Pump clearly desires market growth rather than merely optimizing returns.
整理 & 编译：深潮TechFlow
Guest: Ryan Connor, Head of Research at Blockworks
Hosts: Mert Mumtaz; Jack Kubinec
Podcast Source: Lightspeed
Original Title: How Will Pump Fun's Token Impact Solana? | Weekly Roundup
Release Date: June 6, 2025
Key Points Summary
This week we bring you a brand new weekly roundup episode, featuring a special discussion with Ryan Connor. We will delve into the token release plan of Pump.fun, why Pump plans to raise $1 billion, the Alpenglow project, how to scale the Solana network, and other hot topics.
Highlights of Insights
Project tokens must have some form of value accumulation mechanism; those without such mechanisms often end up worthless. As it stands, if this token is merely a meme, I find it hard to imagine a market demand of $1 billion.
Some believe they will "run away" to live a luxurious life after getting the money, but the reality is they could easily do that without financing, so this speculation is unfounded.
Pump.fun has not fully mastered user discovery features and does not have complete control over front-end distribution channels. This gives their service a certain commodification characteristic, posing a risk of disintermediation.
I speculate they may use the funds raised to develop new products. For example, they might launch a tool to compete with Axiom, further enhancing the Pump Swap platform, or develop a proprietary wallet to control front-end distribution channels.
Pump.fun provides services that users genuinely need. Whether these services are morally right is irrelevant; what matters is that users are willing to pay for them.
While the services provided by Pump are competitive in asset launches, they are essentially a form of "commoditized" service. In the crypto industry, first-mover advantage is not enough to ensure long-term success; controlling the front end is key to Pump's long-term development.
When you raise funds, you are essentially reducing risk for the next steps. There are generally two ways to do this: one is to expand existing business, and the other is to explore new areas. Capital is the foundation for achieving any business goal, especially in the commercial sector. With ample cash reserves, they can withstand potential bear markets.
While cash reserves can be a "curse," they can also help you build a very strong network effect business.
In the crypto industry, exchanges are among the most profitable and influential businesses.
People in the crypto industry sometimes focus too much on L1 and L2, neglecting the truly important part—the business itself.
Pump clearly desires market growth rather than merely optimizing returns.
Performance optimization is indeed important, but one should not be overly obsessed. The current crypto market has matured, and performance optimization and historical performance have become basic expectations in the industry.
Pump Fun's Token Issuance
Jack Kubinec:
The main topic we are discussing today is the ICO (Initial Coin Offering). Recently, some significant token news has occurred on Solana, which may be the most eye-catching event since Trump coin. This week we received exclusive news that Pump.fun plans to raise $1 billion through token sales, with a valuation of $4 billion for this financing.
This news has sparked widespread discussion in the crypto Twitter community. I believe it may lead to some intense debates. However, I find this news quite interesting, especially the ICO part, which is very appealing. The amount they plan to raise is also astonishing.
What was your first reaction to this news? How do you feel about it now?
Mert Mumtaz:
My first reaction was to want to know more details. We know they will issue a token, and it may be divided into private and public sale phases. But beyond that, I noticed that many comments on this news are more based on people's emotional projections about the market, and the current market environment is not optimistic. Almost every comment says things like "Solana is done," "Are they going to develop their own blockchain?" or "Is this a scam?" There are even discussions about the founders' backgrounds.
I think there are many aspects worth exploring. For example, there will definitely be airdrop activities; this is almost undisputed. If you have been following the relevant dynamics in recent months, you will notice many signs indicating they will conduct a large-scale airdrop.
Another key question is: why do they need to raise this money? Many people are puzzled by this. In fact, they have generated about $700 million to $800 million in revenue over the past year or since the company's inception. So why do they still need financing? This actually reflects the public's limited understanding of business operations, startups, and founders' decision-making.
From a business perspective, why not raise more funds now while the market opportunity is good to expand the business? Pump.fun's core business relies on the meme market. Although they are not the first team to enter this market, they have indeed scaled it to unprecedented heights. Additionally, they are trying to drive market development through other means, such as entering the streaming field. It is said they plan to compete with platforms like Twitch, which is a highly costly business that requires paying celebrities for live streaming collaborations.
So from another perspective, if I were them, I would think my business relies on the meme market, and the current financing could allow me to not worry about funding for a long time, enabling me to boldly take bigger risks to further expand the market or optimize the existing market. Some believe they will "run away" to live a luxurious life after getting the money, but the reality is they could easily do that without financing, so this speculation is unfounded.
