2025-12-26 16:27:52

Recently, while inventorying some underexplored blockchain infrastructure, I discovered an interesting phenomenon—many issues that block public chains are not actually performance ceilings, but rather problems that stem from a distorted architectural design from the very beginning.

Some time ago, I revisited a Layer1 technical solution that focuses on native parallel execution. The V4 testnet is now live, but it hasn't gained much attention. Public chains that emphasize parallel execution are actually worth paying attention to from an investment and research perspective—different execution models lead to completely different performance ceilings.

The most critical factor to consider is whether the underlying design of the execution layer truly supports parallelization, rather than relying on patches applied later. This determines the real performance limit. Many infrastructure projects happen to get stuck at this stage.

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
6
Repost
Share

Comment

Add a comment

ChainComedian

· 2025-12-29 16:04

Once the architecture is crooked, no matter how much you optimize later, it's all in vain. This really hits the nail on the head.

But to be honest, why are those public chains that focus on parallel execution so unpopular? The market isn't stupid; maybe they just aren't that competitive.

The underlying design determines the ceiling, and I agree with that. But the problem is, how many chains really want to get this right from the ground up? Most still prioritize fundraising first.

Patchwork fixes and architectural changes later are just ridiculous. I would directly pass on such projects.

View OriginalReply0

ChainMaskedRider

· 2025-12-29 15:37

The architecture design went off track, which is really heartbreaking. It feels like many projects are just patching things up later on, without ever considering redesigning from the ground up.

View OriginalReply0

ContractExplorer

· 2025-12-26 16:57

The architecture design went off course from the beginning, and no matter how much it is optimized later, it's like administering nutrients to a patient who cannot be saved.

View OriginalReply0

FlatTax

· 2025-12-26 16:57

Honestly, these obscure public chains all look similar. Who knows which architecture can really withstand the test?

Architecture design determines the ceiling from the very beginning; patches later are useless. This point really hits home.

V4 is already online, yet the buzz is still cold? Either there's a real problem or the marketing is too poor.

Parallel execution sounds impressive, but how many can really run effectively? I'm still cautious and observing.

If the underlying design of this kind of infrastructure is flawed, no matter how much you optimize, it can't be saved. It's really heartbreaking.

View OriginalReply0

GateUser-9ad11037

· 2025-12-26 16:40

Architecture design is really a matter of fate; patching and fixing later is still a waste of effort.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterXiao

· 2025-12-26 16:29

That's the real flaw. If the architecture is chosen incorrectly early on, no matter how much you optimize later, it's just treating the symptoms and not the root cause... Even after V4 networks are released, no one is playing, which shows everyone already knows what's going on.

View OriginalReply0