Abstract: Avalanche is positioned as a high-performance, scalable Layer 1 blockchain platform, but it is not a new public chain. Its main network was officially launched on September 21, 2020 and has been developed by Ava Labs. Founded in 2018, Ava Labs is headquartered in New York, USA. Its team is founded by Cornell University professors and their students, focusing on academic research and engineering practices in blockchain technology. Recently, I have been selecting public chains for Dapps such as stablecoins and Defi. Seeing this not-new public chain made me shine, and I decided to study it in depth.
Avalanche adopts a unique avalanche consensus mechanism to support the finality of sub-second transactions, with a theoretical TPS of up to 4500. As of March 2025, the Avalanche ecosystem has developed rapidly, with thousands of validators, hundreds of subnets and Defi projects, and TVL once exceeded 10 billion US dollars. It has attracted important cooperation such as Defi agreements such as Aave and DMV registration in California. Avalanche provides flexibility and customized support through three-chain architectures (X-Chain, P-Chain, C-Chain) and subnet technologies. Shows strong public chain performance and stability and great potential for enterprise-level applications.
Keywords: Blockchain, Public Chain, Avalanche, Avalanche, DAG, Subsecond, Finality, Metastable, Avalanche Effect, BSC, Solana, Sui, Aptos, Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon
This article is estimated at the price of AVAX in March 2025.
Avalanche Innovation Cornerstone: Avalanche Consensus
The word Avalanche itself is the meaning of avalanche. The naming of the entire public chain is closely in line with the consensus mechanism. The avalanche consensus is based on the avalanche effect and is the cornerstone of the innovation of the entire public chain.
The Avalanche Consensus is the core innovation of the Avalanche public chain, combining the advantages of classic consensus (such as Byzantine fault-tolerant BFT) and Nakamoto Consensus. It solves consistency problems in distributed systems through random sampling and metastable decision-making, and is particularly good at dealing with double-spending scenarios. Unlike Bitcoin PoW that relies on computing power competition, Avalanche Consensus uses nodes in the network to reach fast and efficient consensus through multiple random votes.
The core idea of the avalanche consensus: nodes ask other nodes for their opinions through a small amount of random sampling (non-wide broadcasting), adjust their own state based on most opinions, and finally converge to a consistent result in metastable state. This mechanism enables the transaction confirmation time to reach sub-second level (<1 second), far exceeding traditional PoW or PoS.
Metastable state: The states of certain variables in the system may stay between multiple possible states instead of falling steadily into one of them.
Source code analysis
The source code is Go language, and the GitHub repository address of Ava Labs will be posted at the end of the article.
This section uses a simplified version of pseudocode learning and research, and the actual implementation involves more details (such as network delay, malicious node detection, etc.). This pseudocode only displays the core logic in the avalanche consensus: the voting and decision-making process of a single node (refer to the description in the paper "SnowFlake To Avalanche".)
// Define node status
class Node {
preference: Value // The current preference value (such as transaction A or B)
confidence: Integer // Confidence counter (number of times a single node receives the same majority of opinions)
k: Integer // Number of sampling nodes (such as 10)
alpha: Float // Most thresholds (such as 0.8)
beta: Integer // Convergence threshold (such as 20)
}
// Avalanche consensus core logic
function avalancheConsensus(node: Node, tx: Transaction) {
while ( < ) {
// Randomly sample k nodes
sampleNodes = randomSample(network, ) // network is a collection of nodes in the entire network
votes = queryNodes(sampleNodes, tx) // Query the preferences of the sampling node
// Statistics of majority opinions
voteCount = countVotes(votes, )
if(voteCount >= * ) {
// If most agree, update the tendency and increase confidence
if( != ) {
=
= 1
} else {
= + 1
}
} else {
// If the majority is not reached, reset the confidence
= 0
}
}
// Confidence reaches the threshold, confirm the transaction
Return
}
// Helper function: query the sampling node
function queryNodes(nodes: List<Node>, tx: Transaction) {
votes = []
for each n in nodes {
()
}
Return votes
}Random sampling function
randomSample(network, )The function is no longer displayed, and the simulation is randomly selected from the entire network node collectionkThe nodes, usually k are smaller, such as 10-20, which reduces communication overhead and is different from traditional BFT's full-network broadcast.
