Pular para o conteúdo
Polkadot Ecosystem
Notícias

Notícias

JAM Toaster for Testing the Future of Blockchain

LV
LV
DOT Lover

Blockchain technology continues to evolve at an unprecedented pace, with scalability and flexibility being two of the most critical factors driving innovation. Among the latest advancements is the development of the JAM chain, a groundbreaking initiative aimed at revolutionizing how blockchains operate. Central to JAM’s development is the JAM Toaster, a large-scale testing platform designed to assess and optimize the performance of this innovative blockchain framework. This article delves into the significance of the JAM Toaster, its role in the testing process, and the insights it provides into the future capabilities of the JAM chain.

Understanding JAM: A New Paradigm in Blockchain Technology

JAM, short for “Join Accumulate Machine“, represents a novel approach to blockchain architecture. Developed as a research and development project initiated by Gavin Wood and Parity Technologies, JAM is designed to address some of the most pressing challenges in the blockchain space, particularly in terms of scalability and flexibility. JAM shifts the paradigm from traditional blockchains by introducing a distributed computing model that can handle complex tasks with greater efficiency.

The JAM Chain: A Shift from Traditional Blockchains

Unlike traditional blockchains that rely on fixed protocols and consensus mechanisms, JAM is built as a distributed computer. This means it can run almost any task that can be expressed as a service, making it highly versatile and adaptable. The JAM chain itself has minimal functionality, with all logic, such as governance, staking, and transaction processing, being handled by services running on top of the chain. This approach allows JAM to provide synchronous composability across heterogeneous services, enabling new forms of interoperability that were previously unattainable.

The Need for Large-Scale Testing

Given the innovative nature of JAM, rigorous testing is essential to ensure its reliability and performance at scale. Small-scale test networks, while useful, are insufficient for understanding the emergent effects and dynamics of operating a network as complex and expansive as JAM. This is where the JAM Toaster comes into play.

The JAM Toaster: A Platform for Comprehensive Testing

The JAM Toaster is a purpose-built testing platform designed to simulate large-scale network conditions and evaluate JAM’s performance under real-world scenarios. Unlike traditional test networks that operate with a limited number of nodes and often run on unreliable hardware, the JAM Toaster is equipped to handle the full scale of the JAM network, comprising over 1,000 nodes.

Objectives of the JAM Toaster

The primary objective of the JAM Toaster is to conduct extensive performance assessments and identify potential bottlenecks or issues that could arise during large-scale deployment. By simulating the full scale of the JAM network, the Toaster allows developers to gain valuable insights into how JAM will perform under various conditions, including high transaction volumes, complex service interactions, and network latency.

Key Components of the JAM Toaster

The JAM Toaster is composed of several key components that work together to create a realistic testing environment:

  1. Node Simulation: The platform simulates over 1,000 validator nodes, each replicating the behavior of a real node in the JAM network. This large-scale simulation is crucial for understanding the network’s performance dynamics.
  2. Service Interactions: The JAM Toaster tests the interactions between different services running on the JAM chain. This includes assessing the performance of critical functions like Refine, Accumulate, and onTransfer, which are central to JAM’s operation.
  3. Network Latency and Throughput: The platform evaluates how JAM handles network latency and throughput, ensuring that the chain can maintain high performance even under adverse conditions.
  4. Security and Reliability: The JAM Toaster also tests the security and reliability of the network, identifying potential vulnerabilities and ensuring that JAM can withstand various attack vectors.

Insights from Large-Scale Testing

The data and insights gathered from the JAM Toaster are invaluable for developers and stakeholders. Here are some of the key findings from the large-scale testing:

JAM Performance at Scale

One of the most significant insights from the JAM Toaster is how the JAM chain performs under large-scale conditions. The testing revealed that JAM could handle a substantial number of transactions and service interactions simultaneously without significant degradation in performance. This finding is crucial for validating JAM’s potential as a scalable solution for future blockchain applications.

JAM Flexibility and Composability

The testing also highlighted JAM’s flexibility and composability. By allowing services to run independently on the chain, JAM enables developers to create highly modular and adaptable applications. This composability is further enhanced by JAM’s ability to synchronize services across the network, ensuring seamless interoperability.

