Derek Yoo From Moonbeam Believes Someone Had to Do Something About Ethereum’s Gas Prices

Derek Yoo From Moonbeam Believes Someone Had to Do Something About Ethereum’s Gas Prices

Moonbeam, with a website that looks like something out of a detective novel, is a highly specialized Layer 1.5 chain, Ethereum-compatible developer platform targeted to Ethereum and Solidity developers. It is also a parachain on the Polkadot, which means it benefits from the shared security and interoperability that the Polkadot network provides. Many chains are pursuing a multi-chain deployment strategy which often includes deployments to Ethereum and also on BSC and Moonbeam.

Moonbeam extends the base of Ethereum’s feature set with extra features such as on-chain governance, staking, and cross-chain integrations. The full package. According to the CEO, Derek Yoo, somebody had to do something about the impracticality of Ethereum’s main challenges.

Derek Yoo

We spoke to Derek Yoo from Moonbeam to discover their angle.

IM: Hi Derek, what is Moonbeam all about?

Given the sometimes outlandish gas prices, projects are motivated to find an environment with cheaper transaction fees. We aim to provide the easiest development environment and the richest set of developer integrations on Polkadot. By making it easy for developers to build on Moonbeam, we are able to attract and onboard new and existing applications to the Polkadot ecosystem very quickly, which promise transactions at a snippet of the cost.

IM: Why are developers looking for different solutions outside of the Ethereum chain?

We have been talking to a lot of Ethereum based projects and protocols. At this point, a majority of projects are looking to expand via a multi-chain deployment strategy. Our value proposition for these projects is that they can use their existing Ethereum codebase, and with minimal-to-no changes deploy it to Moonbeam, and in doing so have a Polkadot based deployment. Projects are interested in having Polkadot based deployments to be able to serve different users and use cases than they are able to serve on Eth mainnet. And at the same time they are interested in access to Polkadot based assets, and to be a first mover in this new and quickly growing ecosystem.

Story continues

IM: What advantages can building with Moonbeam bring?

Moonbeam is designed to simplify the experience for Ethereum developers as they expand to Polkadot. This has a few key components:

Minimal Codebase Changes: if you have an existing contract, it will work right away with no need to rewrite or reconfigure Language Support: write smart contracts in Solidity or anything that compiles to EVM bytecode Use Existing Tools and dApp Front-Ends: connect popular tools like MetaMask, Remix, and Truffle via a complete set of Web3 RPC endpoints. Use well known Javascript libraries such as Web3.Js or Ethers.Js. Core Developer Integrations: integrations with the most-requested developer tools and services like APIs (The Graph, Biconomy, Covalent, OnFinality), assets (Ocean Protocol), bridges (ChainSafe, Interlay, and an NFT bridge in the works), DeFi protocols (SushiSwap, IDEX), oracles (Chainlink, Band Protocol) and many more. Unified Accounts, Addresses, and Signatures: use your existing Ethereum H160 accounts & ECDSA signatures to interact with Moonbeam

IM: Why would I build on Moonbeam rather than creating my own parachain or parathread on Polkadot?

By far the most important decision a project makes when building on Polkadot is this question of whether to build your own parachain/parathread or whether to build on top of an already existing parachain. Your options are:

Building a parachain which involves using the Substrate development framework that Parity provides to build your own blockchain. This blockchain will connect to the Polkadot relay chain for shared security and cross-chain communication. Building on an already-existing parachain (like Moonbeam) which will largely take the form of building your application using smart contracts, leveraging one of the smart contract parachains that are connected to Polkadot. There are multiple smart contract parachain options available supporting different smart contract programming languages. Building a parathread which are Substrate-based runtimes that run in shared parachain slots reserved for parathreads. They are very similar to parachains from a development and responsibilities perspective. The key difference is that you avoid the upfront cost for the parachain slot, but you need to pay for each block you want included on your chain. So there will be a market-based fee model for transaction inclusion similar to how smart contracts chains work. From an implementation and responsibilities perspective, they are similar to parachains. From a scalability and cost perspective, they are similar to smart contracts, as they execute in a shared environment and the deployment and ongoing transaction costs are smart contract-like.

