Main navigation

Flare CEO Names Main Disadvantages of Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake

News
Tue, 09/08/2020 - 19:27
article image
Alex Dovbnya
Hugo Philion, the CEO of Flare Networks, sheds light on the biggest disadvantages of Ethereum 2.0
Flare CEO Names Main Disadvantages of Ethereum’s Proof-of-Stake
Cover image via www.youtube.com
Read U.TODAY on
Google News
Contents

In an interview with prolific XRP evangelist Crypto Eri, Flare Networks CEO and founder Hugo Philion shared his take on the proof-of-stake consensus algorithm that will underpin the Ethereum 2.0 blockchain.   

While Philion claims that PoS is “great,” there are some major issues that he thinks have to be addressed.

Capital inefficiency

The initial purpose of Flare is bringing together the value of ecosystems but they also have a more far-reaching goal of scaling Ethereum.

Philion explains that PoS is “extremely inefficient” in terms of capital usage:

“Essentially, it's basing the safety of the network on the value of the staking token. So, when Ethereum moves to proof of stake, the safety of the network will partly be based on the value of Ethereum. That really caps the use cases that it can reliably be used for without a massive expansion of the value ” 

Moreover, he underscores the risk of nefarious actors taking control of the network, which was recently discussed by Vitalik Buterin

Flare, on the other hand, is not basing the safety of the whole network on the token’s value:

“So, we're just taking a very different direction on how we reach consensus. We feel that that scales both for a number of transactions per second and also for essentially use cases or what you can do with the network.

Related
XRP Flare Fork Organizers Disclose Its Snapshot Date

“Very decentralized” 

Philion says that the immediate value of Flare is to provide a platform for XRP to be used with smart contracts:

“We’ve defined this quite succinctly, I think with the FXRP system and the Flared paper.”    

The Flare network is “very decentralized” since it is controlled by its nodes, not by its token:   

“If there did become a concentration control say all the nodes were for some reason based in some area that can change very quickly and there's no uh there's nothing that can stop that from changing. Whereas, if you have a token that owns a network that token can stop that from changing. So, that's very important.”

article image
About the author

Alex Dovbnya (aka AlexMorris) is a cryptocurrency expert, trader and journalist with extensive experience of covering everything related to the burgeoning industry — from price analysis to Blockchain disruption. Alex authored more than 1,000 stories for U.Today, CryptoComes and other fintech media outlets. He’s particularly interested in regulatory trends around the globe that are shaping the future of digital assets, can be contacted at alex.dovbnya@u.today.