CryptoSlate says locking ETH inside the protocol to guarantee payments ties up capital and can still cost builders when delivery fails. Trusted counterparties are cheaper, but shift risk back to trust.
CryptoSlate reports that Ethereum builders could face two approaches to guaranteeing payments: locking ETH inside the protocol or relying on trusted counterparties. The first ties up capital without eliminating potential costs when delivery fails. The second is cheaper, but makes trust part of the risk.
1.4K
1 post, first seen 1d ago
CryptoSlate says locking ETH inside the protocol to guarantee payments ties up capital and can still cost builders when delivery fails. Trusted counterparties are cheaper, but shift risk back to trust.
CryptoSlate reports that Ethereum builders could face two approaches to guaranteeing payments: locking ETH inside the protocol or relying on trusted counterparties. The first ties up capital without eliminating potential costs when delivery fails. The second is cheaper, but makes trust part of the risk.
CryptoSlate@CryptoSlateEthereum builders could soon face a trade-off between locking ETH inside the protocol to guarantee payments or relying on trusted counterparties. The first ties up capital and can still cost builders when delivery fails. The second is cheaper, but shifts risk back to trust.
Not enough discussion yet.
No sentiment analysis available yet.
CryptoSlate@CryptoSlateEthereum builders could soon face a trade-off between locking ETH inside the protocol to guarantee payments or relying on trusted counterparties. The first ties up capital and can still cost builders when delivery fails. The second is cheaper, but shifts risk back to trust.
Not enough discussion yet.
No sentiment analysis available yet.
—
Not ranked yet
—
Not ranked yet
Tech