Many teams just starting out on Polkadot are opting for a smart contract based approach. This makes sense as smart contracts are much easier, faster, and cheaper to implement. This fits well for teams that want to get going quickly and prove out product market fit before making more investments. These teams always have the option of migrating to a full parachain if and when required. In this case they can take advantage of Polkadot interoperability to make this a smooth transition.

Another important consideration is if your project is considering a multi-chain deployment approach. For teams that are pursuing a multi-chain deployment approach, it is almost always the case that Ethereum is one of the deployment platforms. Projects with existing Ethereum-based deployments will naturally tend toward the smart contract approach on Polkadot and working with an existing smart contract parachain. The reason is that by working on a parachain like Moonbeam, they can leverage the same single codebase for both their Ethereum based deployment and their Polkadot based deployment (via Moonbeam). This is much more efficient than building and maintaining 2 independent implementations of their application using 2 different technology stacks.

IM: What is the difference between Substrate and Moonbeam?

Substrate is a Rust-based development framework for building blockchains. It is the technology used to build Polkadot and parachains that connect to Polkadot. Moonbeam is built with Substrate. Developers that want to build a parachain that is directly connected to Polkadot will use Substrate and Rust. Developers that want to develop a smart contract based application can use Solidity and the Ethereum developer toolchain on Moonbeam and use Moonbeam’s parachain implementation to connect to Polkadot.

IM: What kind of projects would you serve best?

Many of the project teams we are supporting are pursuing a multi-chain deployment strategy. Since Moonbeam is designed to ease the transition for Ethereum developers as they expand to Polkadot, the types of projects adopting it are quite broad. See here for a list of projects currently building on Moonbeam: https://moonbeam.network/community/projects/. Projects adopting Moonbeam include DeFi apps and protocols, NFT platforms, and even games. One thing many of the developers working with Moonbeam have in common is a preference for developing in Solidity over Substrate / Rust.

IM: Any launch dates in mind?

Launch timing is very much dependent on parachain availability coming to Kusama and Polkadot, and there are no fixed launch dates for this. Once Parity releases parachain functionality, we plan to first launch Moonriver to Kusama, which we expect in the next two months. Later this year, we expect to be able to launch Moonbeam to Polkadot.

Ethereum, Litecoin, and Ripple’s XRP – Daily Tech Analysis – May 19th, 2021

Ethereum

Ethereum rose by 2.82% on Tuesday. Partially reversing an 8.41% slide from Monday, Ethereum ended the day at $3,375.96.

A mixed start to the day saw Ethereum fall to an early morning intraday low $3,241.06 before making a move.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $3,064, Ethereum rallied to a late morning intraday high $3,567.40.

Ethereum broke through the 23.6% FIB of $3,369 and the first major resistance level at $3,546 before hitting reverse.

The reversal saw Ethereum fall back through the first major resistance level and the 23.6% FIB of $3,369 before wrapping up the day at $3,375 levels.

At the time of writing, Ethereum was up by 1.29% to $3,419.41. A mixed start to the day saw Ethereum fall to an early morning low $3,356.80 before rising to a high $3,419.76

While leaving the major support and resistance levels untested early on, Ethereum tested support at the 23.6% FIB of $3,369.

For the day ahead

Ethereum would need to avoid the $3,395 pivot to bring the first major resistance level at $3,549 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Ethereum to break back through to $3,500 levels.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and resistance at $3,600 would likely cap any upside.

In the event of a breakout, Ethereum could test the second major resistance level at $3,721.

Failure to avoid a fall back through the $3,395 pivot would bring the 23.6% FIB of $3,369 and the first major support level at $3,222 into play.

Barring an extended sell-off, however, Ethereum should steer clear of the second major support level at $3,069.

Looking at the Technical Indicators

First Major Support Level: $3,222

Pivot Level: $3,395

First Major Resistance Level: $3,549

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $3,369

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $2,740

62% FIB Retracement Level: $1,725

Litecoin

Litecoin rose by 4.49% on Tuesday. Reversing a 4.94% loss from Monday, Litecoin ended the day at $294.13.

