The Shapella Upgrade was completed in April, marking a significant event for both Ethereum and the entire crypto industry. This upgrade combined changes to both the Execution Layer (Shanghai upgrade) and Consensus Layer (Capella upgrade), allowing for the withdrawal of staked ETH and any accumulated staking rewards.
Shapella was a major stride towards greater flexibility and accessibility in staking on the Ethereum network. With the ability to withdraw staked ETH and rewards, the pivotal event galvanized institutional interest in the second-largest cryptocurrency by market value.
In this article, we’ll explore how the Shapella upgrade has sparked increasing interest in ETH staking among institutional investors, and why this trend is expected to continue.
A look back…
Let’s start by examining how we arrived at the current situation and why withdrawals were not enabled during the Ethereum transition from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism.
The Ethereum network transitioned from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism in two stages, starting with the launch of the Beacon Chain, followed by the Merge. During this time, staking withdrawals were not enabled to ensure network security and reduce the risk of failure. Validators were able to exit, but customers could not unstake their staked ETH.
Despite knowing they would be unable to withdraw their ETH for some time, the initial network participants contributed millions of ETH to secure the Ethereum PoS network.
To ensure the upgrade went smoothly, it was implemented without any downtime. And the focus was solely on making this transition as seamlessly as possible. As a result, no other features or changes were added at that time. The goal was to minimize the chances of anything going wrong and to keep the Ethereum network running smoothly for all its users. ETH withdrawals were not enabled, until Shapella.
Why Institutions hesitated to stake ETH before Shapella
Prior to Shapella, staking ETH involved significant risks due to uncertainty surrounding withdrawals. This made institutions hesitant to stake their assets, as they needed quick access to them if necessary.
In fact, despite ranking second in market cap, only 15% of the total ETH supply was staked, a remarkably lower percentage than other tokens such as Solana, which has over 70% of its total supply staked.
Another reason for the lack of institutional participation in ETH staking was the general unclear regulatory stance regarding digital assets globally.
For instance, in late 2021, the SEC sent Kraken, one of the largest US exchanges, a Wells notice regarding its staking services. According to the SEC, Kraken's staking service constituted a security offering and required registration with the Commission. Kraken disagreed with the SEC's position and argued that staking fell outside its jurisdiction and was not a security offering. Despite its stance, Kraken suspended its staking services for US customers due to concerns over the regulatory environment and uncertainty surrounding the SEC's position on staking.
As a result, institutions feared that what happened to Kraken would apply to all staking providers, although Kraken's situation was a one-off and would not affect someone who staked their assets through a trusted non-custodial staking provider like Chorus One.
Here's why a situation like this is unlikely to happen to a non- custodial staking provider or validator like Chorus One:
The Silver Lining: Why ETH staking is more appealing to Institutions post-Upgrade
Since Shapella, the level of staking is on an upwards trajectory, despite shaky grounds.
The amount of ETH being staked has been steadily increasing, with large amounts of capital being locked up to earn 4 to 5% yields in ETH.
Source: Dune Analytics
Approximately 655k ETH ($1.2M) has been deposited since the upgrade, with the ‘largest weekly token inflow in ether staking’s nearly two-and-a-half-year history’ seen just two weeks following Shapella. The surge was largely driven by enterprise-grade staking providers and institutional investors seeking to reinvest their rewards following withdrawal.
At the time of writing, there are approximately 19M staked ETH, and deposits continue to surpass withdrawals.
The growing amount of staked ETH is a promising indicator for the adoption and security of Ethereum. Now that yields are available, institutional investors are likely to be even more interested in staking ETH. In fact, there has already been a strong influx of institutional interest in ETH futures following the upgrade, indicating positive staking momentum among larger investors who are looking to increase their revenue.
Additionally, the first week of May 2023 saw a surge in staked ETH deposits as investors raced to stake their tokens with validators. According to Nansen, over 200,000 ETH was deposited into the network, marking the first time since Shapella that deposits outpaced withdrawals. This recent surge has resulted in over 19 million ETH being locked for staking, which accounts for about 15% of the total circulating supply of ether.
Shapella benefits institutions by providing them with the opportunity to get liquidity on their staked ETH and earn a yield of 4% or more while participating in securing the network. It essentially derisks staking, which increases the intrinsic value of the asset and makes Ethereum even more attractive to institutions. This reduction in perceived risks associated with staking makes it more likely for risk-averse holders to consider staking, which could bring more institutional investors to Ethereum staking.
In conclusion, the Shapella upgrade sparked significant positive changes to the Ethereum network - particularly in terms of staking - and paved a secure way for institutions to get involved in supporting the growth of the network.
As a leading staking provider, Chorus One is dedicated to making the staking process easier, secure, and compliant for our customers. Our multi-chain staking solution, OPUS, is safe, secure, and compliant, making it easy for institutions to start staking with a few simple clicks. Learn more about OPUS here and contact us at staking@chorus.one to learn more about how we can help you get started.
Chorus One is one of the biggest institutional staking providers globally operating infrastructure for 40+ Proof-of-Stake networks including Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, Avalanche, and Near amongst others. Since 2018, we have been at the forefront of the PoS industry and now offer easy enterprise-grade staking solutions, industry-leading research, and also invest in some of the most cutting-edge protocols through Chorus Ventures. We are a team of over 50 passionate individuals spread throughout the globe who believe in the transformative power of blockchain technology.
At Chorus One, we have a strong conviction in the potential of a multichain future. We believe that specialized blockchains play a crucial role in discovering and nurturing new use cases, and ultimately driving mainstream adoption. Since joining Chorus One about two years ago, I've been pushing for us to do the same in the Avalanche ecosystem as these two ecosystems have similar visions of what the multichain future can, should, and will look like.
Last year, we entered the Avalanche ecosystem. Our work will only intensify in the coming years with Chorus Ventures, our ventures arm, investing in native Avalanche projects. We also use our expertise in tokenomics and infrastructure to help projects launch their permissionless subnets. We will be presenting this topic both at the online Subnet Summit mid April and the Avalanche Summit II beginning of May.
In my view gaming is key to onboarding the next wave of users and a fundamental step in the road to mass adoption. This article aims to present the exciting future of blockchain gaming and demonstrate how the Avalanche architecture, particularly the multichain subnet architecture, is the ideal substrate for this vision. Through a two-part series, I will illustrate how one can develop an unstoppable game. By unstoppable, I mean a game that not even its creators can censor or stop if one day they move on to other projects. A game in control of its users.
So let's get to it.
To make this exercise as clear as possible I will look at a game I have plenty of experience with having played around 2000h. The game in question is Path of Exile, in my personal opinion the Diablo killer. This game needs no introductions but:
A short video:
Take a look here for some more gameplay videos.
I cannot emphasize enough how deep the economics goes in this game. The reason being that its economics are fundamentally tied to the crafting system for equipment and to the simple fact that you need to craft gear yourself or buy it from someone if you want to reach the endgame. Purely random drops cannot take you there.
Every season a "league patch" is released with new contents and the economy is reset. Characters and loot from previous seasons are still available to play in the "standard" league and the standard league economics are interesting in their own right but as a driver for innovation and to give new players the ability to compete in a more level playing field, these resets are very important.
The goal is thus to envision a version of PoE that is unstoppable and in the hands of gamers. You might ask: why would developers make such a game? To which I answer: the first one to do this becomes a first mover in a technology that soon will be expected from all games. And why will this be expected? Why do gamers want this? Well, this is a game you can continue playing and you can really own it. Like how it was in the dawn of console gaming. Be it real or game money, you can trade assets and no one can censor you. If you recall the anecdote, this was the reason Vitalik started his work in crypto.
In the centralized world, an ARPG like Path of Exile consists of a client/server platform where the server infrastructure is run by the game developer, and where the client freely available or purchased in a marketplace. Next, we will look at the features and responsibilities of the server side as this will be where our decentralization efforts will mostly focus.
The ability of client-side tampering with binary can cause all types of attacks/cheating. This is an arms race but currently, it is tackled via lock-step state validation. More on this later.
Most games need randomness. For anti-cheat reasons, this is taken care of at the server level. In the case of PoE (and ARPG more broadly) this is even more important as loot, damage, map layout, and even AI are parameterized by random inputs.
