However, you cut it everyone talks about global adoption as if this was the end towards which blockchains are inexorably moving. This is mistaken. It is a global adaptation that we are looking for or so it seems to me, as someone coming to the crypto-domain from the outside. The presumption behind the misnomer is, I would say, that if blockchain technology was globally adopted — all kinds of new and interesting things will follow from its distribution — based as they would be — on one’s own interests, inclinations, individuality, and investments. This, for instance, is the ideal ahead for Ethereum 2.0 as a world computer. We have, however blinders on, preventing access to our own periphery even though what we seek is right in front of our face.
Crypto Briefing has just published an article, which tries to help us reformulate these vision dulling behaviors that I suggest has resulted from our tendencies to insist, implement, and inculcate a chance influence rather than a design implement as governor of best innovation practices while at the same time innovation itself only happens by design seemingly contradicting itself from within by commingling means and ends in ultimately confusing ways. Ethereum 2.0 is one way through this morass. The avalanche protocol based on the snow family of options and operations arrived at the world’s launch pad in 2018 and arguments have been made and positions have been staked that this family’s methodology has evolved significantly from the classical past and the post-modern Satoshi present.
Is this new family of actual tech really a differently classified form of innovation or has the historiography been possibly mangled beyond reality? Is it possible to identify what is novel in the snow family without having to go back and say that any and all distributed ledgers are just one and the same? I think the answer is of course yes. In other words that, no, — they are not the same. I think that indeed we can see why the AVA network is newly poised to not only actualize potentials for Ethereum 2.0 but has already irreversibly moved the space itself. In so many words, that is the take-home lesson from the Crypto Briefing cited above. Go read it. You don’t need to follow me on this.
I am going to use the field of DNA blockchains and their implementations to remake and reexplain my point. There are all kinds of DNA blockchains : Encrypgen, Shivom, Gene Source Code Chain, EDNA, World Gene Chain, GenEOS, DNAtix, Genobank, GenomesIO, NebulaGenomics, Lifecode, Genecoin, Zenome, Luna DNA, Genes Chain, Genesy, MyGenomeBank etc. and they come to approach the creation of their services through different means. Some insist that the design needs to be based on letting the market decide, some attempt to attach the chain to specific output goals into certain and decided research and analytic directions, many just tried to be the first in and hoped that their product would attract more interest than others allowing them to be then the first out. Some use non-fungible tokens, some keep the DNA data separate from the chain in various ways, some don’t incentivize participation digitally but strive to receive continued involvement via standard financial dividends. Yet all of these methods are trying to achieve the same goal (of giving the individual more and often decentralized control over personal data) and yet they are trying to compete from different economic and social structures connected to the technology.
This is where the lesson of the Crypto Briefing article enters the example. It is also why I call for global adaptation rather than global adoption. The technology needs to be able to interact with these varying business plans and implementations rather than being just a means to attain them. Businesses are not only merely about making more money nor in our context are they simply vehicles for smart contracts. Ethereum 2.0 could make this kind of more unifiable and interoperable tech for many of these chains as they attempt to reach a common set of goals, especially since a lot of them are already built out on Ethereum. AVA Labs DNA subnetworks on Athereum could indeed be a testnet for Ethereum 2.0 by uniting some existing DNA blockchains at scale. But it can not unite them all or even most, due to regulatory constraints and geographic restraints.
The Snow family uses metastability to guide development and its dual use of this stabilization process (to be explained further in another post) that flexibly gets one out of and into things and vice versa is what makes it so different than what has come before. It does leave some things to chance but it does so to chance distributions that are understood. In nature, there are chance distributions that are not known, and it becomes the work of the scientist to discover what they are. With blockchain technology, one knows what these probabilities are — at least as in physics — where one knows the variation within a range of an error. Society, of course, is not like physics as much as some sociologists and psychologists would like us to imagine. The connection of blockchain/distributed ledger tech to humanity writ large can and thus and must be both determinate and stochastic. This is different than random and distributed and that is by design. This is what the Crypto Briefing article refers to by a breakdown of the AVA concept that can “manipulate the AVA blockchain to achieve a wide variety of uses. ”
So instead, in the case of unifying DNA blockchains, one needs a tech that will permit exchange of the services as well as the currency and not necessarily by simply exchanging an asset. It may involve social and economic movements as well. This is why and how AVALabs is working to innovate throughout the entire tech stack. The difference is in their DNA so to say 😊 . With validators and subnetworks made from an AVA network architecture that may interact with a native stable coin, fluctuations in the market may affect only those that seek to be so exposed to it. And one can pick the social and economic level of randomness and determinism to expect on the frontier of its use.
The Snow family as being implemented by AVA Labs seeks to establish this kind of kinematic within blockchain evolutionary change by being fully described and defined and thus encouraging innovation that has already left it’s competitive Darwinian past that nevertheless continues between Classical and Nakamoto styled forms into the present day. AVA is different. It is a platform of platforms. One that can adapt to the needs of governments, states and individuals altogether. It would be great if the whole world just adopted one way of doing something or another — as we are all trying to do with respect to the current pandemic through social distancing — but this is not how the technical mechanics of the use of metastability clinamates ( from Lucretius ) the existing digitization of ledgers.
There is a kinematic that guides the communicability of the parts of the network and it is the margin of this network that gives place to it‘s adaptation towards the consequential dynamic that is the telos of any operation concurrent with it’s tri-fold-mainnet execution. This is how and why many are excited about AVA. Read the Crypto Briefing article and see it from an inside perspective instead.
Read this paper to learn more about the AVA Labs engine, architecture and systematic institution of avalanche and read this one to best understand how utility and facility of the AVA token tolerates and super-fluidically acts at a distance both from within the main chain and without as people and institutions adapt to the innovations flowing from this new protocol as implemented and adopted by the AVA community.
Follow AVA Hub Twitter for daily updates.
Immobilienmakler Heidelberg | Makler Heidelberg