Story continues

A mixed start to the day saw Litecoin fall to an early morning intraday low $278.49 before making a move.

Steering clear of the 38.2% FIB of $265 and the first major support level at $263, Litecoin rallied to a late morning intraday high $318.43.

Litecoin broke through the first major resistance level at $298 and the second major resistance level at $315.

An early afternoon pullback, however, saw Litecoin slide back to sub-$290 levels before finding support.

Litecoin broke back through the first major resistance level at $298 to revisit $312 levels before ending the day at $294 levels.

At the time of writing, Litecoin was up by 0.78% to $296.43. A mixed start to the day saw Litecoin fall to an early morning low $290.79 before rising to a high $296.91.

Litecoin left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

For the day ahead

Litecoin would need to move through the $297 pivot to bring the first major resistance level at $315 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Litecoin to break back through to $315 levels.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and Tuesday’s high $318.43 would likely cap any upside.

In the event of an extended breakout, Litecoin could test resistance at $340. Litecoin would need plenty of support, however, to break through the 23.6% FIB of $322. The second major resistance level sits at $336.

Failure to move through the $297 pivot would bring the first major support level at $276 into play.

Barring another extended sell-off, however, Litecoin should steer clear of the Second major support level at $258. the 38.2% FIB of $265 should limit the downside.

Looking at the Technical Indicators

First Major Support Level: $276

Pivot Level: $297

First Major Resistance Level: $315

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $322

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $265

62% FIB Retracement Level: $174

Ripple’s XRP

Ripple’s XRP rallied by 6.46% on Tuesday. Following on from a 3.12% gain on Monday, Ripple’s XRP ended the day at $1.59238.

A mixed start to the day saw Ripple’s XRP fall to an early morning intraday low $1.47311 before making a move.

Steering clear of the first major support level at $1.3606, Ripple’s XRP rallied to a late morning intraday high $1.70425.

Ripple’s XRP broke through the 23.6% FIB of $1.5426 and the first major resistance level at $1.5966.

Coming up against the second major resistance level at $1.6979, however, Ripple’s XRP fell back to $1.52 levels.

Finding late support, Ripple’s XRP broke back through the 23.6% FIB of $1.5426 to end the day at $1.59 levels. The first major resistance level at $1.5966 pinned Ripple’s XRP back late in the day.

At the time of writing, Ripple’s XRP was up by 0.24% to $1.59621. A mixed start to the day saw Ripple’s XRP fall to an early morning low $1.57889 before rising to a high $1.59835.

Ripple’s XRP left the major support and resistance levels untested early on.

For the day ahead

Ripple’s XRP will need to avoid a fall back through the $1.5900 pivot to bring the first major resistance level at $1.7067 into play.

Support from the broader market would be needed, however, for Ripple’s XRP to break back through to $1.70 levels.

Barring an extended crypto rally, the first major resistance level and Tuesday’s high $1.70425 would likely cap any upside.

In the event of another extended rally, Ripple’s XRP could test resistance at $1.90 levels. The second major resistance level sits at $1.8209.

Failure to avoid a fall back through the $1.5900 pivot would bring the 23.6% FIB of $1.5426 and the first major support level at $1.4757 into play.

Barring another extended sell-off, however, Ripple’s XRP should steer clear of sub-$1.40 levels. The second major support level sits at $1.3590.

Looking at the Technical Indicators

First Major Support Level: $1.4757

Pivot Level: $1.5900

First Major resistance Level: $1.7067

23.6% FIB Retracement Level: $1.5426

38.2% FIB Retracement Level: $1.2807

62% FIB Retracement Level: $0.8573

Please let us know what you think in the comments below.

Thanks, Bob

This article was originally posted on FX Empire

More From FXEMPIRE:

Is the Bitcoin-Ethereum ‘Flippening’ a Likely Scenario?

It has been a bad week for the crypto space. Elon Musk is widely believed to play a major role in crashing Bitcoin’s price by $12k when he tweeted that Tesla will no longer be accepting Bitcoin. He framed this backtracking as an environmental concern due to the high levels of energy consumption required in Bitcoin mining. As a result, this had a cascading effect on almost all altcoins with very few exceptions.