Of fundamental importance for a healthy in-game economy is that the more powerful items are, the rarer they should be. That is, their drop rate should be lower. This is accomplished by drop-rate lookup tables that are set and maintained by the server. Again due to anti-cheat measures, it is the server that, when appropriate, generates a random drop.
Even in PoE which tends to be dominated by PvE (player versus environment), there are situations where players interact: regions where PvP (player versus player) are allowed and sanctuary environments also called player hubs. These interactions need to be facilitated by the game server.
Special trading windows and functionalities are implemented so that players can exchange goods in a safe way.
Looking at the above set of functionalities that the server must provide, we can identify three different types of backends that the server infrastructure needs to maintain. These are the components we will need to "permissionlessly" decentralize. The following figure gives an idea of how the server-side interacts with these backends and the client (overlap indicates communication).
There is a need for queryable databases, with loot tables clearly being one such need. But many more are present: leaderboards, player info, skill table, effect mechanics, and many more.
A key-value store that can deliver monolithic "chunks of bytes" is also a necessary backend. The game needs to ship itself and its updates with a big proportion being graphical assets. For this dedicated content-delivery networks are employed.
As mentioned before the server infrastructure needs to be able to keep clients in sync across PvE and PvP both for anti-cheat purposes and for facilitation of user interactions.
So why is Avalanche especially suited for this exercise? How will the architecture of such a game change and what technologies do we need to leverage to accomplish our goal of a decentralized, unstoppable ARPG game?
Avalanche has two genius breakthroughs in its design: its consensus being the first and the subnet architecture being the second. The latter is highly dependent on the former. Let's see why.
Avalanche consensus is without a doubt the most advanced consensus out there and is correctly categorized as a third type of byzantine fault tolerant consensus following the discovery of signature accrual and Nakamoto consensus. It is the first meta-stable type of consensus algorithm. This consensus enjoys enviable properties: it scales easily with the number of validators, it is leaderless, and single-slot final. I won't go into much detail but suffices to say it accomplishes all of these by being a consensus algorithm based on a statement about an emergent property of the system. Let me explain what I mean. You can think of the network as having the property of being consistent (all validators agree on the current state). In Avalanche this property is emergent. Like the temperature of a gas, it exists as a property derived by the local interactions of its constituents “particles”. In the case of the gas, particles bouncing of each other exchanging kinetic energy in their small neighborhood gives rise to the macroscopic property of temperature. In Avalanche, validators are the particles and contrary to other consensus mechanisms they interact only “locally”, that is, with a small number of validators that are randomly selected in each round. Somehow - and here there is a strong mathematical theorem behind it - this is enough for the network to have a well-defined sense of state history. Even in the presence of attackers.
It is the property of essentially limitless scaling in the number of validators that allows for the second genius move. You see, Cosmos is the originator of the concept of an app-chain. In this design, it is absolutely necessary that chains can "talk" to each other to really cover all the use cases one is interested in. For this reason, they developed the IBC framework. This is an elegant framework for trustless communication but it incurs a significant requirement to a prospective chain: as a destination chain you need to keep consensus information of any given source chain you want to communicate with in the form of a light client. Wouldn't it be ideal if this information would be globally available to all chains from all chains? This is impossible with a limited set of validators.
So to have an unlimited set of app chains that can trustlessly communicate without having to keep light clients of every other chain they communicate with you need an unbounded set of validators in a global chain that keeps all this information. I hope you see where this is going: this is exactly the subnet design.
In Avalanche the main network that every validator must secure contains three chains. The P-chain (Platform chain), the X-chain (eXchange-chain) and the C-chain (Contract chain). The X-chain - which us currently a DAG but will become a linear chain in the near future - is a chain made for throughput exchanges of assets much like a blazing fast Bitcoin network. The C-chain is what most users are more familiar with and is an EVM based chain. It works just like Ethereum but faster and with instant finality. Great. But the real genius comes from the P-chain. This chain tracks all validation related transactions of the mainnet and all subnets. This is what will enable the unbounded, composable network of app chains. Since all validators have the P-chain at hand, any two subnets can communicate directly provided they want to. In IBC, on the other hand, with its hub-and-spoke design you have the unaddressed issue of path dependence.[^1]
So, we will leverage an Avalanche subnet for our game. Main reasons are the excellent scaling properties of its consensus and the application-specific, isolated nature of the subnet approach. On top of that it supports cross-subnet transactions allowing for valuable assets to move around freely in the ecosystem. Finally but not least, there is also VM2VM message passing that allows the validators in a subnet to easily check the state in other connected VMs be that within the same subnet, in the mainnet, or another subnet running in the same validator (the latter has not even been explored yet).
An Avalanche subnet is essentially the following:
The set of validators is dynamic but can be either permissionless or permissioned. The specification of a blockchain is comprised of a specification of a subnet this blockchain pertains to and the specification of a VM (i.e. virtual machine) that characterizes the valid state transitions in that blockchain.
Ava Labs recently announced HyperSDK a toolkit not much unlinke the CosmosSDK to help developers easily build VMs to power their subnet. From now on, they can focus on the logic of the application and worry much less about synchronization, consensus, state storage and availability and other blockchain-heavy topics. On the other hand, if you want to, you can customize these aspects as the SDK was build with modularity in mind.
See Avalanche platform and Subnets sections in the Avalanche documentation for more information on subnets and visit the HyperSDK repository which is open for contributions.
As mentioned before, our intent is to decentralize the game. For this, we will need to decentralize the server infrastructure, mainly the three points named above: databases, content delivery, and anti-cheat logic. This will be done by defining specialized VMs and the corresponding blockchains for each of those game infrastructures. All of this is packaged in the game server binaries which will be run by the validators in the subnet.
A game client will essentially be submitting transactions to the server network. Clearly, the game client is responsible for client-side rendering which is something we do not need to bother with on the server side. In terms of execution hardware, the game server is much lighter than the client and we will exploit this.
Keep in mind that being a player does not mean you can’t be a validator as well or a delegator to a Chorus One validator ;). This is obvious but worth mentioning as this means that for the first time ever a game can actually be in the hands of the players. With governance, even the game features and roadmap can be decided, paid for, and rolled out completely in a decentralized fashion.
So the big question: what are the blockchains, VMs and technologies used for this purpose? We dive in.
The BlobVM already exists in an advanced prototype stage. It was developed by Ava Labs and is available in open-source. What it does is provide a dedicated, seamlessly integrated (at the subnet level) content addressable storage with customizable parameters regarding permissions for read/write and persistence.
We use BlobVM for storing all art, texture, and models, i.e., all game assets. Even the game client binary can be updated via this method. In a fresh install, an externally downloaded game client connects, and sends a transaction to download all necessary assets. Note that this transaction could be a way to monetize the game but this is optional of course. In other words, this transaction would give you a game license NFT.
Now as mentioned before we want to give power and value to the gamers. Path of Exile is famous for its rich economy and is a formidable laboratory for NFT tokenomics. By giving the gamers the option to mint any found loot item we give this economy real value. There is plenty of opportunity and pitfalls here to fill in another article but it is important to mention that PoE works by having multiple “leagues” which give an opportunity to always “reset” the economy and give chance for new players to “make it”. We think this is an important aspect to keep in the decentralized version of this game. As an example of how we could explore this, we can configure it so that minted NFT only work on the current and previous leagues.
For tracking a gamer’s collection we use AVM, the Avalanche VM, which is a DAG (directed acyclic graph) based on the UTXO model capable of massive throughput. In fact, this is the underlying VM of the mainet’s X-chain. Note that since the announcement of Cortina (the next dot release of the Avalanche validator client) the X-chain will move from being a DAG into a linear chain. Here we have the option of launching out own AVM chain for assets transfer or, use the X-chain directly which would make all of the game’s NFT directly available to the wider Avalanche community (NFT reuse in games is an under-explored area). The AVM supports ANTs or Avalanche Native Tokens that can easily be imported/exported across the majority of supported VMs as it defines a unified API for cross-chain atomic swaps.
PoE is a free-to-play game that monetizes itself via cosmetic-only user-purchasable content. This can be easily supported via the AVM chain as well. Simply: an NFT in the user wallet ”unlocks” these assets to be delivered via the content delivery mechanism. This is essentially a VM2VM communication as is desirable and quite probable that the X-chain will support account lookups via this mechanism.
