AIP Idea: Otherside as an Avalanche Subnet

Supernets are 1) not in existence yet and 2) literally an attempted copy of subnets but without any of the core innovations

ETH L2s are 1) inefficient and 2) costly because they force you to pay rent back to ETH. If $APE holders want $APE to moon, it should have its own chain where smart contract fees are paid in $APE. If you want ETH to moon slightly faster than otherwise, then pay fees in ETH on an L2. $APE will suffer.

Your choice.

All the people calling AVAX a copycat chain likely have 0 software engineering experience. They repeat baseless arguments without proof. If you miss AVAX, you’re making the same mistake as BTC maxis who missed ETH in '18-21

TLDR; What is best for $APE? What is best for $ETH? What are you prioritizing and why?

1 Like

Supernets non-existent ? I wish you present facts and not biased opinions.

Okay, I thought there we 0 live supernets since they were announced so recently. Am I wrong? It doesn’t change the fact matic relies on a 5 of 8 multisig that cold rug at any moment. It is not a stable foundation for a top chain until that is fixed.

Oh and it pays rent back to ETH. It’s good for ETH whales though. All ETH L2s are paying rent back to ETH via hacky custom designs.

It makes 0 sense economically and 0 sense technically for ApeChain to pay rent to $ETH.

What is the reason for disagreeing? It is the best way to launch a reliable, robust, and fast chain that fully supports the EVM and pays all fees in the APE, and provides validation rewards in APE.

1 Like

Can you provide a reasoning for this statement? From a technical and economical perspective, subnets are the clear winner. Socially maybe not.

1 Like

I am so tired of Avalanche propaganda. So, subnets, let’s break it down:

  1. To crate a subnet you need to buy and stake AVAX (they don’t mention that).
  2. Subnet security is abysmal (ex. their most popular subnent, with more activity than the main Alavalnche network, has only 5 validators. (Imagine that!)
  3. They mention consensus of Avalanche as if it is the “holy grail” of blockchains, but why should people care about another PoS consensus? In practice, their consensus is a solution to a problem nobody cares about anymore. There are so may alternatives, it is not even funny.
  4. They blame polygon for their multisig (and while I agree with tihs), they forget to mention that their own bridge is controlled by only 4 validators/companies (which, if asked by a court, will freeze all the bridged funds).

And by the way, Ava Labs (who solely develops and maintains Avalanche) is a PRIVATE company registered in NY. Talk to me about Decentralization!

10 Likes
  1. To create a subnet you need to buy and stake AVAX (they don’t mention that).

This is mentioned everytime. Because it’s a feature, it’s how you establish the security floor to your chain.

  1. Subnet security is abysmal (ex. their most popular subnent, with more activity than the main Alavalnche network, has only 5 validators. (Imagine that!)

How so? That’s just a choice by DFK, for example, to only have 5 for now. They can easily go to 50, 500, 5000 validators. That’s the great thing about Avalanche consensus, it can scale in an unbounded way.

  1. They mention consensus of Avalanche as if it is the “holy grail” of blockchains, but why should people care about another PoS consensus? In practice, their consensus is a solution to a problem nobody cares about anymore. There are so may alternatives, it is not even funny.

I’m confused. If there’s going ot be a new ApeChain, you must care about which chain offers the fastest time to finality without sacrificing scaling in the number of nodes. This is bread-and-butter concerns.

    1. They blame polygon for their multisig (and while I agree with tihs), they forget to mention that their own bridge is controlled by only 4 validators/companies (which, if asked by a court, will freeze all the bridged funds).

We’ve talked about this several times. The Avalanche Intel-SGX-based bridge is based on secure trusted-executed-environment technology. It’s not a multisig. There’s plenty of resources on how this works online.

And by the way, Ava Labs (who solely develops and maintains Avalanche) is a PRIVATE company registered in NY. Talk to me about Decentralization!

What does that have to do with Avalanche? Consensys is a NY company as well. What does that have to do with Ethereum?

4 Likes

To expand on this point, Avalanche subnets already have a great track record with two live subnets running in production today. DeFi Kingdom’s subnet which has been live for over 2 months has processed more than 12M transactions so far. The Swimmer subnet developed by the Crabada, launched just two weeks ago and has processed over 6M transactions. You can check out the stats for these subnets here.

