From the White House to Web3, why OP Rollup scaling is believed to be the best choice? What is the original story of the “DAO fund gate”, and what new narrative does Stylus have? This article interviews Ed Felten, the founder of Arbitrum.
Interview & Writing: Jack, BlockBeats
As a player in the Optimistic Rollup track, Arbitrum was not initially favored. On one side is the “Prince of Scaling” Optimism team created by core members of the Ethereum Foundation, and on the other side is the ZK Rollup track, which Vitalik called the “ultimate solution”. Arbitrum is awkwardly sandwiched in the middle, without a close relationship with the foundation, nor the conditions to “make big promises” to investors. From this perspective, Arbitrum can indeed be regarded as a dark horse in the Ethereum scaling track.
Since last year, although OP has the advantage of “token first”, Arbitrum’s TVL and on-chain activity have surpassed OP in the following period, and have opened up a gap with it after the Odyssey. In February of this year, the ecology of Arbitrum became even more lively with the expectation of airdrops, and popular products such as GMX, Camelot, and Radiant continued to emerge, making Arbitrum the actual “king of L2”. What is even more surprising is that even after the airdrop ended, the development of its ecology did not go out, and even ushered in a new round of meme frenzy for the cryptocurrency market with the appearance of AIDOGE.
- Long push: Inventory of 38 ChatGPT plugins released by OpenAI
- IDO & IEO: An inventory of 7 popular projects soon to be launched
- Evening Reading | Hong Kong virtual asset trading regulation will be implemented, individual traders will receive detailed protection
The sustained growth of the ecology is closely related to the team’s efforts and path choices. From Arbitrum One to Nitro, the team has been constantly looking for and solving potential challenges. Of course, Arbitrum did not take the right step every time. The “DAO fund gate” at the beginning of April had an extremely negative impact on the entire cryptocurrency industry, and some even announced that “DAO governance no longer exists.” In the spotlight and controversy of the industry, Arbitrum has recently launched its own new narrative-Stylus-for scaling.
Where does the team behind Arbitrum come from? How do they view the competition between Optimistic and ZK scaling? What is the original story of the “DAO fund gate” and what new narrative does Stylus have? In response to these questions, BlockBeats interviewed Ed Felten, the founder of Arbitrum.
From the White House to Web3
Like many top Web3 projects, Arbitrum founder Ed Felten comes from academia. However, Ed’s journey to Web3 was quite legendary. In 2003, 40-year-old Ed Felten became a professor of computer science at Princeton University, and two years later, he became the director of the school’s Center for Information Technology Policy (CIPT). From 2006 to 2010, he was elected to the board of directors of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), and was then appointed as the chief technology officer of the US Federal Trade Commission. One day in early 2015, Ed received a call from the White House and was invited to serve as the White House’s deputy chief technology officer.
Working in the White House changed Ed’s definition of many things. During his tenure, he no longer had ample time to study his beloved blockchain technology, but had to spend more time and energy on policy research in areas such as AI education, AI military, and information security. After leaving the White House, Ed became an AI expert, and at a computing research association summit in 2018, he even commented that “blockchain is not as important as AI.” But in the same year, Ed founded Offchain Labs and officially entered the world of blockchain and Web3.
BlockBeats: Can Ed briefly introduce his experience?
Ed: Most of my career has been as an academic, a professor of computer science at Princeton University, and later a professor of public policy at the Woodrow Wilson School. I have worked for the US government three times, and in the last two years of the Obama administration, I was the deputy chief technology officer of the US government, serving as a policy advisor to the president on a variety of technology policy issues. Around 2012, I began doing academic research in the area of cryptocurrency and blockchain, and around 2014, I began doing research on blockchain scalability, which was the initial work that led me to Arbitrum. The initial conception of the idea behind Arbitrum happened in 2014, when I developed the idea of interactive proofs of fraud in a conversation about scalability issues.
But in early 2015, I was hired by the White House as Deputy Chief Technology Officer. So I left my academic position and went to work at the White House for about two years. After the Obama administration left office, I returned to Princeton University and became a professor again. After that, I began to think about what areas of research I should focus on. One day, two PhD students, Harry and Stephen, came to my office and proposed turning my 2014 idea into a viable product. So the three of us formed the core team and founded an “academic version” of Arbitrum.
