L2, Solana 또는 Appchain? 애플리케이션을 배포하기에 가장 좋은 선택은 무엇입니까?

원저자: The Rollup

원래 번역: Vernacular Blockchain

In today’s crypto world, choosing which platform to deploy your application on is just as important as the product itself.

This brings up the billion dollar question that I think many developers have in their minds right now: which platform is the best choice for deploying my application?

In today’s post, I’ll cover what I consider to be the three best options right now and break down the pros and cons of each, as well as how upcoming technological advances will make this choice much easier than it is today.

For developers, the three best options are: deploying on a general-purpose second-layer network, in the Solana ecosystem, or building an application-specific chain. These decisions will have a profound impact on performance, security, user experience, and long-term viability.

This article will dive into the technical differences between these options, run through their respective pros and cons, and demonstrate the growing importance of application-specific chains in Ethereum’s fight against Solana.

1. General-purpose Layer 2 Network/L2 Rollups

1) Advantages

Security inheritance: General-purpose L2s or Rollups (such as Optimism or Arbitrum) inherit the security of Ethereum. This means that applications built on these platforms can benefit from Ethereums strong security without having to maintain their own validator cluster. This is particularly important for application launches, as it is very difficult to bootstrap your own economic security through a validator cluster (usually as an L1).

Not to mention, there are quite a few different general purpose L2s available.

Composability: Universal L2 provides a high degree of composability, allowing applications and protocols on the same L2 to interact seamlessly. The term money legos was first coined during the DeFi summer of 2020 and remains relevant today. One of the biggest advantages of building on-chain is composability.

This level of composability is not possible in software outside of traditional finance or crypto. This is particularly beneficial for DeFi applications that rely on liquidity and interoperability.

Developer-friendly: Building on a general-purpose L2 (usually) means you can take advantage of the EVM, which most crypto-native developers are already familiar with, which reduces the learning curve and speeds up development. For Rollups on other virtual machines (altVMs), there are some programming languages that are more familiar to non-crypto-native developers, such as Rust (used in stacks like Soon SVM), C, C++ (Arbitrum Stylus), Move (Movement Labs and Lumio), Linux (Cartesi), Web Assembly (Fluent), and even Sway from Fuel Network.

2) Disadvantages

Congestion and scalability issues: As more and more applications are deployed on the same L2, congestion may become a problem, leading to increased fees and slower transactions. This may degrade the user experience, especially for applications that require low latency.

The noisy neighbor problem does exist, and weve seen it happen on L2 during liquidations or events with heavy user interaction. This is a nuanced view, and parallelization of the EVM like MegaETH, either through Rollups or different execution environments as mentioned above, can help mitigate this problem.

Limited customization and profitability: General-purpose L2s are designed to meet a wide range of application needs, which means they often lack the flexibility to optimize for the specific needs of a single application. This can be a problem if you are a developer who wants to have custom gas tokens, custom block times, and transaction ordering rules. This can limit performance tuning and optimization of user experience.

One big realization I have is about MEV and sorting revenue. When you deploy an application on a general purpose L2 and they dont offer revenue sharing, you are actually leasing block space from the Rollup operator and earning revenue for them, which could have been redistributed to your application and community. Well talk about this later.

2. Application-specific chains

1) Advantages

Fully customizable: Application-specific chains allow developers to optimize every aspect of the blockchain environment for the needs of their application. This can result in higher performance, lower fees, and a better user experience.

You can internalize revenue through your own sovereign sorter and control transaction ordering, offering lower fees and a better user experience through gas payers or advanced account abstraction solutions, or extremely fast block times (like Reyas 100ms block time or Clearpools just launched RWA-focused Ozean appchain with a ton of unique features). By doing this, you unlock unique ways for developers and users on the chain to make money in a mutually beneficial way. More fees, transactions, and usage means more sorter revenue for the entire community, which you can distribute in any way you wish.

Scalability: Since the chain is dedicated to a single application or a set of related applications, there is no risk of congestion caused by other projects. You can own your own block space, eliminating the noisy neighbor (congestion) problem on the chain. Reduce gas fee spikes and have better control over your block space.

2) Disadvantages

Complexity and Overhead: While RaaS providers like Gelato Network, Conduit, Caldera, etc. help simplify the process of launching new chains, building and maintaining an application-specific chain requires more preparation and resources than deploying applications on a general-purpose L2 (deploying smart contracts vs. deploying an entire chain).

While teams like Layer Labs and other incubators can help, overall the process of launching a chain is more onerous. From day one you’ll need to consider interoperability providers, ordering (most RaaS offer some options), and issues like RPC — although Lava Network may be able to help with this.