Most decisions
voteCount >= * Check whether the majority threshold is reached (such as 80%),alphaIt is a tunable parameter to ensure that the system is robust to a few malicious nodes. Prevent malicious nodes from affecting the entire system.
Confidence accumulation
When the nodes are continuously (betaWhen a consensus majority is received, the system confirms the transaction. This metastable design ensures rapid convergence of consensus.
Dynamic adjustment
If the sampling result is current inclinationpreferenceInconsistent, nodes will switch tendencies and recharge confidenceconfidence, reflects the avalanche effect - tends to spread through the Internet and eventually becomes consistent.
Avalanche effect: A small change in a complex system may trigger a chain reaction, leading to large-scale drastic changes in the entire system.
Differences and connections with PoS
PoS (Proof of Stake)
Nodes that rely on pledged tokens reach consensus by taking turns to withdraw blocks or voting, so that the nodes receive block rewards. Otherwise, if the nodes engage in malicious behavior, they will be fined from the pledged tokens. Typical examples are Ethereum 2.0, which has a slower finality. Ethereum takes at least 12 minutes and relies on a synchronous network.
Finality: In a blockchain network, once a transaction is packaged only blocks and confirmed, it becomes a state that cannot be reversed or revoked.
Avalanche improvements
Random sampling and metastable state are introduced based on PoS. Nodes do not need to wait for the entire network to synchronize, and the transaction confirmation time is shortened to sub-second level. Avalanche still needs to pledge AVAX tokens (minimum 2000 AVAX), which is similar to PoS incentive mechanism. Both rely on equity and have token stakes, but Avalanche is more dynamic and efficient.
Sub-second finality
The subsecond finality of the Avalanche Consensus (<1 second) stems from its asynchronous design and high throughput. The Snow family protocol (SnowFlake, SnowBall, Avalanche) quickly converges through multiple rounds of sampling, avoiding the block confirmation delay of PoW. Paper tests show that in a 1000-node network, the confirmation time is usually between 0.5-1 second.
Main network three-chain architecture
X-Chain
The transaction chain is responsible for asset creation and transaction. The Avalanche consensus is based on the DAG structure and is based on the transaction structure, rather than the traditional blockchain structure. The transaction processing is the fastest. The 4500TPS and sub-second level refer to X-Chain, but X-Chain can only support native Bitcoin-like transaction patterns, namely the UTXO model, which supports the fast transfer and asset management of AVAX main coins. It is impossible to use the erc-20 contract token token.
Configuration example
{
"network-id": "mainnet",
"x-chain-config": {
"tx-fee": 1000000, // Each transaction fee, unit nAVAX (1 AVAX = 10^9 nAVAX)
"genesis-file": "./genesis/xchain_genesis.json", // X-Chain Genesis file, including initial asset allocation
"dag-enabled": true // Enable DAG structure to support high parallelism
}
}Source code analysis: transaction verification
X-Chain's transaction verification simplified version pseudocode:
// X-Chain transaction verification logic (pseudo code)
func verifyXChainTx(tx Transaction) bool {
if < minFee { // Check transaction fees
return false
}
inputs :=
outputs :=
if !verifyUTXO(inputs, outputs) { // Verify UTXO validity
return false
}
sampleNodes := randomSample(network, k=10) // Randomly sample 10 nodes
votes := query(sampleNodes, )
return countVotes(votes) >= alpha * k // Most agree (alpha = 0.8)
}X-Chain uses a Bitcoin-like UTXO model combined with random sampling of Avalanche consensus to ensure fast transaction confirmation.