As mentioned before, as with any modern application, the game needs to store global relational data. For example, loot tables, league-specific information, game metrics, user metrics, NFT market data, etc. The list goes on and on. For this specific use case currently, many web3 projects use The Graph: a sophisticated but complex decentralized solution. A few issues arise with this approach:
Because of these, we propose a new type of VM we dub SQLVM and this will be the topic of our next article. But in a nutshell, you should think of it as a hybrid between a app-specific indexer and a persistent relational data store.
It allows for specific types of transactions that query/write to a globally replicated ACID relational database. Here we automatically benefit from the fact that blockchain transactions are atomic at the consensus level which makes designing the underlying database much simpler. For example, a suitable design can be done for a VM where the runtime state is an instance of any query engine: row-oriented like Postgres, column-oriented like BigTable, or document-based like MongoDB. Keep in mind that even this is overkill as we don't need their replication features. What we need is their query engine and storage solution. Most of these databases have sophisticated query planners than can take the place of fee estimators. The beauty here is that Avalanche will take care of maintaining this database eventually consistent which suffices for our use case. More sophisticated designs are certainly possible. The job of the VM here is to essentially declare the types of transactions (write/reads), the fees and verify the blocks by applying the transactions in the database and updating certain database hashes (will be needed for anti-cheat below). For our game - or any other app chain using this backend - other VMs in the subnet should be able to read the database at will which can easily be done with VM2VM.
Similar to how a non-validating Avalanche node have access to the mainnet state, a game client could be a node of this chain running in non-validation mode so as to keep this database state at all times for easy synchronicity.
Now to the technologically most innovative piece of the puzzle: to run anti-cheat as a ZK verifier. This is such a breakthrough technology that it would be an improvement over existing anti-cheat technology on centralized games.
Anti-cheat works, as mentioned before, as lock-step game simulation. What this means is that the game client is essentially an input system and a rendering engine of a game that is actually run remotely on servers. This Introduces latency which is the reason why game server farms have to be deployed across internet “regions”. ZK changes the game as it allows one to codify all game state transitions in a prover which we can run on the game client (remember the gamers tend to play with machines that are quite powerful) while the server is just a verifier! This has the added benefit that it even liberates the server from having to run in lock-step, to begin with! Essentially we can use eventual consistencyto catch the cheaters. Put differently, we don’t care to verify every little state transition that happened but batches (or recursions) encoding all transitions that happened in a configurable time window: 1 second, 10 seconds, a minute, an hour…
It is obvious what a powerful idea this is: no need to simulate full-blown games on the server. For example, we now can use more sophisticated AIs in the client. The fact that you have to run the game on the server is one of the reasons no modern AI is in use in games. Why not use GPT-4 for creating procedural quests??
We will have more to say about a ZKVM in a future article but I would like to state a few things. Firstly, note that we are not even using the zero-knowledge aspect of this VM and this gives more freedom in the exact construction of the protocol. In precise terms we are interested in SNARKS not necessarily ZK-SNARKS. Nonetheless, we expect that applications that use this zero-knowledge aspect will also exist.
Secondly, we might not be at the stage yet where fast enough provers exist to prove the state transition for a game like PoE. I'm not an expert, but I expect that schemes leveraging the GPUs in the gamer's clients will be just a matter of time.
And finally, we are talking about a very specific VM - that of the game - and not a generic programmable one like the EVM. We need a prover for those exact transitions that happen in game. This is potentially another route for optimization.
We hope to have convinced you that the future of decentralized gaming and player-owned gaming is bright. When Vitalik joined the crypto movement I don't think he thought his dream would come true on another chain, but I think he will be satisfied nonetheless.
But more importantly, we hope the reader is also convinced that this is only possible in a clean, elegant, and reusable way via the subnet architecture. Sophisticated applications like this will only flourish when good reusable VMs are available much like reusable contracts are right now. Multiple VMs demands multiple chains in a subnet architecture. Although technically possible to cram all of these backends into a single block to be serialized/deserialized and verified using a single chain, this would not only hurt code reuse but is also impractical since it is clear that these backends might need different blocktimes.
Of course, there are a lot of unknowns to this as I am not a game developer. I just want this to jump-start the imagination of developers in general (not only game developers) to the reality that the future is app-specific multi-chain subnets. And so that someone develops an unstoppable ARPG like Path of Exile!!
Tune in for some follow-up articles on where we attempt to detail somewhat the SQLVM and ZKVM and come talk to us in the summit. See you there!
Chorus One is one of the biggest institutional staking providers globally, running infrastructure and validating over 40 blockchain networks. Since 2018, we have been at the forefront of the PoS industry and now offer enterprise-grade staking solutions, industry-leading research, and also invest in some of the most cutting-edge projects through Chorus Ventures. We also invest in subnets on Avalanche so if you’re building something interesting, reach out to us at ventures@chorus.one.
This document is a summary of a longer article — “The financialized staking economy” — published in Chorus One’s ‘Annual Staking Review’ for 2022. Click here to read the entire report.
Cryptocurrencies can be used in three kinds of yield-bearing activity. These have cumulative trust assumptions -
We believe staking yield is the most attractive risk-adjusted source of yield in crypto for two reasons:
Proof-of-stake ecosystems do not have an anchor in the real world. This means that the staking yield rate denoted in native terms is completely decoupled from any kind of factor in the wider economy. For staking, endogenous capital (e.g. ETH) is the only factor of production.
This is a difference to proof-of-work (PoW) systems, where electricity and hardware costs serve as an unbridgeable anchor to the real economy, directly affecting a miner’s yield rate. It is also different from most CeFi and DeFi yield sources, which depend more heavily on user activity.
The above implies that staking can be an uncorrelated yield source for two kinds of investors — those that are bullish long-term and denominate their holdings in native units, and those that are hedged against the price risk of the staked asset.
The token price risk may be hedged out through on- or off-chain solutions. The former case has the advantage of transparency, reflected in an improved counterparty risk assessment and iron-clad terms. With some of the largest lending desks in the space embroiled in a liquidity crisis, this is a significant factor. Validators are ideally positioned to execute on-chain hedging, as they directly interface with the staking yield source and thus no custody transfer, i.e. additional risk, is required to interface with a hedging solution.
One increasingly popular on-chain hedging solution is a “staking yield interest rate swap”. This allows validators to swap token-denominated staking yield for a stablecoin, typically USDC, locking in a stable and predictable income for a staking client. The associated risk is very minor as neither the validator nor the swap counterparty takes custody of the principal — the worst case, a counterparty default, would reduce to the price risk on the yield earned on the staked notional. Chorus One can leverage Alkimiya, the leading protocol for on-chain capital markets, to execute this type of hedge.
A second way to hedge is by using the staking yield to finance classic options-based strategies. For example, a zero-cost collar options package may incorporate the staking yield in a way that enables an asymmetric pay-off.
Chorus One is invested in & advises a range of solutions optimizing staking yield for return (i.e. MEV) and risk (i.e. hedging). Reach out to us at sales@chorus.one to learn more about how these can be tailored to fit your use case.
About Chorus One
Chorus One is one of the biggest institutional staking providers globally operating infrastructure for 35+ Proof-of-Stake networks including Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, Avalanche, and Near amongst others. Since 2018, we have been at the forefront of the PoS industry and now offer easy enterprise-grade staking solutions, industry-leading research, and also invest in some of the most cutting-edge protocols through Chorus Ventures. We are a team of over 50 passionate individuals spread throughout the globe who believe in the transformative power of blockchain technology.
For more information, please visit chorus.one
Cryptocurrencies can be used in three kinds of yield-bearing activity. These have cumulative trust assumptions -
We believe staking yield is the most attractive risk-adjusted source of yield in crypto for two reasons:
Proof-of-stake ecosystems do not have an anchor in the real world. This means that the staking yield rate denoted in native terms is completely decoupled from any kind of factor in the wider economy. For staking, endogenous capital (e.g. ETH) is the only factor of production.
This is a difference to proof-of-work (PoW) systems, where electricity and hardware costs serve as an unbridgeable anchor to the real economy, directly affecting a miner’s yield rate. It is also different from most CeFi and DeFi yield sources, which depend more heavily on user activity.
The above implies that staking can be an uncorrelated yield source for two kinds of investors — those that are bullish long-term and denominate their holdings in native units, and those that are hedged against the price risk of the staked asset.