JAM Security Considerations

Security remains a top priority for any blockchain network, and the JAM Toaster plays a critical role in identifying potential vulnerabilities. The testing platform has been instrumental in stress-testing JAM’s security mechanisms, including its consensus model and service entry points. The findings have led to several optimizations, ensuring that JAM remains secure and resilient against various threats.

Potential for Future Development of JAM

The insights from the JAM Toaster have also informed the future development of JAM. By identifying areas for improvement, developers can refine the architecture and enhance the chain’s performance. This iterative process is essential for ensuring that JAM continues to evolve and meet the demands of an ever-changing blockchain landscape.

The Future of JAM: Beyond Testing

With the successful testing conducted by the JAM Toaster, the next step is to prepare for JAM’s deployment and integration into the broader blockchain ecosystem. The insights gained from the testing phase will guide the final adjustments to the JAM chain, ensuring it is ready for real-world applications.

JAM’s Impact on the Polkadot Ecosystem

JAM is poised to have a significant impact on the Polkadot ecosystem, potentially serving as a successor to the current Relay Chain. By offering a more flexible and scalable environment, JAM could enable the development of more sophisticated and efficient blockchain applications, further solidifying Polkadot’s position as a leading blockchain platform.

Integration with Existing Technologies

JAM’s design allows for seamless integration with existing blockchain technologies, including those within the Polkadot ecosystem. This compatibility ensures that developers can transition to JAM without needing to overhaul their existing infrastructure, making it an attractive option for both new and established projects.

Conclusion

The JAM Toaster provides the necessary platform for large-scale testing and performance evaluation of JAM Chain. The insights gained from this testing phase have been instrumental in refining JAM’s architecture and preparing it for future deployment. As JAM continues to evolve, it promises to bring unprecedented scalability and flexibility to the blockchain space, paving the way for a new generation of decentralized applications.

The successful implementation of JAM could revolutionize how blockchains operate, offering a more efficient and adaptable solution for developers and users alike. As the blockchain landscape continues to grow, innovations like JAM will play a crucial role in shaping the future of decentralized technology.

The Polkadot-Kusama Bridge is Now Live!

LV
LV
DOT Lover

On April 8, Adrian Catangiu announced in the Polkadot forum that the bridge between Polkadot and Kusama is now operational and shared a demonstration of its use.

The Polkadot and Kusama networks have achieved a significant milestone with the launch of a live bridge, connecting the Polkadot Bridge Hub and Kusama Bridge Hub through a transport protocol. This innovative bridge employs GRANDPA light-clients for both networks, facilitating real-time synchronization currently being synced live by a Parity-run permissionless relayer. This system ensures trustless messaging and chain progress tracking between Polkadot and Kusama, controlled solely by their respective governance structures.

The bridge supports a robust and decentralized relayer network through its relayer protocol and incentivization mechanism, encouraging community participation. Initially, it features a single “lane” for XCM communication primarily for DOT & KSM transfers, with plans to expand to stablecoins and eventually allow any asset owner to register their asset as a ForeignAsset.

A demo showcasing a KSM transfer from Kusama Asset Hub (KAH) to Polkadot Asset Hub (PAH) highlights the operational capabilities of the bridge, including the manual crafting of XCM transfers. Following the transfer, the KSM is recognized as a foreign asset in the recipient’s PAH account, marking a successful cross-chain asset transfer.

Future developments aim to integrate wallet support for PAH <> KAH transfers, reduce bridge transfer fees, and implement a permissioned way for parachains to open lanes directly, bypassing governance procedures. These enhancements are designed to improve the user experience and facilitate easier asset transfers across the Polkadot and Kusama networks.

Polkadot-Kusama Bridge Key Points

  • Launch of the Polkadot-Kusama Bridge: A live bridge has been established, linking the Polkadot Bridge Hub with the Kusama Bridge Hub via a transport protocol. This bridge employs GRANDPA light-clients for both networks, enabling real-time synchronization managed by a Parity-run permissionless relayer.
  • Decentralized Relayer Network: The bridge’s relayer protocol and incentivization mechanism are designed to promote a decentralized and robust network of relayers, encouraging community participation.
  • XCM Communication Lane: Initially, the bridge features a single “lane” for Cross-Consensus Message Format (XCM) communication, primarily supporting DOT & KSM transfers. There are plans to expand this functionality to include stablecoins and eventually, to allow any asset owner to register their asset as a ForeignAsset.
  • Demo and Operational Capabilities: A demonstration of a KSM transfer from the Kusama Asset Hub to the Polkadot Asset Hub showcased the bridge’s operational capabilities, including the manual crafting of XCM transfers.

