Crypto Expert Polynya Says That Single-Layer Blockchains Will Never Be Used on a World Level

A crypto blogger named Polynya published an article that went viral, drawing a lot of attention to the fact that large-scale blockchain groups engage in needless and damaging competition.

Having amassed an impressive number of views, exceeding 340,000 on X (previously known as Twitter), the post above effectively highlights the issue of excessively fixating on infrastructure matters while disregarding their practical application in the real world.

Polynya also targeted advocates by referring to them as “bagholders” of various tokens associated with different blockchain networks. The critique offered by Polynya did not specifically target any particular protocol.

The article expresses its disappointment with the blockchains’ competition, labeling it a disgrace. It suggests that most developers should abandon monolithic blockchains, which it describes as severely flawed and detrimental.

Polynya had gained significant popularity within multiple cryptocurrency communities and accumulated a substantial following of approximately 90,000 individuals on the X platform. However, on June 2, Polynya took a break from their online activities.

The sudden move toward commentary drew significant interest, primarily due to the blog post’s objective and personally heated criticism of blockchains in general.

Polynya presents a compelling case for why the widespread adoption of monolithic blockchains is unlikely to occur globally. Regarding mobile devices, they need help authenticating the legitimacy of each transaction on prominent blockchains. 

Full Node Hardware Is Not Suitable for the Majority of Human Beings

Many of the population rely solely on mobile devices for their technological needs. Cell phones and tablets are not suitable for constant and uninterrupted use.

The community on Crypto Twitter proved to be an extremely negative experience for me, as it was filled with toxicity and resembled a nightmarish environment that even Sauron would be envious of. I shall never come back. Nevertheless, I have no hesitation in abstaining from making individual comments when accounts deviate excessively from the complete veracity.

— Polynya (@apolynya)

In the words of Polynya, one of the significant drawbacks of monolithic blockchains is the substantial hardware “overhead” that regular users must contend with to utilize the blockchain effectively. In the current landscape of monolithic blockchains, individuals are faced with a decision: either personally verify the authenticity of each transaction or rely on a third party to handle this responsibility on their behalf.

Some nodes known as ‘light’ or pruned nodes exist, but it is important to note that even though they provide shortcuts, they still reintroduce reliance on third parties.

Limiting the number of non-full nodes within a blockchain network can compromise its resilience in the face of a worst-case scenario. This occurs when insufficient full nodes are available to store and authenticate all transactions worldwide.

Toxic Effects of Cryptocurrencies

Even though Polynya went into considerable length in her criticism of monolithic blockchains, most of the post’s virality is probably attributed to the fact that it critiqued something toxic.

Toxic content on social media platforms, particularly on X (once known as Twitter), has become a significant problem for the community of digital asset holders. Bagholders eager to dump their baggage onto others are frequently the most disruptive members of the community. This strategy drew a snippet from Polynya, who did not mention digital currencies in the blog post except for a positive remark about Bitcoin.

Cryptocurrency is a digital or virtual currency that uses cryptography for security. Twitter has been regarded as a highly harmful and toxic online community, surpassing even the most dreadful realms that Sauron, the infamous antagonist, could ever aspire to. I have no intention of coming back. Nevertheless, I am confident in refraining from making individual posts when the stories deviate excessively from the absolute truth.

 — polynya (@apolynya)

One cannot help but find it incredibly amusing that these individuals arrive solely to promote their products, all while appearing to have not even bothered to read the article in question.

   — antiprosynthesis.eth

Polynya garnered a significant amount of empathy within the comment and reply sections. “It is quite disheartening to witness how certain individuals place more importance on advancing their agendas rather than engaging in meaningful conversations,” expressed a reader.

According to Kyle Banta, it is often observed that the most vocal members of various communities do not necessarily represent the overall quality of those communities.

The limitation of monolithic blockchains in terms of accessibility poses a challenge for individuals initially targeted by Bitcoin – those unable to open a bank account or seek an alternative to traditional financial systems. Undoubtedly, eliminating reliance on third parties is a fundamental aspect highlighted in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

Due to the inability of most users to download and authenticate every transaction on a blockchain, the necessity for nearly all monolithic blockchains is greatly diminished. According to Polynya, if you don’t require scalability, such as in the case of Bitcoin, then this statement holds.

If users are already required to place their trust in a third party, there is a minimal advantage in utilizing supplementary monolithic blockchains apart from Bitcoin. In what way do these different blockchains contribute to enhancing the finance sector if they merely introduce more trusted third parties?