Ed Felten (second from right), then Deputy Chief Technology Officer at the White House, source: internet
It took us about a year, and in the summer of 2018, we published a peer-reviewed paper on Arbitrum, which was the first publication on Arbitrum. At the time, we realized that we knew how to build something of commercial value that addressed pain points for Ethereum users, namely Ethereum transaction fees and limited throughput, which is actually two sides of the same coin, so we decided to start a company. This was the beginning of Offchain Labs’ journey, and it was three years after the academic paper was published when we released our first product on the mainnet.
BlockBeats: Did you have time to think about blockchain technology issues while working at the White House?
Ed: Yes, I did. My work covered all areas of technology and policy, and the biggest project was probably driving the policy process for artificial intelligence and machine learning. Of course, I also tried to promote discussions about blockchain technology between different government departments, and did some work on blockchain technology, although it was very early days. At that time, the technology had not developed to the point where it was getting a lot of attention from senior government officials, which has changed to a large extent. I think there is much more government attention to blockchain technology now than there was in 2015-2016.
BlockBeats: You are one of the academics who paid early attention to blockchain technology, but you mentioned at an academic summit that blockchain, as a technological innovation, may not be as important as AI. Why did you eventually choose blockchain as your entrepreneurial direction?
Ed: One of the most important reasons is that in my cryptocurrency research work, we found a technology that can be commercialized and can solve a problem that is important to many people, at the same time we know how to build a company that can have an impact. For me personally, my research into artificial intelligence is not like this. In the field of artificial intelligence, I research public policy issues, such as what the government should do, what big institutions should do, and what is best for the public. But in fact, I don’t have the opportunity to start a company in the field because I don’t have the kind of innovation that can drive economic value in that field. Therefore, there is no opportunity for me in the field of artificial intelligence.
In 2018, Ed Felten gave a speech about AI technology at the Computing Research Association summit, the source of the image is from the internet.
Perhaps from a long-term perspective of human history, the AI and machine learning innovations that are happening now may be more important than blockchain innovation. But from my personal point of view, I can find opportunities in the blockchain field and have a commercial impact, but I cannot in the field of artificial intelligence. That is why I choose to do Arbitrum, instead of a “nominal artificial intelligence company”. Perhaps in another universe, I could become an AI entrepreneur, but in this universe, blockchain is my best option.
“Do you remember that idea called Arbitrum?”
Like Ed himself, the idea of Arbitrum also came from campus. In 2014, Ed proposed the concept of interactive fraud proof and began researching blockchain scalability issues in the era when Ethereum was still unknown. In September, a few students recommended by their teacher designed a blockchain project based on Ed’s research. At the final project presentation, three students in sweaters stood with their arms crossed in front of the audience and explained what “Arbitrum” written on the whiteboard was, and Arbitrum was born. Of course, it was four years later when Ed decided to turn Arbitrum into a product and commercialize it.
BlockBeats: Interestingly, you started researching scaling solutions before Ethereum became well known. Why did you choose scaling solutions as a research direction?
Ed: I had worked on some other research topics related to Bitcoin, particularly around the economics and incentives of Bitcoin and consensus issues. But in early 2014, I became interested in the idea of smart contracts, the idea that you could take something that was previously just a tool for owning and transferring tokens and turn it into a platform where people could build new types of services and products on top of it. I realized that this brought together a range of different ideas that I had been interested in throughout my academic work. On the one hand, it was the blockchain and this public, permissionless, trusted system. On the other hand, it was thinking about provable and accountable computation, which came from my work in public policy where I had been trying to understand how you could complete public processes mediated by technology in an open and accountable way.
I realized that smart contracts were the intersection of these things, so in early 2014, I had a lot of exciting ideas about them. While I couldn’t foresee what the Ethereum ecosystem would look like in the future, I had an idea that combining the idea of general computation with the blockchain would bring about explosive innovation. However, as a computer systems researcher, it was apparent to me that scaling would be an issue. Because the obvious way to do smart contracts is to have every node in your blockchain system execute every step of every smart contract, which would be a big performance bottleneck, and that’s why I became interested in scaling smart contracts in early 2014.
At that time, it was not clear whether Ethereum would be the “ultimate blockchain” to support smart contracts, but among the many candidates, Ethereum looked like a leading contender and the best bet. And regardless of which one of them won, they would face scaling issues. So as an academic researcher, my goal was to identify important real-world problems as early as possible and try to develop solutions for them.
BlockBeats: How did the specific idea of Arbitrum come about?
Ed: Actually, the core idea of what we now call “interactive fraud proofs,” which is at the heart of Arbitrum, first occurred to me in February or March of 2014. I was hosting an academic group at Princeton University for a conference on Bitcoin and cryptocurrency technology, and it was during this time that I had the idea for Arbitrum. For most of 2014, I had a chart explaining interactive fraud proofs hanging on the whiteboard in my office at Princeton.
