The crypto industry is evolving faster than ever. As we pass the midpoint of the current bear market—according to historical cycles—new momentum is building. From Ethereum’s upgrades fueling LSD (Liquid Staking Derivatives) mania, to Bitcoin NFTs and BRC-20 tokens sparking fresh interest, and meme coins driving speculative energy, the ecosystem is regaining vitality.
But what’s really happening beneath the surface?
This deep dive explores the latest developments across 15 key blockchain sectors. Drawing from firsthand research by Lao Bai, former columnist at Baihua Blockchain and partner at ABCDE Research, this article—the first of a two-part series—covers seven pivotal areas: public blockchains, interoperability, MEV, privacy, DEXs, lending, and stablecoins. We’ll unpack emerging technologies, identify hidden bottlenecks, and spotlight trends shaping the next bull cycle.
The Evolution of Public Blockchains
Public blockchains remain the epicenter of innovation in Web3. Contrary to earlier claims that “the door for new chains has closed,” recent advances prove otherwise. Whether it’s rapid L2 iteration or the rise of Move-based ecosystems like Aptos and Sui, blockchain evolution shows no signs of slowing.
Performance Limits of Current L2s
Despite progress, most Layer 2 solutions are far from reaching their performance ceiling. Neither Optimism nor Arbitrum, nor upcoming ZK-EVMs like zkSync and Scroll, can yet support a true "killer dApp" with hundreds of thousands of concurrent users.
One critical bottleneck lies in transaction handling. Ethereum separates transactions into local (via RPC) and remote (P2P). When overloaded, it drops remote transactions—a tolerable trade-off given lower volume.
However, most L2s receive all transactions via RPC (i.e., “local”), making them vulnerable to memory overflow under stress. Internal testing at ABCDE revealed that sequencers can crash with just hundreds of thousands of TXs under standard configurations—without even factoring in bandwidth or disk I/O constraints.
👉 Discover how next-gen blockchains are solving scalability bottlenecks
This highlights a massive untapped potential: client-side upgrades. Just as Arbitrum evolved from One to Nitro and Optimism launched Bedrock, performance gains come not from consensus changes alone but through holistic improvements—parallel processing, optimized data structures, state synchronization, and RPC layer enhancements.
With L2s and L3s offloading consensus to upper layers, execution layers now have more room for fine-tuning and breakthroughs.
Emerging Virtual Machines (VMs)
Innovation isn’t limited to scaling; new virtual machines are redefining execution environments.
SolanaVM (SVM)
Despite Solana’s downtime issues and inflated TPS metrics (70% of which are consensus messages), its engineering innovations are widely respected. Projects like Eclipse are extracting Solana’s VM (SVM) to serve as a standalone execution layer within modular blockchains.
By decoupling execution from consensus, SVM offers:
- Parallel transaction processing
- Dynamic gas pricing (expected to become an industry standard)
This approach retains Solana’s speed advantages while mitigating network instability risks.
MoveVM
Move language is gaining traction beyond Aptos and Sui. Rooch, led by China’s Starcoin team, aims to bring MoveVM into Ethereum’s orbit as a modular execution layer. This could enable Move-based smart contracts to operate within EVM-compatible ecosystems or integrate with Cosmos via IBC.
While promising, Move still lacks broad market validation—a hurdle that time may resolve.
Dfinity’s EVM Implementation
BitfinityEVM brings EVM compatibility to Dfinity’s Internet Computer. It runs as a single-node EVM inside Dfinity’s secure container, inheriting network-level security. With ~100 TPS and 5–10 second latency, it enables seamless deployment akin to deploying a regular contract.
Crucially, because all contracts reside on the IC network, cross-chain interoperability is native—no bridges required.
The Rise of ZKVMs
Zero-knowledge virtual machines (ZKVMs) are unlocking new possibilities for trustless computation beyond ZK-Rollups.
Risc Zero
Built on the open-source RISC-V architecture (a competitor to x86 and ARM), Risc Zero combines ZK-STARKs with low-level hardware abstraction. Any program compilable to RISC-V can run with verifiable proofs.
Notably, Sovereign SDK—a ZK-Rollup-as-a-Service framework—relies on Risc Zero for proof generation.
ZKLLVM
Led by Nil Foundation, ZKLLVM extends the popular LLVM compiler toolchain. Programs compiled to LLVM IR can generate zero-knowledge proofs, enabling broader language support including C++, Rust, and Swift.
ZKWASM
Delphinus Labs’ ZKWASM targets WebAssembly (WASM), allowing any WASM-compatible code to produce ZK proofs. Given WASM’s widespread use in browsers and edge computing, this opens doors for hybrid on-chain/off-chain applications.
All three platforms share a key trait: native support for high-level languages, lowering the barrier to entry for developers unfamiliar with specialized ZK coding.