To set the record straight, it is very difficult to portray Bitcoin as an ecological problem. Not only do miners use renewable sources at a rate over 70% across all continents, but when put into context with other sectors, Musk’s notorious tweet makes even less sense.

Source: Hass McCook Medium

Based on this, The situation has resulted in a number of different ideas floating around as to why Musk made this decision. Some argue that the U.S. government could be the motive behind the move, as BTC could potentially threaten the USD. Remember that Musk has plenty of dealings with the government – subsidies, green credits, and a SpaceX contract. Musk, afterall, is known to leverage nearly $5 billion in government subsidies. This substantial vested interest may have exerted enough pressure for him to abandon and besmirch the predominant cryptocurrency. No doubt, his 54 million followers will remember how corrosive he has become, eroding the wealth of millions. Interestingly, the creator of DOGE, the dog coin Musk has been bizarrely obsessed about for the last half year, had no kind words to share.

In this turmoil, it is noticeable that Bitcoin brought down much of the crypto sector with it, demonstrating once again it’s gravitic force on the crypto ecosystem. However, what is also noticeable is that some projects have gone up, and they are all related to smart contracts. Cardano (ADA) is a highly anticipated direct competitor to Ethereum, promising more scalability and smart contracts with the Alonzo upgrade.

Ethereum is fast-closing to its full Proof-of-Stake (PoS) transition with the upcoming London hard fork. Together with Binance Smart Chain and Polygon (Matic), they have all outperformed Bitcoin during the last month, in terms of percentage price gains when paired with USD.

Story continues

Matic vs Ada vs ETH vs BTC performance (source: TradingView)

Although the current crypto downturn is significant, it bears exploring what this shift in trends means for the relationship between Ethereum and Bitcoin. More precisely, is it likely that Ethereum and Bitcoin will switch places? In other words, are we about to see the “flippening”?

Ethereum and Bitcoin Complement Each Other

If one were to describe the two largest cryptocurrencies by market cap – Bitcoin and Ethereum – the former is the guardian of wealth while the latter is a utility juggernaut. Bitcoin’s own utility is quite limited in scope. It can serve as a payment method, but it has instead become a store of value, with Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Litecoin (LTC) taking the lead as more suitable crypto payment methods.

As you can see on the chart below, out of the four cryptocurrencies, Bitcoin and Ethereum are aberrations in terms of average transaction fees.

BTC vs ETH vs LTC vs BCH transaction fees (source: bitinfocharts.com)

Outside of being more popular, Bitcoin owes this drastically higher transaction fee, compared to BCH and LTC, to its block size of only 1 MB. This design decision cleared the way for the phenomenon of Bitcoin “hodling”, making it a digital asset akin to gold that draws its value as a hedge against inflation.

On the other hand, Ethereum’s 76% higher fee than even Bitcoin should be a thing of the past by the year’s end. Ethereum is slowly progressing from the less scalable Proof-of-Work consensus toward Proof-of-Stake, leaving behind congestion and enormous transaction fees. This transition did not come free of cost.

Binance Smart Chain stepped in to fill the congestion gap, achieving 600% more daily transactions than Ethereum during the same period. Such a surge in popularity from a direct competitor speaks of the treasure Ethereum holds – smart contracts. In contrast to Bitcoin, Ethereum’s blockchain is highly flexible, able to store auto-executable contracts within its data blocks. All those exorbitantly expensive NFTs that paraded across news headlines this year were mostly hosted on Ethereum.

Likewise, lending and borrowing protocols – Uniswap, Maker, Aave, Compound, and dozens of others – accumulated $75.6 billion in total value locked (TVL).

These DeFi dApps demonstrate on a daily basis that they can replace much of the existing banking infrastructure, which brings us to the key value propositions Bitcoin and Ethereum play:

To borrow a metaphor from the world’s most popular office app, think of Bitcoin as an Excel spreadsheet. This secured and distributed record tracks the number of Bitcoins in each cell.

Ethereum has the ability to do the same and beyond. Instead of just recording the number of crypto coins in each cell, Ethereum can build macros that interact with formulas among other cells.