When September came around, my colleague Arvind started teaching a course on blockchain technology and assigned the students to create hands-on projects based on blockchain. A group of students gathered and Arvind introduced them to me. I suggested building an interactive proof-of-fraud prototype, and they built a very early version of Arbitrum, which explored many ideas, though it was not entirely successful. The name Arbitrum was actually coined by a student at the conference for the zero version of Arbitrum, a system that was completely different from the current Arbitrum in some ways.
Arbitrum’s final presentation, source: the internet
Not long after that, I went to work for the White House. Two years later, when I returned to campus, two doctoral students, Harry and Steven, approached me and said, “Hey, do you remember Arbitrum? Let’s turn it into a product!” After that, we started the company and went through several iterations of the technology before finally forming the current product. It was truly a long journey.
BlockBeats: What attracted Harry and Steven to the idea of Arbitrum?
Ed: I think they saw what I saw, which is that scalability of smart contract systems will be an important problem, and Ethereum’s limited scale will become a pain point for users as they grow, that’s the first thing. Second, in our understanding of Arbitrum, the convergence of some ideas can be built into something larger and more valuable. So almost from the first day they came to my office, the three of us had a very consistent understanding, not only of the potential of this technology, but also of the problems we need to solve in order to bridge the gap from an idea to a complete system that solves people’s problems. So I think we had this vision together. It’s because the three of us shared this vision and were willing to put in the time and effort to make it happen that really changed my mind, from a good idea that I hoped would one day become a project to a project that we are now working on together.
Another point I want to make is that when I first returned to academia from the high-pressure world of government work, I wanted to take some time to think. Because the White House experience had changed my worldview and given me perspectives I didn’t have before, I also wanted to take a moment to think about what kind of work I should be doing. When Harry and Stephen walked into my office, an important part of the answer was that we realized we had very similar visions and goals for this project. For me, this seemed like a great opportunity, because the idea of Arbitrum could have been a successful academic project without question, but it could also become a successful commercial project, it just needed some time.
Arbitrum founding members (from left to right): Ed Felten, Steven Goldfeder, Harry Kalodner. Image source: the internet
BlockBeats: What changes have the roles of the three founders undergone, from the beginning of building Arbitrum to the establishment of Offchain Labs?
Ed: In the early days, it was just the three of us, and we made progress by discussing ideas without clear roles defined for each of us. Each of us was just working hard on development, and because we were a small team, everyone was trying to find ways to move things forward. We had a single codebase, and everyone was working on it. We often had meetings together and reviewed progress. Everyone was thinking about every question or making open-ended suggestions, and this situation has almost always been the case.
In 2018, we established the company, and the scale started to grow, so more detailed division of labor and different roles emerged. Now, each of us has a unique role, although we still discuss many things together, and many important decisions are made together. Stephen plays the role of CEO and largely takes care of the company’s public image. He pays attention to everything we do. Harry is the CTO, so he focuses more on making sure we build and provide the technology we need. And I serve as the Chief Scientist on the research side, mainly thinking about what Arbitrum needs to develop to continue making progress. So the problems I think about are more about what difficulties we will encounter six months or a year from now, what we need to prepare and develop, and what the core technical challenges we need to solve are.
BlockBeats: This also leads to the question I’ve been wanting to ask, why did you choose Ethereum as your underlying layer?
Ed: I think there are several reasons. Some were where developers were in the past and present, but ultimately it was the Ethereum community. The openness of Ethereum and the community it built were very valuable to us, so we wanted to go to the Ethereum community. Not only because the value of the community and the value of connecting to it are huge, but also because Ethereum has successfully built the kind of community we want to build around Arbitrum. So, it seemed like the right choice to build on top of it. Arbitrum is a second-layer technology that requires a first layer. We decided early on that we wanted to use Ethereum as our first layer. For the reasons I described, I think this has proven to be a very wise decision. We are still very happy to be exclusive to Ethereum.
Ethereum Foundation, OP, and zkEVM
As mentioned at the beginning of the article, Arbitrum, which has chosen the Optimistic technology path, is actually in a relatively awkward situation, on the one hand, it has to face the competition pressure from the OP team, on the other hand, it has to confront the questioning of the ZK narrative path. But the team’s choice of Optimistic seems particularly firm, at the beginning of Offchain, and in 2023 when the ZK track collectively exerted its force. Where does Ed’s confidence in Optimistic Rollup come from? And how does he view the upcoming ZK track?