2 Likes
  1. Glad this is now also stated in this forum discussion.

  2. They only have 5 validators because they have to buy and stake 2000 AVAX per validator (if i am not wrong). Imagine having to buy 5000 validators.

  3. What is the point of fast finality if you have 5 validators to secure the chain? For ex. tendermint (cosmos zones) offers instant finality with 150 validators and your own token (no need for avax).

  4. I did read the Intel-SGX-based bridge resources. You have a bridge with 4 validators that can freeze the funds. Is this statement wrong?

Look, Ava Labs solely developed the Avalanche products (as far as i am aware), while Consensys developed some clients (out of many, and not even the most used). Additionally, any core eth changes are debated in an open forum and verified on multiple code implementations. I think it is dishonest to even compare Ava Labs to Consensys.

2 Likes
  1. They only have 5 validators because they have to buy and stake 2000 AVAX per validator (if i am not wrong). Imagine having to buy 5000 validators.

Looks like there are around 1,500 validators on Avalanche. Those validators can participate in the subnet. There is no capped amount of validators that can be part of a subnet.

  1. What is the point of fast finality if you have 5 validators to secure the chain? For ex. tendermint (cosmos zones) offers instant finality with 150 validators and your own token (no need for avax).

I think he was trying to say that the consensus delivers fast finality and enables as many validators as you want to participate in the subnet because of Avalanche consensus. More validators = More secure.

1 Like

If you want decentralization and pay por security, just make an L2 of Ethereum (or use an existent L2)

L2’s are not currently decentralised:

  • They are deployed as a smart contract which are upgradable and secured by a multisig run by the team - at any time they can steal all the funds within the rollup, deploy malicious code etc and there will be no time to react due to no timelock etc.

  • They also consist of a single sequencer which when they go offline (like has happened many times with Arbitrum and Dydx etc, the entire rollup halts as there isn’t an easy way to interact directly with Ethereum (and even then that’s just for simple transactions and gets far more complex when funds are stored in smart contracts on the rollup). The team would need to run the sequencer which also has potential legal implications / open to being forced to implement changes from governments / regulators.

  • There are even optimistic rollups like Optimism that rely on fraud proofs for their security, yet don’t even have fraud proofs implemented yet - meaning you are entirely trusting the sequencer (run by the team) always acts honestly, hardly decentralised.

  • Nor does “Shared security” mean any rollup deployed on Ethereum is as secure as Ethereum. Each rollup adds their own trust assumptions like those mentioned above - multisig, upgradable contracts, lack of fraud proofs etc. Even then there are single entities like Lido which control over 35% of the stake as Ethereum looks to transition to Proof of Stake, which run a permissioned set of validators and controlled by multisig.

Why do you think Avalanche is better fit than Polygon Supernets?

Polygon is not only secured by a 5 of 8 multisig (4 of which controlled by the team) but their chain experiences very frequent deep re-orgs. If you thought the news about the Ethereum beacon chain experiencing a deep re-org (hasn’t been a deep re-org on Ethereum main in years) was bad, in the last 24 hours alone there have been 2 far deeper re-orgs on Polygon (one 23 blocks deep and the other 9) Polygon Forked Blocks | PolygonScan. And if you think having 2 deep re-orgs in one day is bad, well considering Polygon has experienced 1255 re-orgs in the last 100 days (average of 12.55 re-orgs per day and the deepest re-org being a massive 194 blocks deep) it’s actually been one of its better days!!

Avalanche provides extremely fast finality without re-orgs and uses a consensus that can scale the active validator set. It’s also a highly customisable platform where you can easily deploy subnets utilising the EVM or other VMs (unlike Supernets) as well as the ability to use stateful precompiles to make smart contracts even more performant / gas efficient. The Subnet could also consist of multiple chains which could offer additional utility for others to either deploy their own chain within the proposed ApeCoin subnet or allow other DAPPs to build ontop of the chain within the ApeCoin subnet to add further integrations / utility.