Interoperability Challenges: While frameworks such as Cosmos offer built-in interoperability solutions, using a general purpose L2 is more complex than interacting with the broader Ethereum L2 ecosystem. As an application chain, the biggest issue you face is how to acquire users from day one, and which interoperability provider will help and support you?

Consider Hyperlane, Union Build, Jumper Exchange, LayerZero, and eventually Omni and AggLayer. Coordinating blockchain builds will also play an important role, such as teams like Astria and Nodekit.

Additionally, if you want solvers to provide fast interoperability, you may need to build relationships with large solver teams such as Everclear, AcrossProtocol, LiFi Protocol, or Wintermute. These challenges, coupled with the cross-chain user experience problems, constitute the biggest problem for launching application chains.

I will discuss this further later.

3. Solana

1) Advantages

Extremely high performance: Solana is designed for high-performance applications, capable of processing thousands of transactions per second with extremely low latency (although transactions sometimes fail). Its speed makes Solana an ideal choice for applications that rely on low latency and high performance. These factors also extend to the user experience, which is very friendly to any crypto user.

Unified experience: Solanas single state machine is very attractive from a composability perspective. This makes building money legos easier than on an application chain, but similar to the experience on a general-purpose L2. This architecture provides a unified environment where all applications share the same state, and you can also attract network effects from successful applications like Kamino Finance and JupiterExchange.

Ecosystem growth trajectory: Solana’s ecosystem and developer growth has been steadily rising. The ecosystem has strong support for DeFi, NFTs, and broader Web3 applications, even memecoin. Its developer community is also expanding due to the ability to write code in Rust, providing more resources and tools for new projects as well as non-crypto native developers.

I think this ecosystem will continue to expand, and your application may benefit from the network effects of this expansion. See below for a map of the ecosystem from earlier this year:

2) Disadvantages

Centralization Risk: Despite its technical advantages, Solana has received some criticism for centralization issues. Its validator network is smaller and more expensive to set up than Ethereum. Solana is less censorship-resistant than building on Ethereum L1, but I think it has an advantage over L2 with a centralized sorter. However, the somewhat centralized nature of the chain is a product of its early development stage and needs to be taken into account.

Network outages: Solana has experienced network outages and stability issues several times, which has raised concerns about its reliability. Although it has been able to recover each time, it remains a risk for developers who need to be online all the time. This has not happened again in recent times, which is a positive sign.

The above reasons are presented as objectively and neutrally as possible, but I still conclude that application-specific chains are between general-purpose L2 and Solana in terms of trade-offs and performance.

I also found this chart very helpful:

In my opinion, application-specific chains provide a viable strategy for modular ecosystems to compete with monolithic L1s in terms of performance and developer experience. By allowing developers to build customized environments optimized for specific use cases, application chains can provide performance and flexibility comparable to or even exceeding these L1s.

However, the key is to understand that correct interoperability and chain abstraction are key to achieving this modular Rollup-centric scaling roadmap. As new chains continue to be launched, the fragmentation problem will only increase.

Teams like Xion, Okto, Particle Network, NEAR Protocol, Halliday, Aarc, and others are working on chain abstraction and will play an important role in this. Without these and better interoperability solutions, the modular future will be at risk.

4. Summary

일반 용도의 L2와 Solana는 각각 강력한 이점을 제공하지만, 애플리케이션별 체인은 빌더가 일반 용도의 L2, Solana 및 기타 L1의 규모와 구성성을 활용해 수익성 있게 전문화하고 경쟁할 수 있는 기회를 제공합니다.

모듈형 생태계가 확장됨에 따라 애플리케이션별 체인은 인기 있는 애플리케이션의 성장에서 핵심적인 역할을 할 것입니다. 그러나 이 비전은 가능한 한 빨리 상호 운용성 솔루션에 대한 표준을 확립하는 데 달려 있습니다.

I believe this goal will be successfully achieved and we will see a boom in interconnected application-specific Rollups in the coming years.

This article is sourced from the internet: L2, Solana or Appchain? Which is the best choice for deploying applications?

Related: Strategy Testing 02锝淥KX and AICoin Research Institute: Grid Strategy

OKX has teamed up with high-quality data platform AICoin to launch a series of classic strategy research, aiming to help users better understand and learn different strategies and avoid blind use through analysis of core dimensions such as data measurements and strategy characteristics. Grid trading is a systematic trading strategy whose core principle is to divide multiple grids within a preset price range and implement counter-trend operations – buy when prices fall and sell when prices rise. This strategy reduces emotional interference by maintaining a balance between long and short positions, automating the execution of transactions, and accumulating profits through frequent small transactions. It emphasizes flexible adjustment of parameters to adapt to market changes, pays attention to risk control and fund management, and is particularly suitable for long-term operations in…