To truly unleash the power of data availability protocols, the key actually lies in the standardization level of each component.



Imagine that these protocols are composed of multiple modules such as consensus mechanisms, data encoding, storage proofs, and retrieval interfaces. If these parts operate independently without coordination, developers won't be able to flexibly combine them—such an ecosystem is prone to fragmentation. Conversely, if the interfaces are sufficiently standardized, developers can freely mix and match, for example, using one consensus scheme with another storage proof technology, which is the true essence of composability.

However, there is a dilemma here—setting standards too early might lock in innovation, making it difficult for new ideas to break through the established framework. Setting standards too late, on the other hand, can lead to siloed development. Therefore, the role of industry organizations is crucial—they need to promote open standards that enable core modules of different protocols to truly interoperate.

The beauty of modular design lies in this—maintaining core stability while allowing each component to evolve independently. This approach ensures the foundation of the entire system remains intact while leaving room for technological iteration.
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.
  • Reward
  • 7
  • Repost
  • Share
Comment
0/400
TaxEvadervip
· 3h ago
That's why so many protocols now look down on each other and do their own thing. Wait, setting standards too early can backfire, and that's indeed a problem. The idea of modularity sounds good, but the question is who sets the standards? Big players or us small developers?
View OriginalReply0
OnChainSleuthvip
· 3h ago
This standardization issue, in simple terms, is about how to find a balance between innovation and order... Being too rigid definitely won't work, but complete chaos is also not sustainable.
View OriginalReply0
TestnetFreeloadervip
· 3h ago
Standardization... sounds easy to say, but in practice, it's really a double bind.
View OriginalReply0
Ser_APY_2000vip
· 3h ago
I've been saying it all along, standardization is the way to go. Otherwise, can each do their own thing really work?
View OriginalReply0
UnluckyMinervip
· 3h ago
Ha, it's another case of standardization... It sounds nice, but in reality, it still depends on who has the most say. I think this dilemma can't be fundamentally solved; in the end, it's all about the big shots making the decisions. Modularization sounds good, but it still feels like just making empty promises. Set standards too early, and innovation stalls; set them too late, and everything becomes chaotic... What exactly can industry organizations promote? Wait, isn't this just about establishing some kind of ecological alliance? It feels like a new power center.
View OriginalReply0
ruggedSoBadLMAOvip
· 3h ago
Ha, it's the same old standardized routine. It sounds nice to say it's for the ecosystem, but in reality, it's just each project trying to develop their own stuff.
View OriginalReply0
LiquidityWizardvip
· 3h ago
ngl this modularity vs standardization thing is literally just the optimal scenario for prisoner's dilemma but make it crypto... early movers get rekt either way statistically speaking
Reply0
Trade Crypto Anywhere Anytime
qrCode
Scan to download Gate App
Community
English
  • 简体中文
  • English
  • Tiếng Việt
  • 繁體中文
  • Español
  • Русский
  • Français (Afrique)
  • Português (Portugal)
  • Bahasa Indonesia
  • 日本語
  • بالعربية
  • Українська
  • Português (Brasil)