Running a validator on a subnet also has a requirement to validate the primary network and stake 2000 AVAX, any new validators (not currently validating the Avalanche primary network) would need to acquire the minimum AVAX (whilst earning a yield + delegations in AVAX) + rewards in APE, or you could optionally choose to just incentivise existing Avalanche validators (of which there are around 1500) to also validate your subnet without the need to purchase any additional AVAX.

In return you will have a highly performant chain with low gas fees that is easy to deploy and with access to multiple incentives / assistance with the deployment to make the platform a huge success. It will provide additional utility for APE - gas fees can be paid in APE, utilise Proof of Stake with APE to secure the subnet (There have been far more hacks due to smart contract bugs than attacks on permissionless Proof of Stake networks). It will enable other projects to launch and integrate on the chain, increasing demand for APE and providing an optimal experience for users with fast finality / response times, low fees and build on a reliable performant platform.

Yes Avalanche subnets are still relatively early, but the ones that have launched recently have a great track record experiencing high load without outages (unlike those frequently seen from other L1s) whilst being relatively easy to deploy and will functionality / features are being continuously rolled out at a rapid pace.

6 Likes
  1. They only have 5 validators because they have to buy and stake 2000 AVAX per validator (if i am not wrong). Imagine having to buy 5000 validators.

The 2000 limit is somewhat arbitrary. It is required right now, but it will likely come down a lot. Eventually it will likely be configurable via onchain governance. And this DAO would be gifted a ton of $AVAX from Ava Labs to bootstrap the validators anyway.

  1. What is the point of fast finality if you have 5 validators to secure the chain? For ex. tendermint (cosmos zones) offers instant finality with 150 validators and your own token (no need for avax).

Tendermint consensus used in Cosmos reaches finality within about 6 seconds. Regarding the validator count, it can easily go to the thousands cheaply with a configuration change on the mainnet.

  1. I did read the Intel-SGX-based bridge resources. You have a bridge with 4 validators that can freeze the funds. Is this statement wrong?

Yes, your statement is 100% wrong. Read about it more closely, I guess

The first line of this proposal should have made the reviewing moderator shut this down immediately - again I am left SMH SMH SMH

How are proposals for ‘apecoin DAO launch of the otherside…’ lol, even getting to this stage - blind leading the blind here!!!

3 Likes

maybe the MOD who reviewed this and the author should read this and understand what we are trying to do:

1 Like

Thank you to all for replying/providing useful information.

Now the forum participants are aware that:

  • You need avax to run a subnet. Today, 1 validator = 2000 avax. It can change at a later stage.
  • Today, the most used subnet uses 5 validators. It is safe to assume this is due to cost of validators.

Now let’s talk bridge. From the Avalanche bridge website (in FAQ):
The SGX application requires 3 of 4 Wardens to submit the same transaction before generating the signed transaction to process the Bridge transfer on the other network.

So, tell me what happens if 2 of 4 Wardens do not submit the transaction?
If anyone wonders, the 4 Wardens are 4 whitelisted validators.

2 Likes

Here is the bridge diagram:

2 Likes

Extremely strong no from me. Ethereum is the only major functioning and proven non-vc funded ands sufficiently decentralized Blockchain. The ONLY one.

Apecoin on another chain makes the value go to zero.

Better question should be is why are all these pushes happening so hard right before the merge and the real L2 launches?

:thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking::thinking:

6 Likes

If the wardens do not submit transactions, the bridge is halts. That has never happened on this bridge afaik. SGX is a really interesting and powerful tool for this type of bridge. And the Wardens are incentivized to process.

Besides, there would probably be a claim window (and incentives) to convert your Ethereum $APE to the native coin. You’ll get paid $AVAX and $APE to convert.

They won’t want to leave an indefinite window with any bridge. After the claim window, the old $APE on Ethereum will still be bridgeable at will via your bridge of choice

And as vitalik said - the future may be multi chain but it’s probably NOT cross chain. Bridges don’t work. Ape locked in an avax/eth bridge is a hack disaster waiting to happen.

5 Likes

Ok, so we shifted from validator cannot freeze the funds to validators can halt the bridge.
Look, no system is perfect, and we are early days, but the dishonesty will never help.
All things aside, thank you for the constructive replies.

1 Like