MultiversX: Does the Bet on Scalability Clash with Its Promise of Scarcity?

MultiversX (formerly Elrond) has spent years positioning itself as a high-performance blockchain solution, but it recently faces a dilemma that divides its community: should it maintain the Bitcoin-like scarcity model or introduce inflation to ensure validator sustainability?

The Technical Appeal: 100K TPS in 6 Seconds

From the outset, MultiversX’s numbers sound impressive. Its Adaptive State Sharding technology enables processing up to 100,000 transactions per second with confirmation in 6 seconds, and fees as low as $0.002. This positions it as one of the fastest platforms on the market.

The Secure Proof of Stake consensus adds energy efficiency without compromising security: random validators, staking EGLD required, and performance ratings. In theory, it has it all.

The Dilemma: EGLD Facing Its Own Promise

Here’s where things get interesting (and controversial):

Current state:

• Maximum supply: 31,415,926 EGLD (Bitcoin-like)
• Current circulation: ~28.66 million
• Model: Deflationary via fee burning

The proposal sparking controversy:

• Introduce annual inflation of 9.47% to incentivize validators
• Burn 10% of validator fees as a counterbalance

Proponents say: it’s necessary to retain validators and long-term security.

Critics question: Isn’t this contradicting the scarcity model they were sold?

Beyond the Token: The Ecosystem in Motion

MultiversX is not just EGLD. Its expansion includes:

• xFabric: Customizable infrastructure for enterprises
• xPortal: Super app to manage crypto, digital identities, payments
• xWorlds: Engine for creating metaverse experiences
• Partnerships: Google Cloud among others
• Dev incentives: 30% of smart contract fees as royalties

The project is clearly targeting Web3 and the metaverse, not just transaction speed.

The Question That Matters

Can MultiversX maintain trust if it puts economic flexibility above its original promise of scarcity? The answer will likely define whether it evolves as a platform or loses credibility with communities that chose it specifically for its Bitcoin-like model.

The governance debate runs deeper than numbers: it touches on the very philosophy of decentralization vs. pragmatism.