As for whether they will leave the Solana network, I personally think this viewpoint is unreasonable. After all, they have achieved significant success on Solana, and continuing to stay in this ecosystem is the most beneficial choice. Of course, the specific details of this financing are yet to be disclosed, but I believe some of the negative reactions in the market are unfounded. We can delve deeper into these issues later.
What is Pump's core strategy?
Jack Kubinec:
As Mert mentioned, people are puzzled by Pump.fun's strategy, mainly because its structure seems a bit complex. I personally believe Pump.fun is likely to launch a large-scale airdrop plan. After all, they have already made a substantial amount of money and also need to create a good market image through airdrops.
From the information currently revealed, Pump.fun's plan seems to combine airdrops with ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings), while retaining a portion of token distribution for founders and early investors. Additionally, this ICO may also target some institutional investors, while most tokens will be sold publicly. This innovative issuance method may be one of their core strategies. Ryan, what are your thoughts on this?
Ryan Connor:
I think this plan is indeed interesting; it is actually a long-anticipated process. The market has long known that Pump.fun would eventually launch a token, but has been speculating about the specific timing. Although their profitability is very strong and operational costs are almost negligible, the founding team clearly has greater ambitions. They have not only set grand visions but also plan to further expand market influence through live streaming and other means.
From a business perspective, Pump.fun's strategy may be to leverage existing market network effects to gradually build social network effects to attract more users. This dual effect will make their products more attractive. However, their current model is not without flaws. The biggest challenge is that they have not fully mastered user discovery features and do not have complete control over front-end distribution channels. This gives their service a certain commodification characteristic, posing a risk of disintermediation.
Therefore, I speculate they may use the funds raised to develop new products. For example, they might launch a tool to compete with Axiom, further enhancing the Pump Swap platform, or develop a proprietary wallet to control front-end distribution channels. If they can control the distribution channels, the future potential will be even greater. However, if they cannot solve the distribution issue, their long-term vision may be limited. As for whether they plan to develop their own blockchain, there are currently no clear signs, but this is indeed a direction worth paying attention to.
Why does Pump plan to raise $1 billion?
Jack Kubinec:
Setting aside the eye-catching content, when you communicate with investors, Pump.fun's token financing plan is indeed controversial. Some question whether there is really a $1 billion demand in the market. Do you think they can successfully raise this amount?
Ryan Connor:
This is a very worthy topic for discussion. I personally think this ICO is highly anticipated. The research team at Blockworks has been analyzing market dynamics, and we found that many cryptocurrency investors are skeptical about this project, believing it lacks profitability. However, given that Pump.fun has already raised over $100 million in venture capital, this skepticism may not hold.
Of course, raising $700 million to $800 million for such a controversial project is not easy. But I believe that ultimately, rational market judgment will prevail. The Pump.fun team is very capable, and their profitability has been validated. For example, when Libra coin was launched, the market was also filled with doubts about its prospects, but it eventually became one of the most profitable projects on-chain. I believe Pump.fun has similar potential. If I had to predict, I think they have a good chance of raising $700 million to $800 million.
Jack Kubinec:
This is just my speculation; I don't have exact information. But it seems to me that Pump's plan to conduct a $1 billion token sale is a challenge to their critics, especially those who believe Pump is purely speculative and lacks long-term value. It's as if they are saying, "You don't believe in our product or think it has practical use. Let me prove how we can raise $1 billion through an ICO, something that hasn't happened in the crypto industry for eight years." Therefore, this appears to be a deliberate move to showcase their strength.
I speculate that Pump will find a way to make this token an attractive investment option. For instance, they might design a buyback mechanism or give the token value accumulation features, or even use it as the native token for their upcoming Twitch-like streaming platform. I believe Pump.fun will not easily launch a token and then disregard its value decline. After all, they are now a large company with many reputations and interests to maintain. Therefore, I trust they will take the value management of the token seriously and implement strategies to stimulate market demand.
However, as it stands, if this token is merely a meme, I find it hard to imagine a market demand of $1 billion. But perhaps this is not necessarily a bad thing. I believe the airdrop phenomenon in 2024 is not friendly to participants in the crypto industry. For example, many people hope to receive funds for free through airdrops, but if they do not receive sufficient rewards, it can lead to dissatisfaction and even market crashes. Additionally, some project teams may pay opaque fees to market manipulators to artificially maintain token prices. So, from this perspective, an ICO might be a healthier solution. But this is just my guess.