P-Chain
The platform chain is responsible for coordinating the entire network validator, managing the subnet (the creation and registration of the subnet, which is associated with the main gate through P-Chain), and running the Snowman consensus. It is a traditional linear blockchain structure that emphasizes order and security. The validator node needs to pledge at least 2000 AVAX to participate in staking here.
Configuration example
Verifier staking configuration
{
"p-chain-config": {
"staking-enabled": true,
"min-stake": 2000000000000, // Minimum pledge 2000 AVAX (unit nAVAX)
"stake-duration": "336h", // The pledge duration is 14 days by default (lockdown period)
"subnet-id": "primary-network" // Default main network
}
}Source code analysis: node status check
// P-Chain verifier status (pseudo code)
type Validator struct {
NodeID string
Stake int64
EndTime
}
func checkValidatorStatus(v Validator) bool {
if < minStake { // Check the pledge amount
return false
}
if ().After() { // Check whether the pledge expires
return false
}
return snowmanConsesus() // Snowman consensus verification, P-Chain ensures consistent validator status through Snowman consensus (linear structure), manages subnets and network security.
}C-Chain
Contract chain, EVM compatible, supports smart contracts and DeFi, and TPS is between 300-600. Since the Defi project can only adopt this architecture, C-Chain is currently the most active chain with Avalanche. C-Chain carries head DeFi protocols such as Aave and Curve, and supports solidity development, with a cost as low as $0.01-$0.1/transaction.
The separation of three chains decouples asset trading (X), network management (P) and smart contracts (C) to avoid performance bottlenecks in a single chain.
Configuration example
EVM compatibility configuration
"c-chain-config": {
"evm-enabled": true, // Activate EVM
"gas-limit": 8000000, // Gas limit for a single transaction, consistent with Ethereum
"rpc-endpoint": "http://localhost:9650/ext/bc/C/rpc", // C-Chain RPC
"fee-per-gas": 25000000 // Cost per Gas, 25 nAVAX (approximately $0.01, much lower than Ethereum)
}Source code analysis: Simple token contract
// Example of ERC-20 tokens deployed on C-Chain
pragma solidity ^0.8.0;
contract AvalancheToken {
string public name = "AVAX TOKEN";
uint256 public totalSupply;
mapping(address => uint256) public balanceoOf;
constructor(uint256 _supply) {
totalSupply = _supply;
balanceOf[] = _supply;
}
function transfer(address to, uint256 amount) public returns (bool) {
require(balanceOf[] >= amount, "Insufficial balance");
balanceOf[] -=amount;
balanceOf[to] += amount;
return true;
}
}C-Chain is fully compatible with Solidity, and developers can directly migrate Ethereum contracts such as OpenZeppelin standard, with low fees and high speeds (<1 second confirmation) making it suitable for DeFi applications.
Extended customization tool: subnet technology
Subnet definition and parameters
Subnets are Avalanche's killer feature, allowing developers to create independent blockchain networks, have custom rules and virtual machines (EVM, WASM), and specify that they are maintained by a group of validators (need to be registered on the main network and are part of the large collection of main network verifier nodes). Each subnet can run independently, but it is associated with the main gate through P-Chain, sharing basic security.
Technical parameters
- Minimum pledge requirements:Each verifier will need to pledge at least 2,000 AVAX (approximately $40,000, estimated at the March 2025 AVA price of $20).
- Number of validators:The subnet can customize the number of validators, usually ranging from 5 to 100, depending on security and decentralized requirements.
- Online rate requirements:Verifiers need to maintain an online rate of more than 80%, otherwise they may be removed.
- Transaction fees:Subnets can customize the Gas fee, independent of the mainnet (such as C-Chain's 25 nAVAX/gas).
- Customization:Supports private subnets (permission control) and public subnets, suitable for enterprise (such as California DMV) and DeFi scenarios.