Development Progress

  • Incentivization and Community Participation: The bridge’s design and incentivization strategy underscore a commitment to fostering a community-driven ecosystem, where users are encouraged to participate actively, including running their own relayers.
  • Asset Transfer and Expansion Plans: The bridge’s initial focus on facilitating DOT & KSM transfers serves as a foundational step towards broader interoperability goals. Future plans include extending support to a wider range of assets and enhancing the bridge’s utility for the Polkadot and Kusama ecosystems.
  • User Experience and Future Developments: Efforts are underway to integrate wallet support for easier asset transfers, reduce bridge transfer fees, and implement a permissioned way for parachains to directly open communication lanes, further simplifying the cross-chain interaction process.

Conclusion

The Polkadot-Kusama bridge represents a pioneering step towards achieving seamless interoperability between distinct blockchain networks. By leveraging the GRANDPA light-client protocol and fostering a decentralized network of relayers, this bridge not only enhances the functionality and efficiency of cross-chain transfers but also aligns with the broader vision of a fully interconnected blockchain ecosystem. The bridge’s ongoing development and planned enhancements suggest a forward-looking approach to addressing the challenges of blockchain interoperability, with a strong emphasis on community involvement and user experience.

Resources

You can read more on the official Polkadot <> Kusama bridge thread on the Polkadot forum.

Theories of DAOs Treasury Management (Polkadot Treasury)

LV
LV
DOT Lover

Treasury management within decentralized ecosystems like Polkadot is a complex and multifaceted discipline, shaped by various theories, stakeholder interests, and governance mechanisms. As decentralized finance (DeFi) continues to evolve, the strategies for managing treasury assets are becoming increasingly important to ensure sustainable growth, innovation, and resilience of the network. This article, entirely based on this Polkadot forum post by Alice und Bob, explores the competing theories of treasury management, the values of different stakeholder groups, and the approaches that define the management and deployment of treasury resources in decentralized systems.

What is a Theory of Treasury Management?

At its core, a theory of treasury management is a framework that combines personal values, opinions, and ideologies to guide how individuals and groups interact with each other to influence the allocation and utilization of treasury assets. The primary goal of these theories is to direct behavior toward achieving outcomes that align with the values and interests of various stakeholders within the ecosystem.

However, defining what constitutes a “positive outcome” is subjective and varies depending on the stakeholder’s perspective. This diversity of views gives rise to different theories and approaches to treasury management, each with its own set of priorities and strategies.

Polkadot Stakeholder Groups and Their Values

In the Polkadot ecosystem, the treasury is not a monolithic entity with a single, universally accepted goal. Instead, it serves multiple purposes, each of which may be prioritized differently by various stakeholder groups. These stakeholders include:

  • DOT Holders: Focused on the appreciation and stability of the native token, they may prefer conservative spending to maintain or increase the token’s value.
  • Stakers: Interested in rewards and returns, they might support strategies that enhance staking mechanisms and incentivize participation.
  • Protocols and Parachains: Developers and operators of protocols or parachains may advocate for treasury spending on infrastructure, development grants, or liquidity incentives.
  • Investors: Typically prioritize returns on investment and may favor strategies that support growth and innovation within the ecosystem.
  • Users: End users of the network who might value enhancements in user experience, security, and functionality.
  • Network Service Providers: Entities providing essential services such as validators and oracles, who may seek funding to ensure the continued operation and reliability of the network.
  • OpenGov Workers: Participants in the governance process who focus on transparency, accountability, and the long-term sustainability of the network.

The challenge for treasury management lies in balancing these often conflicting interests and making strategic decisions that reflect the ecosystem’s collective values. This balancing act requires trade-offs, as not all demands can be met simultaneously. Understanding the underlying values of each stakeholder group is essential for navigating these conflicts and finding resolutions that satisfy the majority.