Ryan Connor:
Hearing that Pump plans to raise $1 billion with a valuation of $4 billion is indeed attractive. If that's the case, most of the funds could be invested in it because it represents an excellent business model, but the actual distribution may not be entirely so. What needs to be focused on is that, especially when venture capitalists see the terms, there may be some mechanisms regarding token burn or value accumulation. Therefore, what you really need to pay attention to is how value accumulates to the token. Based on the valuations we currently see, I think it is unlikely that all value will accumulate to the token. If a project launches a token, it must have some form of value accumulation mechanism; those without such mechanisms often end up worthless. I believe Pump's token will likely have some value accumulation mechanism, which should attract investors focused on long-term fundamentals. The ultimate question is how much value accumulates and what the subsequent valuation will look like.
Mert Mumtaz:
So the question is why they need to raise so much money. It can be understood that they want funds to develop their business. If we observe the entire venture capital industry, not limited to the crypto field, we can see many cases of massive financing. Some might say that those financed projects have higher technological content, but ultimately, if you are a business wanting to build and create something, funding is indispensable.
Take Pump as an example; if they really want to challenge Twitch, it will be a daunting task. But based on their past performance, I believe they have the capability to do so; they have proven their execution ability. As for those who think they are just continuously extracting funds and acting like "greedy people," that is not fair. After all, no one is forcing anyone to use Pump. There are many other platforms in the market to issue tokens, yet users still choose Pump, which speaks for itself.
Why are users willing to pay more to use Pump? There are competitors in the market, but Pump still dominates. Clearly, they provide services that users genuinely need. Whether these services are morally right is not important. What matters is that users are willing to pay for them. There is no law mandating the use of Pump.fun, yet users still choose it.
This shows that Pump's execution ability is beyond doubt. Many might think, "Oh, they are just continuously extracting funds." But in reality, building a platform that can generate $700 million in revenue in the first year is very challenging. So why does Pump need to raise more funds? More funds mean they can take on higher-risk investments. For example, they could engage in mergers and acquisitions (M&A), such as acquiring a small social network, or invest more in infrastructure development, or even in DeFi teams. Through these means, they can enter new fields or venture into areas with higher regulatory requirements. Of course, these attempts are very costly, but funding support can give them the opportunity to try.
Pump may want to use this funding to enhance the token's value, making it a worthwhile investment project. However, this is not an easy task. They need funds as a buffer to reduce future risks. In fact, when you raise funds, you are essentially reducing risk for the next steps. There are generally two ways to do this: one is to expand existing business, and the other is to explore new areas. Simply put, why do they need to raise this money? Because funding is the foundation for achieving any business goal, especially in the commercial sector. With ample cash reserves, they can withstand potential bear markets.
I believe people in the crypto industry may have forgotten what a real bear market looks like. But in fact, bear markets can sometimes arrive suddenly, last a long time, and have severe impacts. The funds Pump is raising now can help them maintain stability during a bear market while also being used for acquisitions, mergers, and other strategic actions. Of course, I doubt they will engage in mergers, but they can use the funds to challenge some existing large competitors.
It is important to emphasize that Pump's market, revenue, and future depend on the meme market in the crypto field, so they are more motivated than anyone to develop and improve this market. Some believe that raising funds will stifle the meme market, but I find this viewpoint somewhat contradictory because the purpose of raising funds is precisely to improve this market.
Of course, it ultimately comes down to their execution ability. If they really wanted to cash out, they could have already done so with existing funds without needing to raise an additional billion dollars. Beyond that, I believe they may start focusing on investments in MEV infrastructure and core DeFi infrastructure. The supply chain value in these areas is very high, and deep investments require substantial funding support. Therefore, I think they can use this money for various purposes rather than simply meeting short-term needs. For those who believe Pump will mess everything up at once, I think this is a very one-sided view because their goal is clearly to develop the market, not to destroy it.
Jack Kubinec:
I don't think Pump.fun will take this billion dollars to live a carefree life. But I do have a question: With $700 million already in hand, why haven't they been more proactive in the M&A market? Why haven't we seen more application development?
Ryan Connor:
Running a business requires funding, and assuming their profit margin is around 50%, they may not actually have $700 million in liquid funds, but rather about $400 million. Having too much funding can indeed lead to problems. We see in many crypto foundations that when organizations have large cash reserves, they may lose their sense of urgency, turning it into a "curse." Of course, some organizations can utilize large amounts of funding well, like Solana and Helium, but for many teams, this can become a burden. Therefore, we need to pay attention to whether Pump.fun can effectively manage their cash reserves.
