Ethereum Has Failed to Live Up to Its Potential and Here's Why

Since its inception in July 2015, Ethereum has undergone several massive changes in direction. From the world computer to a modular blockchain, then switching from proof-of-work (PoW) to proof-of-stake (PoS), and abandoning on-chain scaling to embracing a patchwork quilt of layer two solutions, Vitalik Buterin's brainchild has struggled to define itself and stick to one vision for long.

Despite grand ambitions and a promising start, Ethereum has failed to live up to its potential over the past decade. A slew of projects have either left the platform altogether or opted to create their own chains and scaling solutions.

This exodus can be largely attributed to Ethereum’s fluctuating fees and inability to scale at layer one, affecting everything from business planning to user experience. As a result, building a long-term future on the platform has become increasingly challenging.

In contrast, Bitcoin’s inventor, Satoshi Nakamoto, recognized the futility of building on shifting foundations. He emphasized the importance of locking in the core design from the outset and stated that Bitcoin could scale infinitely with no ceiling.

As Satoshi explained to developer Mike Hearn in a private email shortly after Bitcoin’s release, the network was already capable of scaling far larger than Visa credit card payments, which stood at 15 million Internet purchases per day worldwide. According to Hearn, Satoshi told him that Bitcoin could handle a fraction of the cost and never hit a scale ceiling.

While layer two solutions have been touted as a way to scale بلاك تشينs, Ethereum’s embrace of them may ultimately prove to be a fatal mistake. Utilizing L2s and side chains does provide short-term scaling benefits, but there are multiple drawbacks and negative tradeoffs.

One of the most glaring negatives is liquidity fragmentation, which is especially crucial for a بلاك تشين that aims to power DeFi and underpin the world financial system. When liquidity pools are split across multiple layers, market makers must allocate resources to each layer, and traders have to switch between them.

This also has a detrimental impact on network effects. Observing the exponential growth of Web 2.0 platforms like Facebook (NASDAQ: META) or Twitter highlights the significance of network effects. Having applications split across different layers dampens these effects and viral growth.

In today’s world, regulatory compliance is critical. While crypto-anarchists may believe the industry is above the law, the last few years have shown otherwise. Many layers and side chains increase regulatory risk and jurisdictional complexity for builders.

Different layers with bridges to, from, and between them also introduce unnecessary security risks. Anyone in the industry for more than a few years will be well aware of the notorious bridge hacks (e.g., the Ronin hack). Other risks include replay attacks, fraudulent state updates, smart contract bugs, and dozens of others.

Finally, any marketer will tell you that user experience is crucial to gaining widespread adoption of any technology. Even those who have used digital currencies for years now struggle to navigate the ever-growing labyrinth that Ethereum has become.

To understand how Ethereum became such an unfixable mess, it helps to understand its history.

It all began when Vitalik Buterin, who was the Founder of Bitcoin Magazine, was pushed away by BTC Core developers. He wanted to build Ethereum on top of the Bitcoin blockchain, but the dictators at BTC Core had already seized control, and he was told he could not. Besides, they had already disabled many of the necessary op_codes.

After this, the 19-year-old computer science student realized he would need to create his own blockchain. Of course, being a mere teenager with one year of computer science behind him, he didn’t foresee all of the problems Satoshi Nakamoto had meticulously worked out over decades, and he naively believed he knew better.

Despite his youth and relative inexperience, Buterin maintained strict control over his brainchild. This would become apparent over the years when, at his sole discretion, the Ethereum blockchain was rolled back and when it migrated to proof-of-stake. Both changes technically forked Ethereum, making this iteration a fork of a fork and rendering Ethereum Classic the original.

Yet, Buterin’s inability to pick a direction and stick with it isn’t the only reason Ethereum is in its current state. His commitment to off-chain scaling, much like the BTC camp initially shunned him, has led Ethereum through half a dozen failed attempts to scale. The most infamous example is Plasma, which quickly fell flat. Incidentally, the Plasma whitepaper was co-authored by Joseph Poon, who also co-authored the Lightning Network whitepaper.

In short, Ethereum’s decade-long history of chopping and changing, failing repeatedly, and convincing rubes of a new narrative every bull cycle is down to Vitalik Buterin’s peculiar personality and his inability to lead effectively. Ethereum is his project, and so its current state is squarely on his shoulders.

While Buterin likes to mock BSV, the original Bitcoin protocol, it can never be said that it has changed direction, veered off course, or implemented half a dozen failed scaling attempts. BSV developers have stuck to their guns, pushed forward despite relentless criticism, and worked tirelessly to make Satoshi’s vision a reality.

Despite some delays in deploying in the past few years, BSV’s scaling model is working. As Teranode scales to one million transactions