However, the cost of Ethereum’s greater flexibility is vulnerability. While there hasn’t yet been a documented instance of Bitcoin’s blockchain getting compromised, the same cannot be said of the protocols built on top of every blockchain—and Ethereum has a lot of those. Flash loan attacks are the most common attack when it comes to Ethereum’s smart contracts, incurring great losses.

We have yet to see how Cardano performs when it unrolls its smart contract capability. This leaves Bitcoin in a special position that is not likely to be unseated. Together with its deflationary mechanism, limited coin supply, and incredibly strong network security, Bitcoin represents a peace of mind that no smart contract-enabled blockchain has yet to achieve.

Ethereum Is Entering Bullish Territory

With BSC getting six times the traffic of Ethereum, one has to ask which one is likely to be The programmable blockchain. While Ethereum’s ongoing ETH 2.0 upgrade and still-high fees leave it wide open to competition, it has powerful winds behind its sails to eventually win the smart contract wars:

Ethereum holds (by far) the largest pool of developers, according to Electric Capital. As a number of open source dev ops tools are available to make remote work easier through collaboration, managing developers remains a serious cog in DeFi development. Yet Ethereum and its developer community have thus far been dominant in this sense.

In the last three years, Ethereum has widened its developer pool by 215%. Such a network effect would be exceedingly difficult to overcome.

Ethereum is far more decentralized compared to BSC, by magnitudes of degree – there are 21 validators on BSC compared to over 70,000 on Ethereum.

Ethereum continues to hit record low ETH token supply on exchanges, indicating that BSC popularity is transitory.

In other words, all those ETH hodlers are just waiting for Ethereum’s 2.0 transition to proof-of-stake to finalize.

DeFi smart contracts hold almost twice as much locked ETH than centralized exchanges do, once again indicating high demand for Ethereum’s smart contract service.

Alongside BSC, Polkadot, Cardano, Near Protocol, and Solana are Ethereum’s top competitors, all of which have also grown substantially. Nonetheless, Ethereum has another trick up its sleeve – Polygon (MATIC). Until the ETH 2.0 upgrade completes, Matic is there to remove the congestion as a multichain scaling solution. Simply put, Polygon makes cheaper transactions possible by using Ethereum’s sidechains, which are called Layer 2 solutions.

Suffice to say, Polygon has become tremendously successful in facilitating this goal. As people try to flee high fees, Sushiswap, the competitor to Ethereum’s most popular protocol – Uniswap – managed to accrue over $350 million in TVL since it announced it will launch on Polygon. A couple of days ago, the sum increased to half a billion.

Overall, the Polygon network is currently lagging behind Uniswap by one rank, with $5.78 billion TVL compared to Uniswap’s $7.13 billion. As far as investments go, this makes the network’s native token - MATIC - enter into the 100x investment range.

(Source: TradingView)

Interestingly, one of the trending searches related to Dogecoin (DOGE) is – “will DOGE ever reach one dollar?”. Once again, the contrast between DOGE and MATIC demonstrates that fundamentals always trounce meme hype (DOGE) over the long haul.

Ethereum Is Poised to Go Up, but Not Over Bitcoin

No matter how much Ethereum is viewed as the infrastructure for digital finance, it still remains untested, with a history of smart contract hacks. While not all of this is directly Ethereum’s fault, it still affects Ethereum. On the other hand however, this cannot be said of Bitcoin. It may not be as exciting as facilitating dApps, but Bitcoin’s draw as safeguarding wealth cannot be over underestimated.

Moreover, Bitcoin is inherently deflationary, unlike Ethereum which relies on high demand to outpace inflation. This demand may bring it to a new ATH this year, but not in the Bitcoin range. As far as Bitcoin’s carbon footprint goes, this is largely a matter of perception.

Given the activity on social media, that perception is turning against Elon Musk. After all, the data is already clear that most Bitcoin miners use clean energy. In turn, this data is also clear to those who absolutely trounced Musk on Twitter, including the owner of Twitter himself – Jack Dorsey.

See more from Benzinga

© 2021 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.