BlockBeats: Offchain Labs was officially established in 2018, at a time when Ethereum’s “expansion prince” Optimism team had already appeared and seemed to have a closer relationship with the Ethereum Foundation. How did Arbitrum view the competition between itself and the Optimism team during this period?
Ed: I think in the early days, many people in the Ethereum field assumed that Optimism would win the competition in the Layer2 space, even if not assumed, at least they would think that they were a dark horse in this field. But we believe that we have the technology and team to effectively solve the scaling problem, so I have believed in what we are doing in Arbitrum from the beginning and believe that it will bring great value. From what we see now, I think this has been proven.
Personally, I think it is unhealthy for Ethereum to have only a single Layer2. Having diverse Layer2s is valuable for Ethereum. In my view, the Ethereum Foundation also sees it this way and is working hard to push the Ethereum ecosystem in this direction. This is one of the things I love and appreciate about Ethereum. The foundation and the community determine the direction of Ethereum through an open and cooperative process, which reminds me of the early development of the Internet, which has a healthy, open, collaborative, and technology-based process to do things, such as the Internet Engineering Task Force. I think they have done a great job in openness, listening, and absorbing many viewpoints from people with different technical approaches, different countries, different companies, and different types of interests and views. In any case, I value this very much, and I am really grateful and appreciate the efforts of the Ethereum community and leadership to push this process forward.
BlockBeats: During the development process of Arbitrum, what support has the Ethereum Foundation provided to Arbitrum?
Ed: I think the Foundation and Vitalik have always been open to communication, and when we advocate for something, they give us a fair ‘hearing.’ In terms of financial support, the Foundation has been trying to remain neutral and not provide financial support to different Layer2 teams. But as an honest intermediary, they have negotiated with us, talked with us, worked with us, and tried to push things forward, and I think they have done a good job.
Arbitrum has a good relationship with the Ethereum Foundation and their leadership, and this has developed over time. Overall, I think the Ethereum Foundation has done a good job in building a strong Layer2 ecosystem. We certainly value the Ethereum Foundation and what they do, and we see ourselves as part of the Ethereum community, and when Ethereum succeeds, we will succeed.
Offchain Labs and the wider Arbitrum community have been working hard to be a ‘good citizen’ of the Ethereum community. We brought in the leading client team Prism, who help Ethereum establish consensus, partly to contribute to and help the Ethereum ecosystem, but also because we believe it is valuable to understand what is happening at the Ethereum level and to be part of the discussions and conversations happening here.
BlockBeats: Do you still think Optimistic Rollup is the more ideal technical path in the Layer2 field?
Ed: Of course, I still think that Optimistic Rollup is the best choice, and if the Arbitrum team were to start over from now on, I would still choose this technical path. Optimistic Rollup actually has many advantages over other alternatives, such as ZK Rollup, the biggest advantage being its simplicity and lower cost. Optimistic Rollup was launched on the mainnet much earlier than ZK Rollup, and this is not a coincidence, because Optimistic Rollup is simpler and more flexible, and we can innovate in other more important areas and bring more value to users.
A particularly good example is data compression. The biggest cost of Rollup is calling data on the Ethereum mainnet, so it is very important to compress data as effectively as possible to reduce costs. In the optimistic fraud proof system, we can choose almost any compression method we want, which means we can achieve better compression at a lower cost. If we switch the optimistic fraud-proof system in Arbitrum to a zero-knowledge fraud-proof system today, users won’t notice any difference except for a slightly higher fee.
BlockBeats: You said in an interview that zero-knowledge fraud proof is the “solution of the future” and will always be. Do you still hold this view?
Ed: I think what I said was right, but I want to be cautious about this issue. What I meant at the time was the idea of using the EVM solution with zero-knowledge fraud proof as the only fraud proof mechanism. Zero-knowledge proof as a component of the entire protocol is indeed very valuable, such as the new data availability system, EIP-4844, that Ethereum is pushing forward. This data availability system relies on KZG commitment, which includes a proof system of zero-knowledge type. So I think it makes sense to use zero-knowledge proof as a tool and use it locally in the protocol, but the idea of using zero-knowledge proof for the entire Rollup protocol from start to finish does not have too much advantage in practice, and it does increase costs.
BlockBeats: But this year, many ZK Rollup projects have gone online one after another, and the heat and competition of the zkEVM track are also high. Now, does optimistic fraud proof still have an advantage compared to the path of zero-knowledge proof technology?
