2026-01-14 08:23:33

Underlying design determines the ceiling. In extreme scenarios like high-frequency trading, database write pressure often becomes apparent—costs grow uncontrollably due to state inflation.

SeiDB's approach is quite interesting: separating "state storage" from "state commitment." This method can alleviate structural bottlenecks of traditional architectures under high TPS pressure. In other words, it's not about brute-force throughput, but fundamentally redistributing computational pressure.

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.

9 Likes

Reward
9
5
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

AirdropHustler

· 8h ago

That's right, the underlying design is really crucial. However, splitting storage and commitments feels like just patching holes; it doesn't fundamentally solve the root cause of state explosion.

View OriginalReply0

NotSatoshi

· 8h ago

The hard stack throughput approach should have been abandoned long ago; SeiDB's splitting idea really hits the mark.

View OriginalReply0

AirdropHunterXiao

· 8h ago

State inflation is indeed a longstanding challenge. The approach of separating storage and commitment in SeiDB is quite innovative.

View OriginalReply0

ColdWalletAnxiety

· 8h ago

Yeah, that's why traditional blockchains always boast so much; their architecture is just completely broken. --- SeiDB's idea of separating storage and consensus... But honestly, can it really be implemented? --- The theory sounds great, but it still might crash in high-frequency scenarios. --- Wait, can splitting the processing like this really solve the inflation problem? Or is it just delaying it? --- Looking at it from a different perspective, redesigning from the ground up might be more reliable than any optimization. --- The problem is, how many projects are really willing to overhaul their underlying architecture? Most just want to go live quickly. --- Separating state commitments and storage—I've got a feeling some previous projects have tried this approach too...

View OriginalReply0

alpha_leaker

· 8h ago

Really, the underlying architecture is a matter of life and death. When high-frequency trading kicks in, it immediately exposes issues; traditional databases simply can't handle that surge of writes. I think SeiDB's splitting scheme hits the mark. It's not about brute-force stacking throughput, but rather redistributing the pressure—that's what I call smart design. The issue of state bloat is indeed annoying, and the costs are hard to control.

View OriginalReply0