Four Competing DAO Treasury Management Ideologies

Stakeholder values are not randomly distributed; they tend to cluster around specific ideologies that guide how the treasury should be managed. In the Polkadot ecosystem, four dominant ideologies have emerged, each representing a different approach to treasury management:

  1. Treasury Abolitionism
  • Overview: Treasury Abolitionists advocate for the complete elimination of the treasury. They argue that the treasury is inherently prone to misuse and corruption and that it is impossible to achieve net positive outcomes through its spending. Their solution is to “burn the treasury,” thereby removing the potential for mismanagement and corruption.
  • Key Values: Transparency, corruption prevention, minimal intervention.
  1. Treasury Conservatism
  • Overview: Treasury Conservatives favor a cautious and risk-averse approach to spending. They believe that funds should only be allocated to well-developed, thoroughly vetted proposals with a high likelihood of success. This ideology often emphasizes the preservation of value within the treasury, preferring to spend resources when the native token appreciates or when proposers have proven their reliability.
  • Key Values: Risk management, long-term value preservation, thorough vetting.
  1. Treasury Accelerationism
  • Overview: Treasury Accelerationists advocate for aggressive spending to seize opportunities, even those with uncertain outcomes. They believe that proactive investment in innovative projects and technologies is essential to driving growth and overcoming market downturns. This ideology supports taking calculated risks to achieve significant upside potential, even if it means accepting a higher degree of uncertainty.
  • Key Values: Innovation, growth, risk-taking.
  1. Treasury Hyperinflationism
  • Overview: Hyperinflationism is an extreme form of accelerationism. Proponents argue that the treasury should not be constrained by the fear of depletion, as new tokens can always be minted if needed. This ideology challenges the notion of scarcity and promotes the idea that aggressive spending can be sustained indefinitely through the creation of additional tokens.
  • Key Values: Abundance, continuous spending, disregard for scarcity.

These ideologies represent a spectrum of approaches, ranging from the complete abolition of the treasury to the continuous expansion of spending through token inflation. Each ideology has its own set of proponents and critics, and the tension between these competing perspectives shapes the ongoing debates within the ecosystem.

The Boundaries and Role of the Polkadot Treasury

One of the most critical questions in treasury management is defining the boundaries and role of the treasury. In decentralized ecosystems like Polkadot, the scope of the treasury is not fixed and has been evolving over time. Initially, the treasury primarily focused on funding research, development, and operational aspects of the network. However, as the ecosystem has grown, the scope of treasury proposals has expanded to include a wide range of activities, such as:

  • Ecosystem Development: Funding individual protocols, providing development subsidies, and fostering collaboration between different projects.
  • Market Operations: Engaging in market activities, such as providing liquidity and offering liquidity incentives.
  • Legal and Regulatory Support: Setting up legal structures, such as foundations, to represent the ecosystem in various jurisdictions.
  • Investments: Considering proposals for token swaps, diversification into other on-chain assets, and potentially real-world assets (RWAs).

As the scope of the treasury expands, so does its influence within the ecosystem. OpenGov, the governance mechanism overseeing treasury proposals, plays a crucial role in defining the treasury’s boundaries. However, these boundaries are not static; they are continually shaped and redefined by each new proposal that passes through the governance process.

The absence of external limitations on OpenGov suggests that the treasury’s scope could continue to grow until it encounters significant legal or business challenges. Until then, the treasury’s role will likely remain fluid, adapting to the changing needs and priorities of the ecosystem.

Bottom-Up vs. Top-Down Approaches

Another key debate in treasury management revolves around the balance between bottom-up and top-down approaches. These approaches reflect different philosophies about how the network should be organized and how decisions should be made.

  • Bottom-Up Approach:
    • Definition: The bottom-up approach emphasizes the role of individual actors in shaping the network through their actions and decisions. It is rooted in the idea that decentralized networks are inherently emergent, with no central authority dictating outcomes. This approach values resilience and diversity, accepting inefficiencies as the price for greater adaptability.
    • Arguments for: Proponents of the bottom-up approach argue that it leads to more organic and resilient systems. They believe that the ideal network configuration cannot be planned or imposed but must emerge through competition and innovation. In a truly decentralized network, bottom-up processes are seen as the default mode of operation.
  • Top-Down Approach:
    • Definition: The top-down approach focuses on planning and implementing holistic strategies to maximize value and minimize inefficiencies. It involves defining the major components of the system and prescribing how they should interact to achieve desired outcomes. This approach values efficiency, coordination, and strategic alignment.
    • Arguments for: Advocates of the top-down approach argue that it can deliver faster results with fewer inefficiencies. They believe that a well-planned, coordinated strategy can minimize friction and structural debt, leading to more effective use of resources and better overall outcomes.