The token price risk may be hedged out through on- or off-chain solutions. The former case has the advantage of transparency, reflected in an improved counterparty risk assessment and iron-clad terms. With some of the largest lending desks in the space embroiled in a liquidity crisis, this is a significant factor. Validators are ideally positioned to execute on-chain hedging, as they directly interface with the staking yield source and thus no custody transfer, i.e. additional risk, is required to interface with a hedging solution.
One increasingly popular on-chain hedging solution is a “staking yield interest rate swap”. This allows validators to swap token-denominated staking yield for a stablecoin, typically USDC, locking in a stable and predictable income for a staking client. The associated risk is very minor as neither the validator nor the swap counterparty takes custody of the principal — the worst case, a counterparty default, would reduce to the price risk on the yield earned on the staked notional. Chorus One can leverage Alkimiya, the leading protocol for on-chain capital markets, to execute this type of hedge.
A second way to hedge is by using the staking yield to finance classic options-based strategies. For example, a zero-cost collar options package may incorporate the staking yield in a way that enables an asymmetric pay-off.
Chorus One is invested in & advises a range of solutions optimizing staking yield for return (i.e. MEV) and risk (i.e. hedging). Reach out to us at sales@chorus.one to learn more about how these can be tailored to fit your use case.
About Chorus One
Chorus One is one of the biggest institutional staking providers globally operating infrastructure for 35+ Proof-of-Stake networks including Ethereum, Cosmos, Solana, Avalanche, and Near amongst others. Since 2018, we have been at the forefront of the PoS industry and now offer easy enterprise-grade staking solutions, industry-leading research, and also invest in some of the most cutting-edge protocols through Chorus Ventures. We are a team of over 50 passionate individuals spread throughout the globe who believe in the transformative power of blockchain technology.
For more information, please visit chorus.one
It’s no secret that institutional interest in staking is on the rise and one could argue that Ethereum’s recent move to Proof-of-Stake was a major boost in this regard. Due to the highly technical nature of running validator operations, institutions generally partner with staking providers like Chorus One to manage their node infrastructure. This is a crucial step as the node operator is not only expected to have protocol-specific failover strategies and all regulatory compliances but also be well versed with on-chain matters.
New staking entrants are often left with the question of what factors to prioritize when partnering with a node operator. Security, commissions, compliance or all of them?
To simplify these matters, we’ve made a list of 10 factors that any fund manager or institutional investor should consider when speaking with a staking provider. These are by no means exhaustive but are some of the most common questions we face when speaking to any institution. Ultimately your choice of a staking partner should encompass POVs from your colleagues in the legal, security, and finance teams too.
The staking provider’s fees should be based on the protocol rewards earned and not on your total staked value. Consider the two scenarios listed out below:
If the staking provider’s fee is based on the total value of your staked assets, there’s a high chance that you’ll end up paying a higher fee. The fee percentage might seem lower when compared to other providers but as they say, the devil is in the details.
“Picking the right staking provider will have a big impact on fund yields. Fund Managers need to weigh rewards and many other factors like counterparty risk and MEV policies,” says Neal Roche, Chorus One’s Business Development Manager working with institutional clients.
You ideally want your staking provider to have equal skin in the game too and charging a fee on the protocol rewards rather than value of staked assets is one way to do that. Needless to say, Chorus One always follows this rule.
MEV stands for Maximal Extractable Value and refers to the additional rewards a validator can make by reordering, adding, or removing transactions from a block. In the last 12 months, MEV has been extensively discussed and various protocols like Skip and Jito exist today that are fully focusing on this subject. A validator participating in MEV can boost their share of rewards that are indirectly also transferred to their delegators. For an institution looking to stake, it’s a no-brainer to partner with a staking provider that runs relays like MEV-Boost to earn additional rewards.
At Chorus One, our team is fully invested in the MEV space and wants to create as much transparency around this subject as possible. Our Research Team has written extensively about MEV on our blog and we’ve even released a MEV bot on Twitter that delivers MEV extraction updates from Osmosis every day. You can also check out our Ethereum MEV dashboard and Solana MEV dashboard on Dune Analytics.
Fund managers usually like to diversify their assets into a couple of networks and hence like to work with multi-chain providers. Owing to the fast-paced nature of this industry, staking providers that onboard newer networks quickly are preferred. Major node operators like Chorus One work with over 30 PoS networks including all major Cosmos chains, Solana, Avalanche, NEAR, Tezos, etc. and are also involved with the testnet/incentivized testnets for multiple networks at the same time.
Another key piece of the stack that will influence your time-to-deploy-funds. The last thing you want when you want to stake more or withdraw your assets is needing human intervention on the other side of the operation. You shouldn’t need to delay your transactions, because your staking provider is on leave. This is why it’s wise to evaluate if you can automate your staking procedure through an API.
This is exactly what OPUS is. You have FULL control over your validators and can increase allocation/withdraw assets whenever and wherever you wish. Your stake stays backed by Chorus One’s secure infrastructure with 24/7 supervision from our team.
This is arguably the most critical factor and one that separates the crypto natives from the hobbyists. Staking is non-custodial but if the node operator’s security practices are not up to the mark, your assets are at risk.
Governance is both a power and a responsibility. The power to shape a network’s future and the responsibility of an educated vote. Deploying capital in different networks also means looking into proposals, analyzing them and casting votes. Ideally, your validator should be actively voting on these proposals as some of these could involve things like incentive updates and inflation reduction which impact you directly.
Chorus One works with 30+ networks and we take on-chain governance very seriously. Our Research Team looks into every proposal, discusses it rigorously, and then votes for them. We even release the rationale behind votes on our social media channels every week.
An equally important aspect is the protection a staking provider offers against being slashed and other similar penalities. Penalties differ from one protocol to another, but in essence stakers can lose rewards or, in the worst case, stake if the staking provider is slashed. Chorus One AG is a privately owned Swiss company with a strong balance sheet and over four years of staking experience with institutional clients. With over $750 million in AUM, we offer a standard SLA of 99% uptime and a “no slashing” guarantee to our clients. We have never had a node slashed and even offer Ethereum node slashing insurance as an option to our clients.
Validators with an in-house Research Team closely study almost all the networks and hence they’re also the first ones to spot the high-potential ones among the array of new networks launching everyday. Since they will be the ones maintaining the infrastructure, they’re also some of the most knowledgeable teams a network could speak to. A few months back, we announced Chorus Ventures, a $30M initiative to invest in some of the most interesting PoS and interoperability networks, and middleware protocols. To date, we have made over 30 investments including Celestia, Quicksilver, Osmosis, Agoric, Uqbar, Lido, Anoma among many others. We continue advising and investing in projects with a crystal-clear focus and a passionate team. Our exclusive research is also shared with our clients to help them shape their investment strategies better.
So there you have it. The ten most important points that should be on your mind when partnering with a staking provider. What other points would you mention here?
This article provides a brief comparative analysis between centralised exchanges (CEX) versus decentralised exchanges (DEX). This will be followed by a comparison of various DEX exchanges to understand why dYdX has opted to join the Cosmos ecosystem. The primary reasons are increased decentralisation, higher throughput, and a developer-friendly SDK.
To help you grasp the subsequent arguments and comparisons, we’ll first go through the key distinctions between a CEX and a DEX. If you already know the distinctions, skip to Part 2 of this article.
Centralised Exchange (CEX): a type of cryptocurrency exchange that is operated by a company that owns it in a centralised manner. Liquidity is supplied by traders in the form of orders (order book model) that keeps the assets involved in all respects in their custody (e.g. Binance, Coinbase). This method gives the CEX a significant advantage since order placement, matching, and settlement can happen immediately off-chain (even if you then have to switch to the Blockchain in effect to move them to a personal wallet).
Decentralised Exchange (DEX): a platform for exchanging cryptocurrencies based on functionality programmed on the blockchain (i.e., in smart contracts). The trading is done peer-to-peer or between liquidity pools. The liquidity in DEXs (Uniswap and dYdX) is given by the users themselves, who contribute the tokens to a specific pool in return for the fees paid by all those who swap the tokens.
Whereas in CEXs, the user trades directly with the platform and purchases the token of his choice with fiat market availability, the scenario is somewhat different in DEXs. To get a token, a user must swap it for another token pair with a liquidity pool of those 2 assets.
