on private computers belonging to Facebook, Google, Amazon, Netflix, Twitter, and the list goes on. These private monopolies don’t actually produce technology; rather, their product is us — our digital selves — and their entire purpose is to extract as much value from us as they possibly can.

Many people recognize the potential for blockchain technology to disrupt these private monopolies and oligopolies, but unfortunately, no specific blockchain has been able to reach beyond the walls of the existing blockchain and cryptocurrency community.

And if it did, it would not be technically capable of supporting the kind of growth and adoption needed to empower every person on Earth to take control of their digital selves. Why is that? Is it just a matter of picking the right features? Switching to proof-of-stake? Sharding?

Unfortunately, the problem is much bigger than one or two missing features and will not be resolved by the planned changes to existing protocols because the problems lie at the very foundation of how they are constructed. The very architecture limits the potential for these platforms to scale vertically.

What is vertical scaling?

Vertical scaling is how you manage the growth of a single node (computer) in a network. Blockchains are databases that never discard information. Information is only added to the database, never removed. This makes growth an even bigger problem. Not only that, but most blockchains are not designed to make efficient use of the various parts of a computer. This adds up to a big database, consuming a lot of computational resources on a given machine in an inefficient manner.

In order to compensate for these shortcomings, node operators rely on expensive enterprise-grade hardware — specifically, random-access memory, or RAM, and non-volatile memory express, or NVMe, which is what pushes network participation (node operation) beyond the grasp of ordinary people. And somehow, we’re supposed to believe that is not bad for decentralization!

But sharding!

Ironically, one of the strongest arguments for the existence of a vertical scaling crisis is the level of demand for horizontal scaling solutions.

As of this writing, an Ethereum full node still does not exceed 500 GB. That’s nothing! And yet, it is also absolutely true that a complicated, risky mechanism needs to be added to Ethereum so that its blockchain can be broken up into bits and pieces, and that precious computational resources need to be spent on simply enabling these “shards” to communicate with one another, let alone perform meaningful computations.

The problem is that horizontal scaling — sharding — is not a substitute for vertical scaling. Imagine you have a factory producing 1,000 cars per year, but there is sufficient demand for 2,000 cars. What do you do first: build a new factory or try to make more cars out of the factory you already have? Vertical scaling is optimizing the factory to produce more cars before simply building a new factory. Blockchain nodes are the “factory,” and what determines their output is how efficiently they use the components in a computer.

Speaking from direct experience, blockchains are horribly unoptimized with respect to node resource management, which makes them the perfect candidate for vertical scaling solutions.

In blockchain, there are essentially two lineages: Ethereum and BitShares. Many people might not be familiar with BitShares, but its architectural design underpins some of the most performant blockchains in the space, including EOS, Hive and Steem. While Ethereum, and the many chains that are modeled on it, remains the most highly valued general-purpose blockchain with the most decentralized applications and unique users, the BitShares line absolutely dominates in terms of raw transaction activity, making it the performance king.

My team, arguably, has more experience in the BitShares line than any other team on Earth, so we will focus on that design. Because blockchains in the BitShares line are capable of performing so many more transactions per second, this actually increases the importance of vertical scaling — because their blockchain state is growing so much faster.

Vertical scaling, RAM and forks

Vertical scaling, in the computing context, is essentially all about using the cheapest form of memory (disk) whenever possible and to the greatest extent possible. In the case of blockchains, the two most relevant processes are fork resolution and storing state. There are all of these different versions of the database out there (“forks”), and the nodes have to come to a consensus on which one is the “right” one. That’s fork resolution.

Now, you have an irreversible database that needs to be stored. Ideally, you want that stored on the cheapest possible medium (disk) as opposed to the most expensive (RAM).

Because you want forks to be resolved as fast as possible, you want these computations to be done in RAM (fast memory). But once the forks have been resolved and new transactions have been added to the irreversible state, you want to store this database in disk. The problem with blockchains from the BitShares line is that they achieve their performance through a design that never actually reflects the current state of the blockchain. Instead, when each block is applied, the pending transaction state is “undone,” the old values are written back to the database, and then the block is applied.

One problem with this approach is that most of the time, this means performing the exact same calculations again and writing the same state back to the database that was just there, which is extremely inefficient.

Reading and writing: The arithmetic

Even more relevant to the issue of vertical scaling is that this design means the irreversible state as a whole cannot be stored on disk without having to “pop” blocks back out of disk and into RAM to resolve forks. Not only does this increase the RAM load on a given node, but it also has very serious consequences with respect to leveraging RocksDB.

RocksDB is a database technology developed by Facebook to power its news feed. In short, it enables us to get the performance of RAM but from disk. Many blockchain projects are using RocksDB in various ways, but the problem with the database design we have outlined is that the constant need to undo pending transactions and rewrite to the database negates the benefits of RocksDB.

Facebook’s news feed is all about database reads. Consider how many posts you scroll through before you engage with a single one. For that reason, RocksDB is designed to work best when there are far more reads to the database than writes. The database design outlined above leads to so many database writes that it negates the benefits of even using RocksDB.

In order to take full advantage of RocksDB, we need to rebuild the blockchain from the ground up to efficiently ferry blocks from RAM to disk while minimizing the number of writes so as to benefit from RocksDB. We can accomplish this by eliminating the need to undo/rewrite and creating a single database that tracks irreversible state and never needs to be undone.

This would enable us to minimize RAM use in nodes by efficiently ferrying irreversible blocks out of RAM and into disk without having to bring them back. We estimate that this could reduce the cost of running a node by as much as 75%! Not only would this make node operation more accessible, increasing the number of nodes in operation, but these cost savings would ultimately be passed along to users and developers.

Limiting blockchains or limitless blockchains?

Existing blockchains are reaching the performance limits of what they can get out of a single node as a consequence of how they resolve forks and how they store their blockchain state. In this article, we have explained how database design can lead to a fork resolution process that increases RAM use as well as database writes that negate the benefits that could accrue from the use of RocksDB, ultimately leading to less efficient blockchain nodes.

The truth is that there is a lot more to vertical scaling than this single problem. Blockchain ecosystems are complex, with many components that feedback into one another. Decreasing the cost of running an individual node is critical for increasing the number nodes in operation and reducing the costs of using the network, but there are also tremendous gains to be had by minimizing network congestion, incentivizing efficient node operation and more.

Our goal is not to explain in detail how one can solve the vertical scaling problem but to give some insight into the nature of what we think is a dramatically underappreciated problem in the blockchain space. Horizontal scalability is absolutely a very important area of interest, but if we ignore the problem of vertical scalability, all we will accomplish by horizontally scaling is dramatically increasing the number of horribly inefficient nodes.

The views, thoughts and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.

Andrew Levine is the CEO of OpenOrchard, where he and the former development team behind the Steem blockchain build blockchain-based solutions that empower people to take ownership and control over their digital selves. Their foundational product is Koinos, a high-performance blockchain built on an entirely new framework architected to give developers the features they need in order to deliver the user experiences necessary to spread blockchain adoption to the masses.