Regarding M&A, I do think there is a lot of rationale, but the key is whether there is enough discipline. In the crypto industry, many historical M&A cases lack clear strategic direction. Therefore, it will be very important to observe whether Pump's acquisitions align with its business development. If they want to globalize their business, I guess their market is currently mainly concentrated in the U.S. But if you refer to the case of Uber, until 2020, they needed to burn $1 billion to $4 billion each year to deal with local taxi regulation issues. While this is not entirely the same, dealing with different regional securities regulations globally is also a very costly challenge that requires advance funding preparation.
I think what is more interesting are those grassroots efforts, such as targeted advertising for crypto-related users or collaborating with Twitch content creators. Building a network is very challenging, and many underestimate the complexity of this work. People might think Instagram launched its network effect overnight, but in reality, there was a lot of grassroots effort behind it, requiring employees to go door-to-door to sign up suppliers, as Uber and Airbnb did, and Tinder promoted their app on college campuses. These tasks are very challenging, and to accomplish them, you need ample funding support.
Therefore, while cash reserves may be a "curse," they can also help you build a very strong network effect business. Next, we will wait and see if they can successfully leverage this funding to achieve greater goals.
Will Pump launch its own blockchain or exchange?
Jack Kubinec:
Do you think Pump needs to own the front end to succeed in the long term?
Ryan Connor:
I think this is essential. If Pump does not control the front end, their role will be limited to the intermediary stage. In the cryptocurrency market, the base layer (Layer 1) can gain significant value because it controls the writing of block content. In other internet markets, front-end aggregators often capture more value because they directly provide services to users or integrate resources.
Currently, we can see that the profitability of front ends like Uniswap, digital wallets, and the performance of CEX all demonstrate the importance of the front end. Therefore, while the services provided by Pump are very competitive in asset launches, they are essentially a form of "commoditized" service. Although they are pioneers in this field, in the crypto industry, first-mover advantage is not enough to ensure long-term success; they may face the risk of being "disintermediated." So, I believe controlling the front end is key to Pump's long-term development, and this may be one of the issues they need to prioritize solving next.
Mert Mumtaz:
I agree with this, especially in light of the possibility that they may raise $1 billion. However, I think the likelihood of Pump launching its own blockchain is low. Instead, they may consider launching an exchange. Because in the crypto industry, exchanges are among the most profitable and influential businesses, with successful examples like Binance, Coinbase, and Hyperliquid.
Currently, the competition among centralized exchanges is not as fierce as one might imagine. For example, Coinbase primarily focuses on the U.S. market, while Binance has an advantage in the international market. Hyperliquid is an exchange with more crypto attributes, positioned between the two. Therefore, I believe Pump is more likely to attempt to enter the exchange space, possibly even through the acquisition of an existing exchange.
In the next 12 months, will Pump launch its own blockchain or start an exchange? From a practical standpoint, I think the likelihood of launching an exchange is greater. This is because exchanges are closer to users and it is also easier to obtain regulatory approval. On the other hand, launching their own blockchain might distance them from users. The nature of the crypto industry is such that if you choose to vertically integrate and launch your own chain, you need to ensure that all exchanges support your chain, and you also need the cooperation of bridge service providers and wallets, which will be a very complex process.
Ryan Connor:
That's true. Launching their own blockchain would complicate the user experience. For instance, users might originally need only 1 to 5 clicks to complete an operation, but if they switch to a new chain, this could increase to 5 to 10 clicks, significantly raising the risk of user attrition. Moreover, history shows that many projects have failed when trying to launch their own blockchains, far more than those that have succeeded. I believe the Pump team is very aware of this.
From the current situation, I think it is still too early to launch their own blockchain. They may consider this direction in the future, but at least in the next 12 months, the likelihood of Pump launching a blockchain is low.
Will Pump Fun continue to operate on the Solana network?
Jack Kubinec:
We have all agreed that Pump is unlikely to build an L1 network or something similar. So what is stopping Pump from building a dedicated L1 or a more attractive L2? For example, Pump has brought significant revenue to Solana's validators and stakers. To improve Pump's yield, they could actually shift transaction execution to their own sequencer, capturing all transaction fees while settling data on L1. This way, they can still enjoy the network effects of Solana.