EVM Parallelization
The EVM’s serial execution model remains its biggest performance constraint. Solana gained an early edge with Sealevel’s parallel processing; replicating this in EVM environments could dramatically boost TPS across all EVM chains.
Projects like Monad and NodeReal are pioneering parallel EVM designs. The core idea? Identify independent transactions—those without shared state dependencies—and execute them concurrently.
At ETH Denver, ABCDE’s @cyodyssey presented an opcode-level solution for enabling parallelism directly in the EVM. While still experimental, this direction signals a paradigm shift: performance gains won’t come solely from consensus changes but from rearchitecting execution logic.
Sharding: The Unfinished Dream
Once hailed as Ethereum’s ultimate scaling solution, sharding has taken a backseat. Originally planning 1024 shards, Ethereum scaled down to 64 before abandoning execution sharding altogether in favor of Danksharding—a data availability-focused model supporting Rollups.
Only Near Protocol continues advancing true sharding via its Nightshade roadmap. After launching in 2021, it has reached phase two (transaction sharding), with state sharding expected by 2025 and dynamic resharding possibly by 2026–2027.
Shardeum, an India-based project promoting “dynamic sharding,” claims similar capabilities. However, technical skepticism remains—especially around cross-shard communication complexity. Their aggressive ecosystem growth (over 100 projects in six months) echoes early Polygon’s “hype-first” strategy.
While innovation matters, the ability to generate momentum is equally powerful in crypto.
Dual-Consensus Architectures
Sui introduces a novel dual-consensus model:
- Simple transactions: Confirmed in ~1 second using Byzantine Reliable Broadcast
- Complex transactions: Handled via Narwhal-Tusk (a HotStuff variant), settled in ~3 seconds
This hybrid approach optimizes throughput without sacrificing security. Notably, developer sentiment around Sui is overwhelmingly positive—more so than Aptos—leading to a growing perception: Aptos excels at marketing; Sui leads in technical depth.
Browser-Based P2P Networks
Imagine a blockchain where verification runs entirely in-browser—on devices as lightweight as Raspberry Pis or smartphones. Fully snarkified chains aim for this vision: every block comes with a ZK proof, enabling ultra-light clients.
Some early projects leverage Stark-based algorithms to generate proofs directly in browsers, combining them with sharding and fast consensus for high-speed, decentralized VMs. While ambitious, skepticism persists due to unproven scalability and performance claims.
Other initiatives focus on decentralizing ancillary services—domains, servers, RPC nodes—via browser-based P2P networks. Though not blockchains themselves, they aim to eliminate centralized weak points across existing ecosystems.
Highly idealistic? Yes. Commercially viable? Too early to tell.
Interoperability: Beyond Traditional Bridges
Cross-chain communication remains fragmented and risky. Early bridge models included:
- External validators (e.g., Multichain): Flexible but prone to hacks
- Light clients (e.g., Cosmos IBC): Trustless but limited in scope
- Liquidity networks + atomic swaps (e.g., Celer): Secure but clunky
Most users default to external validator models despite repeated breaches (Ronin, Wormhole). New paradigms aim to change that:
ZK-Powered Bridges
ZK proofs offer a path toward secure interoperability. If Chain A can prove its state to Chain B via succinct proofs, trust assumptions diminish significantly.
Key players:
- Polyhedra: Uses Devirgo + recursive proofs; generates block header SNARKs in <10 seconds; verification cost: ~200k gas on EVM
- Succinct Labs: Offers Telepathy protocol; enables bidirectional Ethereum data access across EVM chains
- Electron Labs & Polymer: Developing ZK-IBC; progress unclear
👉 See how ZK-proof technology is transforming cross-chain security
Optimistic Bridges
These assume honest behavior during a challenge window:
- LayerZero: Relies on independent oracle-relayer pairs
- Nomad & Orbiter: Apply optimistic rollup logic to bridging
Shared Sequencers
As Rollup-as-a-Service (RAAS) grows, shared sequencers emerge—centralized nodes handling ordering for multiple appchains. Projects like Astria and Espresso enable atomic composability across chains sharing a sequencer.
However, major L2s like Optimism and Arbitrum are unlikely to adopt this—sequencer control equates to monetary sovereignty.
Direct Cross-Chain Execution
Dfinity enables direct BTC transfers within its containers via ckBTC—a trust-minimized alternative to renBTC. Future plans include ETH integration, potentially eliminating bridges altogether.
MEV & Privacy: Shifting Landscapes
MEV Trends
Post-POS Ethereum has deepened MEV complexity involving searchers, builders, relayers, proposers, and validators.