Construction cycle
- Design stage(1-2 weeks): Define the goals of the subnet (such as EVM compatibility or custom VM), consensus mechanisms, and economic models.
- Configuration phase(1-3 weeks): Write subnet configuration files, specify the validator collection and parameters, and carry out debugging.
- Deployment phase(Several days to 1 week): Register the subnet on P-Chain and start the validator node.
The entire cycle is planned to be about 3-6 weeks from the launch, depending on the complexity. The California DMV subnet (2024) took about 2 months, including testing and compliance adjustments.
Associate with the main gate
The subnet verifier must simultaneously verify the main network (Primary Network) and manage its life cycle through P-Chain.
The main network provides basic consensus and decentralized security:Since the subnet verifiers belong to the mainnet verifier collection, if an attacker wants to pass the verifier identity fraud, he needs to break at least 67% of the 1,000+ validators on the entire mainnet (33% fault tolerance in the mainnet).
The main network manages subnet node security through P-Chain:If the subnet finds that the verifier node is mastered by the attacker and initiates malicious transactions to affect the operation of the subnet, the subnet needs to deploy monitoring services in advance. Once discovered, the malicious node can be offline through the main network P-Chain network.
After an attacker grasps more than 2/3 of the subnet nodes (relying on the subnet consensus), it will immediately affect subnet transactions. This situation cannot be handled by the main network.
Regulatory requirements
The permission control and privateness of the subnet make it naturally suitable for regulatory needs. For example:
- Evergreen Subnet:Designed for finance and government, it supports KYC/AML/CTF compliance and is only allowed for authorized verification.
- California DMV case:42 million cars are registered and put on the link, using a private subnet, and data access is controlled by DMV to meet privacy regulations.
Source code analysis
Subnet configuration file
The following is a simplified version of the relevant configuration and source code examples for creating and running subnets.
{
"subnet-id": "2fFZXZ1g1mX5m3v3z4z5z6z7z8z9z", // Subnet unique identifier
"vm-type": "evm", // Use EVM virtual machine
"validators": [ // Define the validator set and its pledge amount
{"node-id": "NodeID-7Xhw2mDxuDS44j42", "stake": 20000000000000},
{"node-id": "NodeID-8Yiw3nDxuDS55k53", "stake": 20000000000000},
],
"genesis": {
"gas-limit": 8000000,
"difficulty": 1
},
"consensus": "snowman" // Subnet consensus mechanism
}Subnet verification logic
// Subnet Verifier Check (pseudo code)
type Subnet struct {
SubnetID string
Validators []Validator
VMType string
}
func startSubnet(subnet Subnet) bool {
for _, v := range {
if < minStake || !isOnline() { // Check whether the pledge volume and online rate meet the standards to ensure the security of the subnet
return false
}
}
// Register subnet to P-Chain
registerSubnet(, ) // Bind the subnet to P-Chain to share the security of the main network
// Initialize the virtual machine
if == "evm" {
return initEVM() // Supports EVM subnets, developers can replace them with other VMs (such as WASM)
}
return snowmanConsensus(subnet) // Start Snowman consensus
}
func isOnline(nodeID string) bool {
uptime := queryUptime(nodeID)
return uptime >= 0.8 // Requires 80% online rate
}Subnet Advantages
- Scalability:Hundreds of subnets operate in parallel, do not interfere with the main network performance, and can theoretically support wireless expansion.
- Customization:Enterprises can create regulatory-compliant private chains, and DeFi projects can optimize fees and rules.
- Strong ecology:The more subnets there are, the larger the scale of validators on the main network, and the development of the main network ecosystem is promoted in reverse through subnet customization and verification scale.
The customization of the subnet and the expansion of the mainnet by subnet verifiers are the operational philosophy that promotes the development of the mainnet ecosystem.