Ed: First of all, I think that competition in this field is healthy, which is good for users. We welcome competition and also believe that we have the best solution. We believe that users will continue to choose Arbitrum, but we must prove this every day by constantly providing better services. I believe we can do this.
Actually, zkEVM has a huge advantage for Arbitrum when it really starts to face users, which is that users can now make a real and fair comparison between the services we provide and those provided by the ZK system, rather than comparing the actual performance of Arbitrum with the expected performance of the ZK system. I think that Optimistic Rollup has obvious advantages in areas such as data compression, where users can not only see that the cost of Arbitrum is lower than that of the ZK system, but also that these costs are sufficient to pay for the cost of operating the network. Obviously, in the long run, this means that users can get better economic benefits.
BlockBeats: However, during the time when ARB airdrops were being claimed, the Arbitrum network seemed to be congested, causing many people to question the quality of the network performance.
Ed: Yes, just like Ethereum, Arbitrum also has a certain capacity, if the demand exceeds this capacity, then the gas fee will increase. But in the congestion that occurred on the ARB claim day, the fact is that it was not the Arbitrum network itself that was congested, but the claim website was congested, which is just an old-fashioned website congestion problem. On the day of claiming ARB airdrops, the website server traffic reached an unprecedented level, resulting in congested web infrastructure, but the Arbitrum network itself performed well.
It’s not just the ARB airdrop claim website, but other website servers are also affected, such as block explorers that experienced website congestion. The day of claiming tokens was the busiest day for many website servers, including non-Arbitrum-related ones. You can ask anyone who runs a block explorer or other website server, and they will tell you that the busiest day for their server was the ARB airdrop claim day. It must be admitted that this situation is unfortunate. We tested the infrastructure against expected levels of traffic, but in reality, the traffic on that day was much higher than we predicted.
“DAO Fundgate” and Stylus’ New Narrative
In April of this year, the Arbitrum Foundation was accused of transferring nearly $1 billion worth of ARB tokens to the foundation’s wallet address before community governance proposal AIP-1 was passed, causing a strong reaction from the community. Comments such as “DAO is just a joke” and “Web3 is not decentralized at all” quickly spread on social media. But “DAO Fundgate” does not seem to have had much impact on Arbitrum’s progress, as the team launched a new product, Stylus, in the past two months and gave it a new narrative.
BlockBeats: There has been a lot of discussion about the issue of the Arbitrum team transferring tokens before the DAO governance vote was passed. Can Ed explain the details of the incident?
Ed: There is actually some misunderstanding about this matter, which is a problem with the Arbitrum team’s communication with the community when the tokens were released. But what I want to clarify is that these tokens were not transferred, and no transaction transferred these tokens anywhere. The 750 million ARB tokens (approximately $1 billion) that people complained about were originally supposed to be allocated to the Arbitrum Foundation in the Genesis event. We set up multiple accounts for the airdrop, including a team account, an investor account, an Arbitrum Foundation account, an individual airdrop account, a DAO airdrop, and a DAO treasury account. The 750 million ARB tokens allocated to the Arbitrum Foundation in the Genesis event were in the foundation’s account from the beginning.
The reason for the misunderstanding is that the Genesis announcement on the Arbitrum official website includes a token allocation chart with a section called Arbitrum DAO, which includes the token quota for the DAO treasury and the foundation. However, this chart does not distinguish between the Arbitrum Foundation’s 750 million tokens and the Arbitrum DAO treasury’s 360 million tokens, leading the community to believe that the tokens in the Arbitrum Foundation address have been transferred, but in fact they have not. To be fair, if the tokens were really transferred, the DAO community’s dissatisfaction would be reasonable, but they weren’t. People were upset, so they voted against the initial AIP-1.
BlockBeats: Why was a governance vote required to “approve” this decision, given that the initial allocation had already been given to the foundation?
Ed: With regard to the initial vote on AIP-1, it must be acknowledged that this was another mistake made by the team, which was that the community should not have been allowed to vote on something that had already happened, or to agree to something that had already happened.
Even in Web3, some things initially need to happen in a centralized way. For example, if there is no initial distribution of tokens or a foundation that acts as a legal entity, there will be no community airdrop. And to make the foundation a legal entity, it needs to have a board of directors, articles of association, and all the other things that any legal organization needs to have structure. But the team believed that it was good to have the DAO community approve these necessary and already made decisions because they were all okay.