Centralised exchanges enable buyers and sellers to submit bids and asks for specific assets via order books (e.g. cryptocurrencies). Order books still exist on a decentralised exchange, where a user may submit a bid or an ask. However, we often see an alternate option where a user can trade without a counterparty via an automated market maker (AMM). An automated market maker uses a mathematical formula known as a ‘constant product’ to calculate an asset price at every moment by calculating x * y = k. (without bids and asks having to be actively placed). This is possible because market makers on decentralised exchanges are referred to as ‘liquidity providers’ (LPs). LPs place assets in a smart contract and authorise the contract to be traded against. In exchange, an LP receives fees based on the amount of liquidity offered versus the whole pool. In general, using Uniswap as an example, the user must have Ethereum in order to trade with Compound, Curve, and many other services. By doing so, the user pays a 0.3 percent fee directly to the pool where he swapped the token, which is then distributed among all liquidity providers.
Now that we’ve established the primary distinctions between CEXs and DEXs, we’ll look at two sorts of exchange transaction mechanisms that are frequently observed on these exchange platforms.
What is an order book in crypto?
The orderbook concept is the foundation of many CEX and DEX’s (in the case of dYdX) operations. All orders to buy and sell a token are labelled “Bid” and “Ask” in the order book system. The spread is the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask at the top of the book. If a person buys or sells rapidly at the best price available, the order is known as a market order, and the buyer and seller are matched based on top of the book orders. A limit order, on the other hand, is when a person buys or sells a token at a certain price such that the order is posted on the order book.
Pros:
Cons:
What are Liquidity Pools in crypto?
A liquidity pool is a collection of money put by LPs into a smart contract. AMM transactions allow you to purchase anything without a seller as long as the pool has enough liquidity and your trade affects the token ratio computed by the algorithm. This approach does not need an order book. Although both LPs and order books operate on a peer-to-peer basis.
Pros:
Cons:
This strategy is problematic due to the high amount of slippage for big orders, which necessitates gigantic pools. Uniswap V3 reduced this problem by implementing the concentrated liquidity functionality. Liquidity providers concentrate liquidity in the most likely trading prices rather than spreading it across the entire price range.
We are also now starting to see the rise of hybrid initiatives which combine AMMs and orderbook models in an attempt to extract the best of both worlds. The Cosmos ecosystem is beginning to stand out in this area too, with upcoming protocols such as Onomy.
The cumulative decentralised exchange volume for the past 7 days stands at $10 billion. Uniswap, yet again, led the pack in trading volume.
dYdX’s current trading volume closely resembles Uniswap’s and ranks 10th in ‘Token Holders by DeFi projects’.
However, it is worth noting that the ratio of DEX:CEX spot volume reflected a mere value of 13% for the month of June, noting a decline from 16% in January. Binance, with significantly lower fees, still dominates the market ($11bn 24h volume). This data clearly highlights that decentralised exchanges are merely complementing centralized exchanges that still account for the lion’s share (trading volume).
Despite this, Uniswap has repeatedly surpassed Coinbase in trading volume in the past. In terms of token trading availability, the former dominates with 430 verified coins in V3 and over 8000 trading pairs in V2.
While Binance currently supports trading in more than 600 coins, Uniswap V3 has significantly more liquidity than Coinbase and Binance. However, this is unique to Ethereum and its many pairings.
Uniswap provides double the liquidity of Binance and Coinbase for ETH/USD. Uniswap boasts 3x the liquidity of Binance and 4.5x the liquidity of Coinbase for ETH/BTC. It also possesses three times the liquidity of large centralized exchanges for ETH/mid-cap pairings. NB: A larger liquidity is required in decentralised exchanges to avoid considerable spreading with big trades.
dYdX and Uniswap are both DEXs that operate on the Ethereum blockchain.
What is Uniswap?
Uniswap is an open-source DeFi platform that employs an automated liquidity protocol paradigm instead of an order book. LPs (Liquidity Providers) construct this pool with no listing costs. Any ERC-20 coin may be created if a liquidity pool is accessible for traders.
Factory and Exchange are two Uniswap smart contracts. Factory contracts help introduce new tokens to the network, while Exchange contracts help exchange tokens. When a Liquidity Provider puts a pair of tokens into a smart contract, other users may buy and sell this trading pair, and the liquidity provider receives a cut from the trading charge.
What is dYdX?
dYdX is a non-custodial decentralised exchange that uses Ethereum smart contracts to trade. This allows traders to trade on margin while simultaneously benefitting from Ethereum’s security.
dYdX teamed up with StarkWare to create a Layer 2 protocol. Traders may deposit money and trade instantaneously without incurring transaction costs. Following China’s reiteration of their stance on banning cryptocurrency, daily trading volume surged to nearly $10 billion on dYdX, beating Uniswap for the first time in September 2021. Later, dYdX lost a significant amount of its market share due to competition and outage problems which questioned the integrity of the protocol. Despite this, being the first perpetual DEX protocol to implement a Layer 2 solution has certainly paid off.
Derivatives trading is a trademark of dYdX. Compared to spot trading, derivatives trading offers more application possibilities, which may help customers adapt to changing market trends, increase profits, hedge risks, improve resource allocation, etc. Derivatives trading is projected to add new incremental users, more live water to the market, and set the groundwork for a fresh DeFi breakout.
Recently, dYdX announced that the protocol is moving to Cosmos to build its own native chain on Cosmos SDK and Tendermint Proof-of-stake with the hopes of regaining the market dominance it once had.
Here is how and why the move is set to achieve full decentralisation, seeking to solve the problems dYdX had in the past:
Cosmos makes it easy to establish a blockchain with cross-chain capabilities leveraging the Cosmos Tendermint proof-of-stake consensus engine. Cosmos is decentralised and customizable and each Cosmos chain has its own validators and staking token. Other alternative L1s or L2 would not be suitable for dYdX because they are incapable of handling the throughput that dYdX requires (10 operations/second and 1,000 places/cancellations per second).
Because app-specific chains in Cosmos are not dependent on other protocols in the network, network congestion experienced in Ethereum is not a concern. Projects can also benefit from Interchain Security from the Cosmos Hub to increase stability and security.
dYdX contemplated constructing an AMM or RFQ system, but realized an orderbook-based protocol was essential for pro traders and institutions. As such, dYdX concluded that an improvement requires a decentralised off-chain network to handle the orderbook.
While Serum on Solana does create the order book exchanges on-chain, Solana trades centralization for greater speed. dYdX wishes to achieve faster transaction processing while maintaining decentralisation, which is a tough task. Enter Cosmos.
Developing a blockchain for dYdX V4 allows full customization over how the blockchain functions and validator duties. As indicated, Cosmos’ chain may be tailored to the dYdX network’s demands. Traders would pay fees based on deals performed, comparable to dYdX V3 or other centralized exchanges. Cosmos will also bring a greater utility to the current pure governance $DYDX token.
What is Cosmos SDK?
One of the most differential aspects of Cosmos is its SDK. The Cosmos SDK is a collection of tools and frameworks created by the Cosmos team. Developers may use this SDK to begin building the application logic layer. Furthermore, users may utilize Cosmos SDK in combination with Tendermint Core and ABCI to access the consensus engine and networking layer’s current functionality.
Some of the benefits include the ease with which the essential ABCI methods, the storage layer, cryptographic features, and client apps in Go may be implemented. It also offers on-chain governance and management of user accounts, keys, and transaction balances, among other items.
The SDK is extremely simple to use, and many of its features may be scaffolded in seconds using Github. You may also overwrite existing methods with your own logic. This saves teams and developers a lot of time and energy when it comes to creating projects. As an example, Kyve Network took less than a week to transfer from Ethereum and have a base chain up and running. It is generally much harder to launch chains on other networks. Read more about why it is so, here.
Lately, there have been reports of Cosmos incurring a significant cost of chain security. This is not entirely correct. With an inflation rate of 8% and an average commission rate of 8%, the validators receive 0.6% of the token supply each year. That’s hardly a lot. Furthermore, individuals enjoy staking because it increases their engagement; they lock up tokens, and validators test your software or perform other services. It’s not a high price to pay.
The future of Ethereum Layer 2, Ethereum 2.0, will increase performance, but the overwhelming assumption is that it will still prioritize security over speed. In comparison, Solana is extremely quick, making it ideal for high-frequency trading systems. When it comes to performance and flexibility, a sovereign app-chain is an obvious choice.