Running history
The Avalanche main network was officially launched on September 21, 2020, with a transaction throughput of about 4500 TPS (specifically referred to as X-Chain), and the transaction confirmation time is less than 1 second, which is significantly better than Bitcoin and Ethereum. As of March 2025, the Avalanche ecosystem has expanded to hundreds of subnets and DeFi projects, and TVL exceeded 10 billion US dollars during the peak of the 2021 bull market. Key milestones include:
- Partner with Deloitte in 2021: Provide blockchain support for federal disaster relief projects in the United States to increase transparency.
- In September 2021, Aave and Curve officially launched Avalanche, contributing significantly to the overall TVL.
- 2024 California DMV project: 42 million cars are registered and digital license plates are used to achieve, and transaction efficiency is shortened from two weeks to a few minutes.
- January 25, 2025 (the latest snapshot of DefiLlama), Avalanche TVL is about US$8.5 billion. Aave dominated the market, with TVL about $3 billion and Curve about $1.5 billion, accounting for 35% and 17% of EcoTVL respectively. Daily active 40,000 to 60,000, and daily trading volume 300,000 to 400,000 transactions. The entire network has more than 2.3 million users.
Currently, Avalanche ranks 5th in the DeFi public chain, behind Ethereum, BSC, Solana, and Arbitrum.
Team background
Avalanche’s development team founded in 2018 and is headquartered in New York, USA, led by a group of blockchain pioneers with deep academic backgrounds. Core members include:
- Emin Gün Sirer: Professor of Computer Science at Cornell University, authoritative in the field of distributed systems, with more than 20 years of academic research experience. He has participated in early Bitcoin development (such as the Karma system) and is known for solving practical problems in distributed systems.
- Kevin Sekniqi and Maofan "Ted" Yin: Both are Sirer students, with deep attainments in the fields of distributed systems and cryptography. Ted Yin is also the co-author of the Tendermint consensus (PBFT optimization algorithm).
- Team size and composition: Ava Labs' core team has about dozens of people, most of which come from the academic community (such as Cornell, MIT) and the technology industry. It has obvious technical orientation and focuses on the combination of theory and practice. Unlike many business-driven or marketing-oriented teams, they are more like a group of “scholar engineers” focusing on technological breakthroughs.
Attitude to do things
A pragmatic style of science and engineering who is academic, focused on doing things and solving problems.
Web3 is noisy, but Avalanche's celebrity reviews and external voices are relatively few in the entire Web3 market, which is a very strange existence. But this does fit the Ava Labs style. Ava Labs rarely relies on large-scale publicity or token speculation, but proves its strength through technology implementation (such as Deloitte cooperation and DMV projects). This style may make it less than Solana in short term sound, but it is more stable in the long term.
Celebrity reviews
- Emin Gün Sirer (founder of Ava Labs): Call the avalanche consensus "a new breakthrough for distributed systems in 45 years", emphasizing its balance between speed and decentralization. “Avalanche will redefine blockchain performance standards,” he said in 2020.
- Bank of America (2022 Report): In a crypto study, Avalanche is regarded as a "strong alternative to Ethereum", praising its high throughput and low fees.
- Vitalik Buterin (founder of Ethereum): Although Avalanche was not directly evaluated, when mentioning sharding and subnets in 2021, it indirectly recognized the potential of similar architectures and called it the "future direction of scalability."
Comparison with general L2 and new public chains
As a high-performance Layer 1 public chain, Avalanche occupies a place in the blockchain field with its innovative avalanche consensus, three-chain architecture and subnet technology. However, in the face of general Layer 2 solutions (such as Optimism, Arbitrum, Polygon) and emerging public chains (such as Sui, Aptos) and mature DPoS public chains (such as BSC, Solana), how competitive is Avalanche? This section will compare and analyze from the dimensions of performance, scalability, decentralization, ecological maturity, development friendliness and cost.
