The Bitcoin blockchain itself cannot support smart contracts and sophisticated apps, so to use BTC in a decentralized app, users must first move their BTC in and out of other Bitcoin layers that offer fully expressive smart contracts and decentralized applications. To do that, users go through a “peg,” in which:

A user deposits their Bitcoin (“pegs in”)—we’ll get back to where they deposit in a moment, that’s important.

A user receives a synthetic asset corresponding to the exact amount they deposited. This new asset is programmable and can be used in various Web3 apps.

A user can withdraw all or some of the Bitcoin they deposited (“pegging out”) at any time by burning (destroying) the corresponding amount of that synthetic asset. If they traded that synthetic asset to someone else, then whoever bought it could redeem the corresponding amount of Bitcoin through the same process. 

Simple enough, but today there is a fundamental issue with pegs. They are not decentralized. They require a custodian, someone (or a group of someones) to process the peg-out and send BTC back to the user’s BTC address. 

In other words, you have to trust a centralized entity. That could be a licensed trust company like BitGo (behind wBTC on Ethereum) or a federation of trusted signers to process peg outs (like RSK and Liquid, other Bitcoin layers). But there hasn’t been a way to do this in a secure and decentralized way. In using a Bitcoin peg, you sacrifice the decentralization and security that makes Bitcoin appealing in the first place.

That is, unless you have a decentralized peg. Meet stacks :

sBTC is the first decentralized, non-custodial Bitcoin peg that allows Stacks smart contracts to write back to the Bitcoin blockchain.

#stacks #bitcoin

Polygon supernets and Avalanche subnets are both scalability solutions that aim to help developers deploy or develop app chains rapidly. While they share some similarities, they differ in several ways, including consensus mechanisms, transactions per second, and validator management.

Avalanche has a system of subnets that have dynamic validators working together to achieve consensus. These subnets can be used to create fully customized blockchains on the Avalanche network. In contrast, Polygon supernets provide a cost-efficient way for developers to create their own blockchain networks. The article highlights the benefits of using Polygon supernets and provides a detailed description of the technical architecture of supernets.

In terms of consensus mechanisms, Avalanche uses a consensus protocol called Avalanche-X, which is a variation of the Avalanche consensus protocol. On the other hand, Polygon uses the Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism, which allows validators to stake their tokens to secure the network.

Regarding transactions per second, Avalanche claims to be capable of processing up to 4,500 transactions per second (TPS) on a single subnet, while Polygon can handle up to 7,000 TPS on its network.

Finally, in terms of validator management, Avalanche subnets have dynamic validators, meaning that validators can join and leave the network at any time. In contrast, Polygon supernets have fixed validators that are selected by the network based on the amount of tokens they stake.

In conclusion, both Polygon supernets and Avalanche subnets provide scalability solutions for developers, but they differ in their consensus mechanisms, transactions per second, and validator management. Developers should consider these differences when choosing which solution to use for their projects. #crypto2023

Airdrops have long been a popular way for new projects to gain traction and reward early adopters, especially recently with the successful launch of Blur or the much awaited announcement of Arbitrum.

However, traditional airdrops often do not require any significant commitment from the user, resulting in a low retention rate and little to no engagement with the project beyond simply holding the tokens received. Lately, such terms as “sybil attack” or “airdrop hunters” are oftenly perceived as negative, admist the bear market where projects despartely need real users.

This is where the concept of lockdrop comes in, offering a unique and more effective approach to incentivize and reward token holders. Lockdrop is a unique token distribution mechanism that serves several purpose. Here are some reasons why we need a lockdrop:

Fair distribution: Lockdrop is designed to distribute tokens fairly among users who are willing to commit their existing tokens for a predetermined duration. This ensures that early adopters and long-term supporters of the project receive a share of the tokens.

Long-term commitment: By requiring users to lock up their tokens for a specific period of time, lockdrops incentivize long-term commitment to a project. This can help to reduce volatility in the token price and increase the project’s overall stability.

Community building: By incentivizing users to hold onto their tokens and support the project’s long-term growth, lockdrops can attract dedicated supporters who are invested in the project’s success.

Network security: By requiring users to lock up their tokens, projects can discourage malicious actors from attempting to manipulate the network. This helps to ensure the project’s overall security and stability.

The NFT market has recently been affected by three bank collapse situations. These financial institutions include Silicon Valley Bank, Silvergate, and Signature Bank. Strict rules, a downturn in the economy, a liquidity shortage, and a failure to honor consumer withdrawal requests all contributed to this incident.

Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), a virtual bank, recently went under, and DappRadar observed a sharp decline in trade volumes for non-fungible tokens (NFTs).

According to the DappRadar analysis, NFT's trading volumes were erratic before the March 10 Silicon Valley Bank scandal, ranging between $68 million and $74 million. By March 12, it had dropped to $36 million. The daily sales of non-fungible tokens fell by 27.9% between March and June, which contributed to the fall in trading volumes.