A win-win move
By moving to Cosmos, dYdX will also add a new group of customers to the Internet of Blockchain’s ecosystem; for example, its 24h trading volume is presently $2Bn+, compared to $15M on Osmosis, the network’s largest DEX. Additionally, as stated by Messari’s recent article, StarkWare’s latest valuation alone in private markets was $8 billion. Cosmos’ current valuation in public markets ($ATOM) is $2.9 billion. This certainly raises the question of a possible mismatch in value, especially if Cosmos starts to attract more L2s taking advantage of Ethereum’s slow-moving developments.
This article provides a brief comparative analysis between centralised exchanges (CEX) versus decentralised exchanges (DEX). This will be followed by a comparison of various DEX exchanges to understand why dYdX has opted to join the Cosmos ecosystem. The primary reasons are increased decentralisation, higher throughput, and a developer-friendly SDK.
To help you grasp the subsequent arguments and comparisons, we’ll first go through the key distinctions between a CEX and a DEX. If you already know the distinctions, skip to Part 2 of this article.
Centralised Exchange (CEX): a type of cryptocurrency exchange that is operated by a company that owns it in a centralised manner. Liquidity is supplied by traders in the form of orders (order book model) that keeps the assets involved in all respects in their custody (e.g. Binance, Coinbase). This method gives the CEX a significant advantage since order placement, matching, and settlement can happen immediately off-chain (even if you then have to switch to the Blockchain in effect to move them to a personal wallet).
Decentralised Exchange (DEX): a platform for exchanging cryptocurrencies based on functionality programmed on the blockchain (i.e., in smart contracts). The trading is done peer-to-peer or between liquidity pools. The liquidity in DEXs (Uniswap and dYdX) is given by the users themselves, who contribute the tokens to a specific pool in return for the fees paid by all those who swap the tokens.
Whereas in CEXs, the user trades directly with the platform and purchases the token of his choice with fiat market availability, the scenario is somewhat different in DEXs. To get a token, a user must swap it for another token pair with a liquidity pool of those 2 assets.
Centralised exchanges enable buyers and sellers to submit bids and asks for specific assets via order books (e.g. cryptocurrencies). Order books still exist on a decentralised exchange, where a user may submit a bid or an ask. However, we often see an alternate option where a user can trade without a counterparty via an automated market maker (AMM). An automated market maker uses a mathematical formula known as a ‘constant product’ to calculate an asset price at every moment by calculating x * y = k. (without bids and asks having to be actively placed). This is possible because market makers on decentralised exchanges are referred to as ‘liquidity providers’ (LPs). LPs place assets in a smart contract and authorise the contract to be traded against. In exchange, an LP receives fees based on the amount of liquidity offered versus the whole pool. In general, using Uniswap as an example, the user must have Ethereum in order to trade with Compound, Curve, and many other services. By doing so, the user pays a 0.3 percent fee directly to the pool where he swapped the token, which is then distributed among all liquidity providers.
Now that we’ve established the primary distinctions between CEXs and DEXs, we’ll look at two sorts of exchange transaction mechanisms that are frequently observed on these exchange platforms.
What is an order book in crypto?
The orderbook concept is the foundation of many CEX and DEX’s (in the case of dYdX) operations. All orders to buy and sell a token are labelled “Bid” and “Ask” in the order book system. The spread is the difference between the highest bid and lowest ask at the top of the book. If a person buys or sells rapidly at the best price available, the order is known as a market order, and the buyer and seller are matched based on top of the book orders. A limit order, on the other hand, is when a person buys or sells a token at a certain price such that the order is posted on the order book.
What are Liquidity Pools in crypto?
A liquidity pool is a collection of money put by LPs into a smart contract. AMM transactions allow you to purchase anything without a seller as long as the pool has enough liquidity and your trade affects the token ratio computed by the algorithm. This approach does not need an order book. Although both LPs and order books operate on a peer-to-peer basis.
This strategy is problematic due to the high amount of slippage for big orders, which necessitates gigantic pools. Uniswap V3 reduced this problem by implementing the concentrated liquidity functionality. Liquidity providers concentrate liquidity in the most likely trading prices rather than spreading it across the entire price range.
We are also now starting to see the rise of hybrid initiatives which combine AMMs and orderbook models in an attempt to extract the best of both worlds. The Cosmos ecosystem is beginning to stand out in this area too, with upcoming protocols such as Onomy.
The cumulative decentralised exchange volume for the past 7 days stands at $10 billion. Uniswap, yet again, led the pack in trading volume.
dYdX’s current trading volume closely resembles Uniswap’s and ranks 10th in ‘Token Holders by DeFi projects’.
However, it is worth noting that the ratio of DEX:CEX spot volume reflected a mere value of 13% for the month of June, noting a decline from 16% in January. Binance, with significantly lower fees, still dominates the market ($11bn 24h volume). This data clearly highlights that decentralised exchanges are merely complementing centralized exchanges that still account for the lion’s share (trading volume).
Despite this, Uniswap has repeatedly surpassed Coinbase in trading volume in the past. In terms of token trading availability, the former dominates with 430 verified coins in V3 and over 8000 trading pairs in V2.
While Binance currently supports trading in more than 600 coins, Uniswap V3 has significantly more liquidity than Coinbase and Binance. However, this is unique to Ethereum and its many pairings.
Uniswap provides double the liquidity of Binance and Coinbase for ETH/USD. Uniswap boasts 3x the liquidity of Binance and 4.5x the liquidity of Coinbase for ETH/BTC. It also possesses three times the liquidity of large centralized exchanges for ETH/mid-cap pairings. NB: A larger liquidity is required in decentralised exchanges to avoid considerable spreading with big trades.
dYdX and Uniswap are both DEXs that operate on the Ethereum blockchain.
What is Uniswap?
Uniswap is an open-source DeFi platform that employs an automated liquidity protocol paradigm instead of an order book. LPs (Liquidity Providers) construct this pool with no listing costs. Any ERC-20 coin may be created if a liquidity pool is accessible for traders.
Factory and Exchange are two Uniswap smart contracts. Factory contracts help introduce new tokens to the network, while Exchange contracts help exchange tokens. When a Liquidity Provider puts a pair of tokens into a smart contract, other users may buy and sell this trading pair, and the liquidity provider receives a cut from the trading charge.
What is dYdX?
dYdX is a non-custodial decentralised exchange that uses Ethereum smart contracts to trade. This allows traders to trade on margin while simultaneously benefitting from Ethereum’s security.
dYdX teamed up with StarkWare to create a Layer 2 protocol. Traders may deposit money and trade instantaneously without incurring transaction costs. Following China’s reiteration of their stance on banning cryptocurrency, daily trading volume surged to nearly $10 billion on dYdX, beating Uniswap for the first time in September 2021. Later, dYdX lost a significant amount of its market share due to competition and outage problems which questioned the integrity of the protocol. Despite this, being the first perpetual DEX protocol to implement a Layer 2 solution has certainly paid off.
Derivatives trading is a trademark of dYdX. Compared to spot trading, derivatives trading offers more application possibilities, which may help customers adapt to changing market trends, increase profits, hedge risks, improve resource allocation, etc. Derivatives trading is projected to add new incremental users, more live water to the market, and set the groundwork for a fresh DeFi breakout.
Recently, dYdX announced that the protocol is moving to Cosmos to build its own native chain on Cosmos SDK and Tendermint Proof-of-stake with the hopes of regaining the market dominance it once had.
Here is how and why the move is set to achieve full decentralisation, seeking to solve the problems dYdX had in the past:
Cosmos makes it easy to establish a blockchain with cross-chain capabilities leveraging the Cosmos Tendermint proof-of-stake consensus engine. Cosmos is decentralised and customizable and each Cosmos chain has its own validators and staking token. Other alternative L1s or L2 would not be suitable for dYdX because they are incapable of handling the throughput that dYdX requires (10 operations/second and 1,000 places/cancellations per second).
Because app-specific chains in Cosmos are not dependent on other protocols in the network, network congestion experienced in Ethereum is not a concern. Projects can also benefit from Interchain Security from the Cosmos Hub to increase stability and security.
dYdX contemplated constructing an AMM or RFQ system, but realized an orderbook-based protocol was essential for pro traders and institutions. As such, dYdX concluded that an improvement requires a decentralised off-chain network to handle the orderbook.