1. Comparison with General Layer 2
The Layer 2 (L2) solution relies on the Ethereum main network to improve transaction speed and reduce fees through technologies such as Rollup. As Layer 1, the fundamental difference between Avalanche and L2 is its nativeity and independence.
- Optimism and Arbitrum:Both are Optimism Rollup solutions on Ethereum, with transaction throughput up to 2000-4000 TPS, and ultimately rely on Ethereum (about 1-7-day challenge period). Avalanche natively supports 4500 TPS, sub-second finality (<1 second), without relying on external chains.
- Polygon：Polygon expands Ethereum through PoS sidechain and zkRollup, with TPS up to 7000, but its sidechain model sacrifices a certain degree of security. Avalanche's subnet technology provides complete customization of independent blockchains, and security is guaranteed by the main network and subnet verifiers.
2. Comparison with the new public chain Sui and Aptos
Sui and Aptos are the Move language public chains that have emerged from 2022 to 2023. They focus on high-performance and parallel processing, with a theoretical TPS of up to 100,000+, but the ecological development is not yet mature.
- performance:With the object model and parallel execution, Sui and Aptos have a TPS far exceeding Avalanche's 4500, but in actual applications, due to ecological applications, the peak performance has not been fully realized. The subsecond finality of Avalanche has been widely verified.
- Ecology:Avalanche has mature DeFi protocols such as Aave and Curve, with TVL about US$8.5 billion (March 2025), while Sui and Aptos' TVL are only about US$500 million and US$300 million respectively, with a clear ecological gap.
3. Comparison with BSC and Solana
Both BSC and Solana use DPoS consensus, with excellent performance but high centralization. They are often considered to be "borrowing" EOS and lack originality.
- BSC：TPS is about 200-300, and it depends on 21 validators, with a fee as low as $0.01, but it is not innovative enough and the ecosystem is highly dependent on Binance.
- Solana：The theoretical TPS reaches 50,000+, but the actual one is about 2,000-3,000. Multiple downtimes exposed reliability problems, and the concentration of validators is high (the first 19 controls exceed 33% of the equity).
Comparison table
| Dimension | Avalanche | Optimism | Arbitrum | Polygon | Sui | Aptos | BSC | Solana |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| type | Layer 1 | Layer 2 (Rollup) | Layer 2 (Rollup) | L2+ side chain | Layer 1 | Layer 1 | Layer 1 | Layer 1 |
| Consensus mechanism | Avalanche Consensus (PoS Improvement) | Relying on Ethereum PoS | Relying on Ethereum PoS | PoS | PoS+ parallel execution | PoS+ parallel execution | DPoS | PoS+PoH |
| TPS | 4500 | 2000-4000 | 4000 | 7000 | 100,000+ (theory) | 100,000+ (theory) | 200-300 | 50,000+ (theory) |
| Finality | <1 second | 1-7 days | 1-7 days | A few seconds | <1 second | <1 second | A few seconds | ~12 seconds |
| cost | $0.01-0.1 | $0.1-0.5 | $0.1-0.5 | $0.001-0.01 | $0.001 | $0.001 | $0.01 | $0.0001-0.01 | ||||
| Decentralization | High (thousands of validators) | (Depend on Ethereum) | (Depend on Ethereum) | Medium (side chain risk) | Medium (early concentration) | Medium (early concentration) | Low (21 validators) | Medium (19 control 33%) |
| Eco TVL | $8.5 billion | $6 billion | $9 billion | $7 billion | $500 million | $300 million | $12 billion | $10 billion |
| Development Friendly | EVM compatibility + subnet | EVM compatible | EVM compatible | EVM compatible | Move Language | Move Language | EVM compatible | Rust/C |
| Innovative | High (Avalanche Consensus + Subnet) | Rollup | Rollup | Medium (Mixed Mode) | High (parallel execution) | High (parallel execution) | Low (DPoS) | Medium (PoH) |
| stability | High (no downtime record) | high | high | high | Medium (early stage) | Medium (early stage) | high | (multiple downtime) |
Selection suggestions for public chains for stablecoins and DeFi projects
In the blockchain ecosystem, the demand for stablecoins and DeFi (decentralized finance) projects is growing, and choosing the right public chain has become a key decision. Stablecoins are divided into compliant centralized stablecoins (such as USDT, USDC) and decentralized stablecoins (such as DAI, LUSD), while DeFi projects need to take into account performance, cost and ecological support. This section will explore the key factors of type selection and make suggestions based on the characteristics of public chains such as Avalanche.