The choice between bottom-up and top-down approaches is not necessarily binary; many believe that a combination of both can yield the best results. For example, a bottom-up approach may be more effective for fostering innovation, while a top-down approach could be better suited for scaling successful initiatives.

Reactive vs. Proactive Treasury Management

Closely related to the bottom-up vs. top-down debate is the distinction between reactive and proactive treasury management. These approaches reflect different attitudes toward how treasury activities should be conducted.

  • Reactive Treasury Management:
    • Definition: Reactive treasury management involves passively waiting for proposals to come in and then deciding whether to approve or reject them. This approach is characterized by a hands-off attitude, with stakeholders responding to the system’s needs as they arise.
    • Implications: While reactive management allows for flexibility and responsiveness, it can also lead to inefficiencies and missed opportunities. Without proactive planning, the treasury may struggle to address long-term strategic goals.
  • Proactive Treasury Management:
    • Definition: Proactive treasury management involves actively participating in the planning and organization of future proposals. This approach is characterized by intentional efforts to shape the direction of the network and ensure that treasury resources are used strategically to achieve desired outcomes.
    • Implications: Proactive management can lead to more coordinated and effective use of treasury assets, aligning spending with long-term goals. However, it requires more involvement and effort from stakeholders, which may not always be feasible in a decentralized environment.

In practice, most stakeholders in the Polkadot ecosystem tend to adopt a reactive approach, waiting for proposals to emerge before taking action. However, proactive ecosystem agents who actively shape the network’s development play a crucial role in driving strategic initiatives and ensuring that the treasury is used effectively.

Conclusion

Theories of treasury management within decentralized ecosystems like Polkadot are shaped by a complex interplay of ideologies, stakeholder values, and governance mechanisms. As the ecosystem continues to evolve, the debates around how to manage and deploy treasury resources will remain a central issue, influencing the network’s growth, resilience, and long-term sustainability.

Snowbridge Bridging Polkadot and Ethereum

LV
LV
DOT Lover

During a recent Twitter Space, Aidan Musnitzky from Snowfork and Birdo from Parity Technologies discussed the intricacies of Snowbridge. This innovative project aims to facilitate a seamless and trustless bridge between the Polkadot and Ethereum blockchains. Unlike traditional bridges that rely on third-party trust or multi-signature schemes, Snowbridge leverages the inherent security mechanisms of both blockchains.

Key Features and Benefits of Snowbridge

  1. Trustless Architecture:
  • Snowbridge eliminates the need for additional trust layers by relying solely on the security mechanisms of Polkadot and Ethereum. This ensures that the assets and transactions remain as secure as possible.
  1. Compatibility and Flexibility:
  • Initially, Snowbridge supports ERC-20 tokens, including wrapped ETH, with plans to expand support to other asset types such as NFTs (ERC-721) and other Polkadot-native assets. This flexibility ensures wide usability across various blockchain applications.
  1. Seamless Integration:
  • Snowbridge’s design allows easy integration with existing wallets and decentralized applications (dApps). The team is working with wallets like SubWallet and Talisman to ensure smooth user experiences.
  1. Efficiency and Cost-Effectiveness:
  • While bridging from Ethereum to Polkadot incurs a nominal fee (around $10), the reverse process can be more expensive due to Ethereum’s higher gas fees, ranging from $50 to $150. The team is exploring atomic swaps to mitigate these costs and enhance transaction speeds.

Snowbridge Roadmap Ahead

Snowbridge was already launched!:

  • Snowbridge is already operative and with a user-friendly interface for easy asset transfers. Initially focused on Polkadot, there are discussions about extending the functionality to Kusama and potentially other ecosystems in the future.

Integration with DeFi and dApps:

  • Collaborations with major Polkadot parachains like Moonbeam, Hydration (former HydraDX), and others are underway to integrate Snowbridge’s functionality, boosting liquidity and utility within the ecosystem.