While Serum on Solana does create the order book exchanges on-chain, Solana trades centralization for greater speed. dYdX wishes to achieve faster transaction processing while maintaining decentralisation, which is a tough task. Enter Cosmos.
Developing a blockchain for dYdX V4 allows full customization over how the blockchain functions and validator duties. As indicated, Cosmos’ chain may be tailored to the dYdX network’s demands. Traders would pay fees based on deals performed, comparable to dYdX V3 or other centralized exchanges. Cosmos will also bring a greater utility to the current pure governance $DYDX token.
What is Cosmos SDK?
One of the most differential aspects of Cosmos is its SDK. The Cosmos SDK is a collection of tools and frameworks created by the Cosmos team. Developers may use this SDK to begin building the application logic layer. Furthermore, users may utilize Cosmos SDK in combination with Tendermint Core and ABCI to access the consensus engine and networking layer’s current functionality.
Some of the benefits include the ease with which the essential ABCI methods, the storage layer, cryptographic features, and client apps in Go may be implemented. It also offers on-chain governance and management of user accounts, keys, and transaction balances, among other items.
The SDK is extremely simple to use, and many of its features may be scaffolded in seconds using Github. You may also overwrite existing methods with your own logic. This saves teams and developers a lot of time and energy when it comes to creating projects. As an example, Kyve Network took less than a week to transfer from Ethereum and have a base chain up and running. It is generally much harder to launch chains on other networks. Read more about why it is so, here.
Lately, there have been reports of Cosmos incurring a significant cost of chain security. This is not entirely correct. With an inflation rate of 8% and an average commission rate of 8%, the validators receive 0.6% of the token supply each year. That’s hardly a lot. Furthermore, individuals enjoy staking because it increases their engagement; they lock up tokens, and validators test your software or perform other services. It’s not a high price to pay.
The future of Ethereum Layer 2, Ethereum 2.0, will increase performance, but the overwhelming assumption is that it will still prioritize security over speed. In comparison, Solana is extremely quick, making it ideal for high-frequency trading systems. When it comes to performance and flexibility, a sovereign app-chain is an obvious choice.
A win-win move
By moving to Cosmos, dYdX will also add a new group of customers to the Internet of Blockchain’s ecosystem; for example, its 24h trading volume is presently $2Bn+, compared to $15M on Osmosis, the network’s largest DEX. Additionally, as stated by Messari’s recent article, StarkWare’s latest valuation alone in private markets was $8 billion. Cosmos’ current valuation in public markets ($ATOM) is $2.9 billion. This certainly raises the question of a possible mismatch in value, especially if Cosmos starts to attract more L2s taking advantage of Ethereum’s slow-moving developments.
Cosmos has historically been an ecosystem that has promoted horizontal scalability, as opposed to vertical scalability. The Cosmos ecosystem has been able to scale horizontally more efficiently than any other ecosystem as a result of having the most mature interoperability protocol and software development kit in cryptocurrency, known as the Inter-Blockchain Communication Protocol (IBC) and Cosmos Software Development Kit (Cosmos SDK). Simply put, IBC is a set of standards that facilitates communication between blockchains in the Cosmos and the Cosmos SDK is an open-source framework for building permissionless Proof-of-Stake (PoS) blockchains. IBC and Cosmos SDK enable teams to spin-up application-specific PoS blockchains with ease, which connects to all other PoS blockchains built with Cosmos SDK and IBC. As of time of writing, there are 46 zones (Cosmos SDK blockchains) that are connected to IBC. The power of having the flexibility and optionality to create your own blockchain in the Cosmos allows the ecosystem to scale ‘horizontally’. Any time blockspace reaches capacity on a single blockchain, another blockchain can be conceived that connects to the existing blockchain. This is in stark contrast to other ecosystems such as Ethereum, whereby an application suffers if blockspace on Ethereum is at capacity because bandwidth becomes much more expensive. Now, for the first time in Cosmos history, there are multiple vertical scaling solutions being built in the Cosmos ecosystem that complement existing horizontal scaling solutions that already exist within the ecosystem. This article focuses on four vertical scaling solutions being worked on in the Cosmos, which include (Cosmos Hub) Interchain Security, Dymension, Celestia and Saga. The Cosmos ecosystem is unique in that each vertical scaling solution being worked on intrinsically scales horizontally as well, thanks to the flexibility facilitated by the modularisation of Cosmos.
When bandwidth becomes expensive on networks such as Ethereum, users suffer from high transaction fees. Networks such as Ethereum have attempted to solve issues with scalability by creating scaling solutions that work ‘vertically’, as opposed to ‘horizontally’. Vertical scaling entails another layer being built on top of Ethereum network, which leverages the underlying security of Ethereum (known as the Layer 1) yet handles transaction execution off-chain (known as the Layer 2). This is an important step to take transaction execution off-chain because as of right now, transaction execution on Ethereum is responsible for the majority of bandwidth woes. Another word for a Layer 2 is an execution layer because transactions are executed off-chain. After transactions are executed on a Layer 2 (execution) layer, a proof is sent to the underlying Layer 1 (e.g. Ethereum) of the state changes that have occurred off-chain. There is then either a period of time whereby other actors in the network can prove fraud if execution off-chain is different to what has been written on-chain (via fraud proofs) or a verifying contract on-chain has to verify the validity of a zero-knowledge proof coming from an actor such as a sequencer that must also ensure all transactions are available so any full node can recover all transactions in order to also verify that execution being written on-chain is correct. Without diving too deep into the technical details, simply speaking Layer 2s can save users gas due to superior encoding, which is well-explained by Vitalik Buterin here.
Using a Layer 2, or vertical scaling is an alternative way for users and applications to execute transactions off-chain and write data to the Layer 1 to save blockspace by using compressed data and calldata (as opposed to writing directly to storage of a Layer 1, which is more expensive bytes-wise) and hence results in lower transaction fees.
In the past, Cosmos and Ethereum have taken a completely different approach, with Ethereum focusing on vertical scaling and Cosmos focusing on horizontal scaling. Now, the two ecosystems seem to be converging as both are making progress towards incorporating elements of the opposite approach to scaling in order to compliment its existing work on either vertical or horizontal scaling. This article will focus on vertical scaling solutions that are in the works in the Cosmos ecosystem that aim to complement the existing horizontal scaling solutions that are already available in the Cosmos. In particular, this article will cover 4 vertical scaling solutions in no particular order that are being worked on in the Cosmos, including: Interchain Security, Dymension, Celestia and Saga.
The first vertical scaling solution to mention going live in the Cosmos is Interchain Security on Cosmos Hub. In short, Interchain Security allows networks to lease security from the Cosmos Hub. In practice, this means that networks do not have to spend time ‘bootstrapping’ validators for its network, which can be a drawback of horizontal scaling. To explain further, each network that goes live in the Cosmos has security equal to the amount of value it has staked, meaning there is an argument that networks could be seemingly less secure in the Cosmos if the amount of assets backing a network (staked) is not high enough. For example, due to the nature of Tendermint consensus, if a validator (or group of validators) controls more than 34% of stake on a network, it is able to halt finality in a Cosmos network and essentially censor a network. Therefore, it can be appealing for a Cosmos team to instead opt for using the security of Cosmos Hub, which currently has ~$1.5bn worth of stake (ATOM) securing it. Not only would a team not have to worry about increasing the value of its network to ensure the security of it but it can also ‘lease’ validators that already exist on Cosmos Hub and therefore not have to do business development work to obtain validators and work on its security budget for its own validator set. In return, a ‘consumer chain’ (a chain that borrows security from Cosmos Hub) pays a leasing fee to the Hub itself and those who secure it, which is x% of a consumer chain’s emissions schedule being redirected to Cosmos Hub delegators. The fee paid to Cosmos Hub delegators for each consumer chain will be specified in a Cosmos Hub governance post. A governance post that pitches a team’s vision / product is required from teams looking to rent security from Cosmos Hub because consumer chains are ‘permissioned’, meaning consumer chains can only borrow security from the Hub if enough ATOM holders vote YES on it in a governance vote. One nice feature of interchain security is that it gives team the choice of either creating their own ‘custom consumer chain’ or ‘contract consumer chain’. The main difference between the two comes down to the binary that validators run. In contract consumer chains this is standard, whilst in customer consumer chains teams have the flexibility of customising the binary to experiment with different transaction fees and transaction assembly. A good overview of Cosmos Hub interchain security versus other solutions is presented here:
Figure 1 — The advantages Interchain Security offers versus existing deployment options (source: Informal Systems)
Whilst the promise of leasing security from Cosmos Hub sounds enticing, there is a trade-off to be had here on decentralisation of Cosmos Hub. This is because validators that operate nodes on Cosmos Hub will also be required to run nodes for consumer chains simultaneously to the Hub (at least in version 1). This extra requirement on validators will likely result in validators needing ‘beefier’ hardware in order to keep up with the workload as consumer chains vertically scale whilst borrowing security from Cosmos Hub (similarly to shards borrow security from Ethereum in that ecosystem). To put it simply, validators suffer at the hands of making it easier for teams wanting to get a headstart with security and a validator set. However, it is important to note that consumer chains always have the option to create it’s own network (i.e. a team can use vertical scaling via interchain security to start and then transition to horizontal scaling outside of the Cosmos Hub with its own blockchain at a later point). To date, there is two projects that are a certainty to use interchain security, which is Quicksilver and Neutron. Quicksilver for example, has opted to use interchain security over building out its own network because it is focused on liquid staking, which directly impacts security of all Cosmos networks, therefore security of its own chain is paramount in order to keep the entire Cosmos ecosystem secure.