Mert Mumtaz:
I think startups can be divided into two types, or two stages of development. **The first type is the "growth mode," like Uber as Ryan mentioned, where founder Travis spends hundreds of millions to capture market share, fully investing resources. The other type is more focused on profit margins, like Amazon or Walmart, *reducing costs* and even not having luxurious equipment in the workplace.**
So, if Pump were to launch its own chain, what would their motivation be? Everyone says that if they want to improve yield, it basically means they want better profit margins. Profit margin is the ratio of net income to net expenditure. Assuming Pump earns $800 million on Solana, although it is not because of Solana that they made this money, it was indeed completed on Solana. Therefore, it is reasonable to speculate that Solana has not restricted their growth; rather, it has helped them to some extent, making them one of the fastest-growing companies in history. So if they raise $1 billion just to increase their profit margin from 80% to 85%, I would find that quite boring. If I were their investor, I would ask, "What are you doing? I want to see tenfold growth, not just a few percentage points increase."
Moreover, launching their own chain is not free. They need to establish their own distribution channels, may lose existing liquidity and integration support, and also need to build a full-time team to handle partnerships with Phantom and other exchanges. Therefore, improving profit margins is not a simple task; it requires tremendous effort, and these efforts seem more like early optimization strategies. If Pump truly wants to grow, they should focus on bolder attempts, such as challenging Twitch. This is much more meaningful than building the 100th L2 network.
I previously mentioned using the raised funds to reduce the risks of bold attempts, such as entering the media and entertainment sector, which is much more interesting than building a mediocre L1 network. Because anyone can launch an L2 through existing services, and even launching a regular L1 network is not particularly difficult. So what is the actual motivation for Pump to create their own chain?
I believe people in the crypto industry sometimes focus too much on L1 and L2, neglecting the truly important part—the business itself. So far, no company or application has achieved 100x or even 1000x growth by launching a blockchain. The only comparable concept might be the so-called "L1 premium," where launching a token on L1 gives it a higher valuation, but this does not truly drive market growth. **What Pump clearly wants is market growth, not just optimizing the **yield.
So overall, launching their own chain does not align with Pump's current development direction. The goal of their current fundraising is to achieve greater growth, not to make slight optimizations on the existing foundation. If they really want to leave Solana or create their own chain, as participants in Solana, we need to ask ourselves: "What makes them feel that Solana is not good enough to warrant this?" But as of now, Pump and other projects like Axiom, Phantom, Magic, and Jito have achieved tremendous success on Solana, earning hundreds of millions in revenue. Therefore, even if Solana has some issues, it is far from as bad as the outside world claims.
**If it is not for optimizing the **yield, it might be for user experience. For example, Solana may experience transaction instability during network congestion, which is indeed a reasonable concern. But these issues are gradually being resolved, so launching a new chain is not a feasible short-term option before these problems are addressed.
Jack Kubinec:
Did you previously mention "application-specific ordering"? Because every time I ask others, "What if Pump launches its own chain?" they always mention that application-specific ordering is coming, which may reduce the attractiveness of Pump doing so.
Mert Mumtaz:
Yes, "application-specific ordering" is indeed a developing direction. Additionally, there are other ways to achieve similar functionality. I think the crypto industry sometimes focuses too much on minor details; for instance, some might say, "If Pump could control the transaction ordering rules at the core layer of L1, it would greatly boost their business." But in reality, this is just a specific optimization method, and such optimization can already be achieved through other means. For example, Polymarket is a great example; they rely almost entirely on the blockchain in certain aspects.
So, Pump has many more short-term and direct optimizations they can pursue. If your entire business is on-chain, like Hyperliquid, then "application-specific ordering" or other complex technologies might make more sense. But for Pump, their business does not entirely depend on on-chain operations.
More importantly, we need to ask ourselves, does this optimization really help their business grow? Compared to launching an L1 network, redefining the landscape of global media, social media, and entertainment markets, or even creating an entirely new market category, clearly has a greater impact on revenue growth. This is also why they need funding. If they can achieve this goal, their business scale could grow from $1 billion to $10 billion, which cannot be achieved merely by "application-specific ordering" or launching a new chain.
Analysis of Alpenglow and Accelerate
Jack Kubinec:
Ryan, what are your thoughts on Alpenglow and Accelerate?
Ryan Connor:
I think this fully reflects the ability of the Solana ecosystem to break conventions and challenge traditional perceptions. This is one of the advantages of Solana that we often mention.