But of course, the community later became angry about the “750 million token incident” and voted down the proposal. At this point, the Arbitrum Foundation realized that it would be best to start over and do better. That’s why there are AIP-1.1 and AIP-1.2, the team’s second attempt, which was also very good, with 98% in favor, if I remember correctly. The code for these on-chain operation proposals has now been written and has passed security audits.
In summary, my view is that the actions taken by the team are reasonable and fair, but due to poor communication, the DAO community’s expectations were different from the actual situation. But from another perspective, this also reflects a very good point, which is that DAO does have control. If someone thinks that the Arbitrum Foundation is just acting according to its own will and that the DAO’s opinion doesn’t matter, I believe this incident has shown them that the DAO does have actual control. I hope that once AIP-1.1 and 1.2 are passed by DAO’s on-chain voting, it will be clear that the foundation is moving forward according to the DAO’s wishes, and it will also be clear that the foundation is indeed accountable to the DAO.
BlockBeats: “DAO Fundgate” has had a significant impact on the Arbitrum community, but things have gradually improved since AIP-1.1 and 1.2. We also noticed that Arbitrum did not stagnate because of this incident, and the team is currently pushing for the development of a new product called Stylus. Can Ed explain the narrative of Stylus?”
Ed: Stylus is a new feature we are currently developing, and we are very excited about it. This is an “EVM+” approach, which means that Arbitrum will continue to be compatible with Ethereum, and anything that runs on Ethereum should run on Arbitrum.”
What Stylus brings is the ability to write smart contracts in any programming language. Stylus will compile it to WebAssembly and you can run it as a smart contract on the Arbitrum chain. You can call it like you would an EVM contract, in fact, the person interacting with the Stylus contract doesn’t even need to know it’s a Stylus contract. Despite being written in a different language, the contract will interact seamlessly with the EVM chain.
So what are the advantages? There are two main advantages. One is that developers can write smart contracts in any programming language they like, which means that more programmers can enter the field of Layer2 programming or blockchain programming. Those who want to write in Rust, C++, or any other language with a standard compiler toolchain can now write smart contracts and run them as real smart contracts on the Arbitrum chain. This in itself is exciting.
Another exciting thing is that since the core of the Nitro stack is this WebAssembly execution engine, Stylus contracts should run more efficiently than EVM contracts. We’ve done a lot of work to speed up the execution of EVM contracts, but Stylus contracts will be another huge improvement, which means you can complete the same calculation with less gas, or complete more calculations with the same gas.
BlockBeats: Will Stylus be a separate new chain?
Ed: Stylus is not a new independent chain, it is something developers can use, and users can interact with the Stylus chain. This is a single chain. Everything can work together seamlessly, and that’s “EVM+”.
We are working hard to get Stylus ready, and once it has some experience on the testnet and has undergone a full security audit, Stylus will be made available to the Arbitrum DAO, which can choose to deploy it on the Arbitrum One mainnet. This is the decision of the DAO, and I believe the DAO will support it. Of course, anyone else who launches an L3 chain using Arbitrum Orbit will also have access to this technology.
BlockBeats: In your opinion, will “EVM+” or “enhanced EVM” become the new mainstream narrative for Ethereum scalability in the future?
Ed: I hope so, I think it’s the right approach. EVM has brought a lot of benefits. The EVM model provides a secure and consistent way for contracts to interact with each other, so the idea of EVM as the lingua franca for different types of contracts is very important. I think EVM will become the standard in this respect, but I also think there is a lot of room for innovation in creating new smart contracts and creating Layer3. We want to open up all these innovations, but in a way that adds to, rather than detracts from, the benefits of EVM. That’s why we call it “EVM+,” because we believe it’s about adding functionality on top of EVM, rather than cutting back on the benefits of EVM. To me, this approach makes a lot of sense as a way to continue developing the technology. I hope other ecosystems take a similar approach, but obviously it depends on whether they go down that path.
BlockBeats: Thank you very much for your time. Before we finish, is there anything else you would like to add, Ed?
Ed: First of all, thank you very much for the interview, it’s very important to have open communication between the team and the community. I also want to emphasize how important the Chinese Arbitrum community is to what we’re doing. We know we have a lot of friends, users, and developers in the Chinese community, and that’s really important to us, and we appreciate everything you’re doing, and we hope to build deeper and more meaningful relationships with the Chinese community in the future.
Explanation:Blocking all articles only represents the author’s point of view and does not constitute investment advice
Original link: https://www.bitpush.news/articles/4423199
Like what you're reading? Subscribe to our top stories.
We will continue to update Gambling Chain; if you have any questions or suggestions, please contact us!