Op-Ed: the concept of microchains looks at scalability from a new perspective — that of scaling at the validator level instead of at the blockchain level.
There are many narratives around scalability in web3 and we should remember that they are just that: narratives. Their power lies in the way they frame problems, and, consequently, the way we solve them. In this sense, they are more like tools than final answers.
Narratives around the problem of scalability are no different in that they can be useful when applied correctly. Perhaps we can ask ourselves what narratives around infrastructure are better for which kind of use cases. If we step outside of the dominant narratives around “layer n” solutions and the debate among monolithic versus modular blockchains, we find more elegant alternatives that can be better suited to end-user applications.
The concept of microchains looks at scalability from a new perspective: that of scaling at the validator level instead of at the blockchain level. The result is an approach that prioritizes web3 applications that need to support an unlimited number of active users.
The monolithic chain is dead; long live the monolithic chain
Right now, if you ask a development team how they are building a web3 application, they will probably mention including a rollup solution or app-chain. This is because all the web3 applications that are built strictly on a layer-1 are in a constant tug-of-war for blockspace in the network.
This is a historical problem. Since the early days of web3 development, we have expected to have “One Network to Rule them All,” or a singular chain that solves all problems.
This monolithic view of scalability is unnecessary and has only made it harder for builders to offer users basic things like tolerable transaction speeds or efficient gas costs. As a result, both infrastructure projects and web3 application development teams have rightfully started to look for alternatives.
Going layered? Going modular?
As the web3 space has evolved, new projects use solutions like L2s and modular chains that help them offer more consistent and reliable user experiences. In recent years, we have seen a lot of development (and investment) focused on technologies like optimistic rollups, app-specific chains, and other layered or modular solutions.
It’s easy to understand why modular scalability has been all the rage as of late. By taking a modular approach, L1 chains like Ethereum can focus on scaling only the essential properties of their networks. In turn, they delegate other non-essential scalability problems to third parties and leave room for a whole ecosystem of L2 solutions. In other words, by going for a modular approach to address scalability, they are leaving behind the idea of a monolithic chain and seeing scalability as an add-on.
But are modular chains really the ideal, or end state, for blockchain scalability? As useful as they can be, they also introduce new problems, ranging from extra steps in the user journey to some security concerns (including incomplete fraud proof implementations, software bugs in ZK proofs, and front running by centralized entities.)
Yet, for the past few years, the industry has been limited in thinking about the problem under these terms. This is because of a certain kind of path dependency: we're used to thinking about blockchain scalability in one way just because we’ve mimetically taken that as the starting point.
These are historical reasons, not practical or technical reasons — and it does not have to be the case.
Microchains: beyond the modular approach
Let’s take a step back, reframe the problem. What if we could take a step back and design an L1 that scales from the start? We could even revisit the concept of the monolithic chain under a new light — not to go back to it, but to reimagine the main blockchain infrastructure from a more efficient perspective.
We have the opportunity to scale a main blockchain infrastructure at the validator level, for web3 applications that can horizontally scale (in the first place). The key element to unlock these capabilities is a system where a set of honest and well-incentivized validators can run multiple — even infinite — lightweight chains in parallel. A similar situation already happens with validators who use their data centers to run on different L1s.
Each of these chains — we call them microchains — can be much smaller in size than a typical L1 chain but still share in the same security guarantees of any large-scale delegated proof-of-stake blockchain network. Because they share the same validator set, they can easily share messages and operations between each other, reducing latency.
Making room for the Personal Blockchain
Beyond scalability, the real advantages of the microchain approach are seen in an improved user experience. Running an unlimited set of parallel chains means that every user could become a partial node for their own chain, with the ability to create their own blockspace as necessary. In this system, individual wallets are at the center, proposing their own blocks, and don’t compete for blockchain infrastructure resources.
One way to look at microchains is to see them as a step away from monolithic blockchains and their layered, modular add-ons, and as a step towards what we could call The Personal Blockchain. Imagine every user having their own chain that interacts with other users’ chains and can create new blocks whenever they want. That’s an alternative that exists when we think outside of flavor-of-the-day narratives of web3 scalability.
-
Mathieu Baudet is the founder and CEO of Linera, the first low-latency blockchain designed to scale elastically through the introduction of microchains. During his nine-year tenure as an infrastructure engineer and researcher at Meta (formerly Facebook), Mathieu was instrumental in the development of the Libra/Novi project, where he worked on an academic protocol called FastPay which laid the foundations for the Linera protocol. Mathieu holds a PhD in Computer Science from École Normale Supérieure Paris-Saclay and specializes in BFT consensus protocols, cryptographic protocols, and formal verification.
This article contains links to third-party websites or other content for information purposes only (“Third-Party Sites”). The Third-Party Sites are not under the control of CoinMarketCap, and CoinMarketCap is not responsible for the content of any Third-Party Site, including without limitation any link contained in a Third-Party Site, or any changes or updates to a Third-Party Site. CoinMarketCap is providing these links to you only as a convenience, and the inclusion of any link does not imply endorsement, approval or recommendation by CoinMarketCap of the site or any association with its operators.
This article is intended to be used and must be used for informational purposes only. It is important to do your own research and analysis before making any material decisions related to any of the products or services described. This article is not intended as, and shall not be construed as, financial advice.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are the author’s [company’s] own and do not necessarily reflect those of CoinMarketCap.