Regarding Alpenglow, there is an interesting point: if you look back at the historical performance of validators, you will find that their performance has been somewhat lagging. However, I noticed that they have recently made significant efforts in this area, such as making some important talent hires, but unfortunately, the entire ecosystem seems to have to expend a lot of energy to attract such talent. Why would such excellent talent be forced to leave the team? This is indeed a thought-provoking question. However, I do not have insider information and am not aware of the specific situation.
Jack Kubinec:
Ryan, I have another question for you. I find an interesting comparison between Alpenglow and Ethereum's merge. Although the two are not entirely the same, Alpenglow may be the most important upgrade in Solana's history, while Ethereum's merge was also a milestone for Ethereum at the time. I remember during the Ethereum merge in 2022, I reported for Blockworks, and everyone was focused on merge-related content. Every day I had to interview investors to understand their views. Before the merge, Ethereum's price surged, but after the merge was successful, investors began to sell off Ethereum, leading to its poor performance.
Now facing the Alpenglow upgrade, with Solana's efficiency further enhanced, how would you, as an investor, view this situation?
Ryan Connor:
I think performance optimization is indeed important, but we shouldn't be overly fixated on it. The crypto market today has matured, and performance optimization and historical performance have become basic expectations in the industry. For hedge fund managers, they may not delve into technical details but focus more on the overall market direction, especially distribution channels and customer acquisition strategies.
I think this is the current state of affairs in the crypto field. I know technical details are still important, but Solana has a significant lead in this regard, even far surpassing the planning of its competitors.
From my perspective, what stands out about Solana is that I often hear some founders proactively mention the efficient operation of the Solana Foundation. They are very satisfied with collaborating with such an efficient organization. Hearing this feedback from founders is more meaningful to me than just a technical upgrade. I am very clear about what Solana's technical goals are and am confident in their ability to achieve these goals because they have consistently delivered on their promises in the past. This is particularly important to me.
Solana Network's Expansion Strategy
Jack Kubinec:
**What is Solana's long-term expansion strategy? Currently, the team seems to be primarily focused on optimizing the existing tech stack rather than expanding the architecture. Besides optimizing existing technology, does Solana have other expansion strategies? Or is improving *throughput* solely through optimizing the existing codebase the only research direction? Mert, what do you think?**
Mert Mumtaz:
The fundamental approach to performance engineering and system scaling is to first build a system, apply load during actual operation, and then observe where the bottlenecks are, improving the system by optimizing these bottlenecks. Next, the optimized system's performance is tested again. The complexity of distributed systems lies in the exponential growth of interactions between their components. For example, if a system has eight components, each of which can communicate with one another, the potential interaction complexity is enormous and cannot be fully predicted in theoretical design. Therefore, the only feasible method is to design a fundamentally scalable simple architecture and continuously tune and fix issues during actual operation.
This approach has proven to yield significant progress. The current team is adopting such a strategy, and they have discovered some very strange bugs in the process, such as low-level errors like duplicate data structures in the code. By addressing these issues, the team has gradually accumulated insights on how to further scale the system.
This process can be likened to race car design. For instance, in F1 racing, even if you design a car with a powerful engine and excellent tire grip, it may perform poorly in turns due to a body that is too light. The challenge then is how to solve this problem without affecting other performance aspects. Similarly, when designing distributed systems, as long as the physical laws are followed, other issues can be resolved through optimization. This is also one of the reasons I was initially attracted to Solana—maximizing the use of physical resources by increasing bandwidth and reducing latency.
Currently, the main bottleneck in the system lies in bandwidth, especially after the launch of asynchronous execution features, which provides a new direction for scaling. In contrast, multiple concurrent proposals are more about enhancing the system's fault tolerance, while asynchronous execution focuses on improving scalability. To address the bandwidth bottleneck, a combination of various technologies is needed, such as zero-knowledge proofs, and designing new consensus mechanisms to efficiently utilize bandwidth, further optimizing bandwidth usage through asynchronous execution.
However, the traditional "paper-driven" approach, which solves problems through theoretical assumptions, is not suitable for distributed systems. This is because the nonlinear complexity of the system exposes many unexpected issues during actual operation, which cannot be fully predicted through theoretical design. Therefore, Solana's scaling strategy is to continuously fix bottlenecks and optimize the system, gradually generating insights about core architectural changes. A good example is the combination of Alpenglow optimization and asynchronous execution features, which complement each other and jointly drive the system's scalability.
免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。