Atomic Swaps:

  • The team plans to implement atomic swaps, allowing users to exchange assets across the bridge instantly and cost-effectively, further enhancing the user experience and reducing dependency on the slower bridge mechanism.

Community and Ecosystem Growth:

  • Snowbridge aims to foster a robust community by engaging with developers and users, providing comprehensive support and continuously iterating based on feedback. Incentive programs and partnerships will play a crucial role in expanding the bridge’s adoption.

Conclusion

Snowbridge is poised to revolutionize how assets move between Polkadot and Ethereum. By maintaining a trustless architecture and focusing on seamless integration and user experience, Snowbridge addresses the critical need for secure, efficient, and versatile blockchain interoperability. As it gears up for its official launch, the blockchain community eagerly anticipates the new opportunities and enhanced liquidity Snowbridge will bring.

Unifying Polkadot Address Formats (Fragmentation Solution)

LV
LV
DOT Lover

JUsing the same prefix across all Substrate-based chains would extend the original proposal’s scope from unifying addresses within the Polkadot ecosystem to standardizing them across the entire Substrate ecosystem. This approach can be seen as a new option rather than just a variation of the original proposal.

Impact on Original Proposal Options:

  1. Expansion of Scope:
  • Original Proposal: Focuses on unifying address formats for compatible Polkadot parachains by using prefix 0 (usually starting with ‘1’) and suggests using prefix 42 (usually starting with ‘5’) for standalone Substrate chains.
  • Extended Proposal: Advocates for all Substrate-based chains, including independent ones like Aleph Zero and The Root Network, to adopt the same SS58 prefix (e.g., prefix 0).
  1. Standardization Across Chains:
  • By using the same prefix, all Substrate-based chains would display addresses in an identical format. This eliminates the need for different prefixes and reduces fragmentation not just within Polkadot but across all Substrate networks.
  1. User Experience Enhancement:
  • A single address format simplifies the user experience significantly. Users would no longer need to manage different address formats when interacting with different Substrate-based chains, reducing confusion and the risk of errors.

Is It a New Option or a Variation?

  • New Option: This approach represents a new option because it proposes a broader standardization beyond the original proposal’s intent. While the original proposal aims to unify addresses within the Polkadot ecosystem, this new option seeks to apply that unification to all Substrate-based chains, regardless of their connection to Polkadot or Kusama.
  1. Chains Sharing the Same Prefix:
  • Networks like Aleph Zero and The Root Network would indeed use the same SS58 prefix as Polkadot if they choose to adopt this standard. This means their addresses would look similar in format, starting with the same characters.
  1. Chain Identity:
  • While unifying the address format enhances user experience, it may dilute the distinct identity of individual chains. Each chain currently uses a unique prefix partly to establish its own identity within the ecosystem.
  1. Technical Considerations:
  • Runtime Updates: Chains would need to update the System.SS58Prefix constant in their runtimes to match the unified prefix. This change affects how addresses are encoded and displayed.
  • Client Libraries and APIs: Tools like the Polkadot API (PAPI) and wallets would need adjustments to handle the new standard without causing issues like mismatched root hashes in Merkleized metadata (RFC-0078).
  • Extrinsic Validity: Care must be taken to ensure that changes do not lead to invalid transactions due to discrepancies in expected address formats.
  1. Coordination Among Chains:
  • Achieving this level of standardization would require consensus and collaboration across all Substrate-based chains. Each chain would need to agree to adopt the unified prefix and coordinate the transition to prevent user disruption.

Conclusion

Adopting the same prefix across all Substrate-based chains is a more ambitious proposal that builds upon the original idea of unifying Polkadot’s address format. It aims to simplify the ecosystem further by eliminating address format fragmentation entirely. However, it introduces new challenges in terms of chain identity, technical implementation, and the need for widespread coordination. This makes it a new option that extends the original proposal’s goals to a larger context.

  • You can continue reading this topic started by Jakub Panik on the Polkadot forum.

Useful links

  • Polkadot Communities

    Join one of the different communities in the Polkadot ecosystem and start your journey.

    Polkadot Communities

  • Help build this Portal

    Help us build this portal by contributing to the codebase or by suggesting improvements.

    Github Repository