Another vertical scaling solution being worked on in the Cosmos is Dymension. Dymension is taking a very similar approach to Ethereum’s current vertical scaling roadmap. The main difference that Dymension is taking compared to Ethereum is the level of customisation and flexibility on offer versus what is available in Ethereum. Dymension is working on creating a Rollup Development Kit (RDK). The RDK takes inspiration from the Cosmos SDK and can be tweaked effortlessly by any team, depending on their needs. Dymension is working on ‘enshrined rollups’, which communicate and transact with the settlement layer via native protocols and modules and thus increase the overall security over traditional rollups. Another element Dymension has thanks to interoperability properties materialising from the Cosmos is that of native interoperability between Dymension rollups, which are connected to the Dymension settlement layer. Another unique property Dymension is leveraging that is not available in the Ethereum ecosystem is PoS for sybil resistance / to solve the keeper’s dilemma. Dymension has come up with a unique way to solve the keeper’s dilemma that rollups currently face in Ethereum.
Dymension is in its very early stages, so not much can be given away about the protocol design at this stage. The best way to think of Dymension is like Ethereum’s current settlement and execution layer design (e.g. ORUs executing tx off-chain and then writing state to the ‘settlement’ layer), only Dymension inherits many properties that makes Cosmos networks so dynamic, such as native interoperability, PoS and a developer framework to easily spin-up rollup chains.
Related to Dymension but also with its own unique design that is a vertical scaling solution going live in the Cosmos is Celestia. In a nutshell, Celestia is a ‘data availability network’. Breaking this down, Celestia validators guarantee that state (data) is available for verifiers to verify themselves that execution has been done properly off-chain in order to mitigate any need for a challenge period on the ‘settlement layer’. Celestia network itself does not execute any transactions. It is merely a network that has the latest state of an L2 that can be leveraged by verifiers to determine whether or not data is available (and therefore can reconstruct the previous state to check if execution has been done appropriately in different intermediate states). A nice design choice of Celestia is the way in which it uses 2d Reed-Solomon erasure coding to involve non-consensus nodes in determining whether or not data is indeed available. This is a scaling decision in itself, as light nodes in the past had no role in consensus. In Celestia, light nodes can probabilistically determine that all transactions are available because a block producer would have to withhold >50% of a block’s data in order for censorship to occur. Due to the technology of 2d reed-solomon erasure coding, it becomes a trivial task for light nodes to find out whether even just 1 transaction (which could be 1 in potentially thousands) is being censored by a block producer sequencing to a settlement layer. In data availability design without this, it is burdensome for light clients to sample transactions because if only 1 transaction was withheld (which could be critical), the more transactions that were being batched to a settlement layer, the harder it would be for a light client to find, the less security a roll-up would have.
In the Ethereum ecosystem, a rollup (such as Optimistic Rollup) could post calldata to Ethereum but it is still (relatively) expensive versus posting the same data to Celestia to ensure data is available (and therefore recoverable to challenge what is sequenced to the settlement layer). There is a chance that rollups that exist in Ethereum now might only use Ethereum in the future to challenge the off-chain execution if it was incorrect (and slash on Ethereum) and use Celestia as the data availability layer to verify that data is available in order to submit the challenge.
Celestia is also working on creating a framework that allows zones (outside of rollups) to also write transaction data to Celestia, whereby Celestia ensures it is available. In Celestia’s own words:
Optimint is the software that allows a chain to deploy directly on Celestia, as a rollup. It spins up its own p2p network, collects transactions into blocks and posts them onto Celestia for consensus and data availability.
Optimint is essentially a framework for developers to use that does not require them to undergo business development to find their own validators or create its own security budget as Celestia handles the work for them. Optimint is the consensus layer of Celestia, which provides a framework for transaction ordering that can be used in the data availability layer as well as settlement layer (if required). It is likely that Optimint could rival interchain security because the value proposition is the same for both of them. It is unknown how consensus will differ in Optimint vs Tendermint as it exists in Cosmos Hub today.
In any case, Celestia is a completely unique and elegant design that tailors to all execution layers’ needs. Celestia is blockchain-agnostic and provides consensus over data availability within an execution layer. This is a powerful concept and Celestia’s importance could transpire across both Cosmos and Ethereum in the near future.
Finally, another vertical scaling solution being built in the Cosmos is Saga. Saga is a network that is purpose-built to give each application that launches on its network its own execution environment. This means there could potentially be hundreds / thousands of ‘chainlets’ running on Saga. A core value proposition of Saga is that execution environments are customisable, an application has the flexibility to choose its own execution environment depending on its needs. The power of each individual application having its own execution environment is that resources can be managed in a more efficient way. Whenever one application runs out of blockspace, it can easily spin-up another execution environment that is focused on a particular subset of the activity from the original application via deploying another instance of the same smart contract in order to handle the load. Saga suffers a relatively similar fate to interchain security in that there is a lot of burden placed on validators in order to allow applications and application-specific chains to run smoothly. It is Saga’s intention to have chainlets provisioned by validators in a fully-automated way but this is a complex challenge to solve. If Saga is able to solve provisioning automation in an efficient way, it will be a force to be reckoned with within the Cosmos.
Figure 2 — An overview of the design choices made by Interchain Security, Dymension, Celestia and Saga
To conclude, traditionally Cosmos was fully-focused on scaling the ecosystem horizontally. Horizontal scaling is in stark contrast to the approach Ethereum has taken, which has focused on scaling the network vertically. In 2022, there has been a trend for teams to start working on experimenting with vertical scaling solutions in the Cosmos to complement the already existing horizontal scaling solutions that exist. The four major vertical scaling solutions that are being worked on in the Cosmos are Cosmos Hub Interchain Security, Dymension, Celestia and Saga.
Each vertical scaling solution comes with its own design choices and trade-offs. However one theme holds true amongst all vertical solutions being worked on in the Cosmos — flexibility. All vertical scaling solutions in the Cosmos are completely customisable and offer a tremendous amount of freedom for developers to experiment with. The original value proposition of the Cosmos — IBC, Cosmos SDK and Tendermint is being leveraged in different ways by new vertical solutions in the Cosmos. What is unique to scaling in the Cosmos is that it is intrinsically horizontal. All vertical scaling solutions being built still scale horizontally. This is in large part due to the seamless experience, standards and software development kits that are prevalent in the Cosmos. Even if a vertical scaling solution is built that leverages the security of an underlying validator set, it scales horizontally in an easier manner than what can be found in other networks because of the modularity of the Cosmos. For the first time in Cosmos history, vertical scaling will accompany existing horizontal scaling to pioneer what could be the most scalable blockchain ecosystem in existence.
Xavier Meegan is Research and Ventures Lead at Chorus One.
Medium: https://medium.com/@xave.meegan
Twitter: https://twitter.com/0xave
Chorus One is one of the largest staking providers globally. We provide node infrastructure and closely work with over 30 Proof-of-Stake networks.
Website: https://chorus.one
Twitter: https://twitter.com/chorusone
Telegram: https://t.me/chorusone
Newsletter: https://substack.chorusone.com
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/ChorusOne