Recent shifts:
- Malicious MEV (sandwich attacks) still dominates revenue
- A high-profile “MEV double-cross” attack ($25M loss) has chilled bot activity
- Protocols struggle to monetize MEV; Flashbots’ SUAVE remains non-revenue-generating
Emerging solutions:
- Smart Slippage Management: Auto-adjusts slippage to reduce sandwich risk
- Threshold Encryption (Penumbra): Encrypts mempool entries
- Delayed Encryption + VDFs: Auto-decrypts after time delay
- SGX Enclaves (SUAVE): Trusted hardware protection
- Fair Sequencing Services (FSS) (Chainlink): Outsourced fair ordering
- MEV Auction: Proposed for Optimism’s sequencer decentralization
- MEV-Share: Flashbots’ new model lets users share MEV profits
- MEV-Blocker (Cowswap): Backruns only; returns 90% profit to users
- Protocol-Level PBS: Likely post-2025 on Ethereum
Privacy Innovations
Privacy remains niche—used mainly by whales and institutions. True mass adoption requires integration with mainstream DeFi rather than standalone privacy chains.
New approaches:
- KYC-Tornado Hybrids: Combine privacy with identity checks; risk shifts to KYC providers
- MASP (Multi-Asset Shielded Pool): Namada’s Cosmos-native design allowing private swaps across assets via shared anonymity sets
- Homomorphic Encryption: Still years from practicality; akin to ZK tech circa 2017
DeFi: DEXs, Lending & Stablecoins
DEX Innovations
Since Uniswap V3, innovation slowed—but not dead.
Trends:
- ve(3,3) Models: Combines veTokenomics with OHM-style rewards. Popularized by Velodrome on Optimism; spreading across chains (Chronos on Arb, Thena on BSC). Criticized for complexity.
- Hybrid DEXs: Merge CEX UX with DEX self-custody. Examples: Vertex (Arbitrum), blending AMM + orderbook + derivatives.
- Uniswap V3 Forking Boom: License expiration opens floodgates for forks enabling new financial primitives.
- Curve’s Tricrypto Upgrade: Slashes gas costs to Uniswap V3 levels—boosting retail usability.
Lending Trends
- True Omnichain Lending: Not just cross-chain deposits—but unified liquidity pools and interest curves across chains. Not yet achieved.
- Isolated Markets: Prevent systemic risk from oracle exploits (e.g., Mango). Now standard on Aave and others.
Oracleless & No-Liquidation Models: Ideal for long-tail assets.
- Timeswap: Uses XYZ=K AMM logic
- InfinityPools: Leverages Uniswap V3 LP positions for auto-liquidation
- Blur’s Blend: NFT peer-to-peer lending; adaptable to ERC-20s
Stablecoin Outlook
Algorithmic stablecoins are effectively dead post-Luna. Frax’s move to 100% collateralization confirms the trend.
Real differentiators? Use cases, not mechanisms.
Top Contenders:
- crvUSD: Curve’s stablecoin leverages LLAMMA (a reverse Uni V3 mechanism), offers native swap pairs, and benefits from veCRV governance dominance.
- GHO (AAVE): Integrated with Lens (social layer) and Facilitator (credit/DID system); strong real-world utility potential.
- sUSD (Synthetix): Historically hampered by low adoption and high SNX collateral ratios. Improving via atomic swaps and upcoming V3 upgrades introducing ETH-backed collateral.
- NUSD (Arthur Hayes’ BTC-backed idea): Theoretically sound but impractical at scale due to perpetual hedging requirements.
- RWA-backed OMMF (Ondo): Federally regulated money market fund collateralized.
- LSDFi Stablecoins: Future potential for stETH or multi-LSD collateralized stablecoins—similar to Liquity but yield-enhanced.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Q: What is the biggest bottleneck facing current L2s?
A: Despite architectural improvements, many L2s inherit inefficient client designs from Ethereum. Memory management under high load remains a critical issue—highlighting untapped optimization potential in sequencer infrastructure.
Q: Are ZKVMs ready for mainstream adoption?
A: Not yet. While Risc Zero, ZKLLVM, and ZKWASM show promise, they’re still in early stages. Developer tooling and proof generation efficiency need significant improvement before widespread use.
Q: Why did Ethereum abandon full sharding?
A: Execution sharding proved too complex. Instead, Ethereum pivoted to Danksharding—a data availability layer designed to scale Rollups efficiently without requiring full-state sharding.
Q: Can privacy protocols gain mainstream traction?
A: Only if integrated into existing DeFi platforms rather than operating as isolated chains. Solutions like MASP or threshold encryption may find niches but face adoption barriers outside institutional use cases.
Q: Is ve(3,3) sustainable long-term?
A: Its sustainability depends on ongoing incentives like OP rewards. Without continuous emission support or strong organic utility, many ve(3,3) forks may struggle post-airdrop.
Q: Will BTC-backed stablecoins ever work at scale?
A: Currently impractical due to hedging depth requirements. However, if Bitcoin futures markets grow exponentially—matching forex volumes—it could become feasible in the distant future.
👉 Explore cutting-edge crypto innovations shaping the future of finance