1. Types and characteristics of stablecoin projects
-
Compliance centralized stablecoin:
- represent:USDT (Tether), USDC (Circle release).
- Features:1:1 anchoring the US dollar, with reserves held by centralized entities (such as Tether Limited, Circle) and regulated (such as NYDFS approved USDC). Transparency relies on third-party audits (such as USDC monthly reports).
- Advantages:Widely accepted (USDT market value exceeds US$100 billion, March 2025), integrated into mainstream exchanges and DeFi protocols.
- Disadvantages:Centralized risks (such as insufficient reserves disputes), regulatory pressure may affect operations.
Interlude: Binance announced the removal of 9 stablecoins in the European market, including USDT, because they do not comply with MiCA regulatory regulations.
-
Decentralized stablecoins:
- represent:DAI (MakerDAO Issuance), LUSD (Liquity Protocol).
- Features:Maintain stability through smart contracts and excess collateral (such as ETH), without centralized reserves, and governance is decided by the community DAO.
- Advantages:Anti-censorship, transparent (can be checked on the chain), suitable for DeFi ecosystem (such as DAI is widely used in Aave).
- Disadvantages:The risk of collateral value fluctuations (such as the plunge in ETH price triggers liquidation), complexity increases the difficulty of development.
2. Key factors in selecting public chains
- performance:TPS (throughput), final time, directly affects transaction efficiency.
- cost:Trading Gas is crucial to users and developers at low cost.
- Ecological support:EVM compatibility, richness of tools and protocols.
- Security and decentralization:Number of validators and network stability.
- Cross-chain capabilities:Supports multi-chain interoperability and expands application scenarios.
- Regulatory friendly:Whether compliance requirements (such as KYC/AML) are supported.
3. Selection suggestions
Stablecoin selection: Select Avalanche or Ethereum for compliance and performance; choose Avalanche or Sui for compliance and performance; choose Avalanche or Sui for decentralized stablecoin to pursue innovation and efficiency.
DeFi selection: Avalanche is the first choice for its comprehensive advantages (performance, expenses, subnets), and is especially suitable for projects that require customization.
Future Outlook: As cross-chain bridges (such as Avalanche Bridge) and regulatory frameworks mature, public chain selection will focus more on interoperability and compliance.
Avalanche Summary
- Avalanche's core competitiveness: innovation consensus, high performance, subnet ecosystem.
- Outlook: How can Avalanche stay ahead in the face of competition between L2 and the new public chain?
- Topic Discussion: How do you view the future of Avalanche?
References
- 《Scalable and Probabilistic Leaderless BFT Consensus through Metastability》(Revised version 2019, Team Rocket, Emin Gün Sirer, etc.): The Snow family protocol was proposed for the first time, which describes the mathematical model of random sampling and metastable state in detail. It is proved that when malicious nodes account for <50%, the protocol can still reach consensus with high probability, and the performance will be linearly expanded with the network scale.
- AvalancheGo GitHub repository
- Avalanche official documentation
- Ava Labs official website
- DefiLlama DeFi Professional Data Website
- Snowtrace Avalanche Blockchain Browser
- Solana Beach Solana Network Statistics
- Avalanche Rush Incentive Program
- California DMV registers vehicles on links
- Sui official documentation
- Aptos official documentation
- Solana official documentation
For more articles, please go toA blog park with thousands of people