What Is Ethereum Improvement Proposal EIP-4844?

CoingapePubblicato 2022-03-24Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-03-24

Introduzione

Ethereum’s co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, recently shared a novel proposal for the blockchain network.

Ethereum’s co-founder, Vitalik Buterin, recently shared a novel proposal for the blockchain network. The upgrade is tagged EIP-4844 which is known as Proto-danksharding.
The EIP-4844 is an upgrade that is looking to help to improve the network by organizing large transaction data into smaller bits that could be easily handled.
Simply put, this upgrade would help decrease Ethereum gas fees and also help better its scalability features.
Understanding EIP 4844
Usually, sharding involves splitting data into lesser ones which are then allocated to unique database nodes. However, proto-danksharding (EIP-4844) is an entirely distinct sharding approach.
In this technique, the network now wants to “merge fee market” by allowing “only one proposer that chooses all transactions and all data that go into that slot.”
This Ethereum Investment Proposal also included the blob transaction feature. This form of transaction accepts and organises “blobs” of data to be maintained in the beacon-node for a brief period. EIP-4844 focuses on blob-carrying trades that cannot be conducted via the EVM.
Verifying a blob simply requires checking that the blob is available – that it can be downloaded from the network. The data space in these blobs is expected to be used by layer-2 rollup protocols that support high-throughput transactions.
It is pertinent to note that the EIP-4844 upgrade is not concerned with creating extra rooms for transactions; instead, It is focused on deploying more space for blobs of data. The purpose of EIP-4844 is not to access blobs as it is limited to testing If blobs are available and can be accessed from network L2 infrastructures like Arbitrum, Optimism, and others.
This newly improved upgrade to the Ethereum transaction network is also expected to address the problem of gas expenses and optimize for speed when compared to other existing Ethereum transactions.
Finally, the ingenious creation further proves Ethereum’s dedication to its users as developers are creating this transaction type to provide a substantial scaling solution until the final sharding upgrading for the Ethereum network even though executing improvement protocols can consume a lot of time.

Letture associate

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit5 min fa

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit5 min fa

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

As Bitcoin and Ethereum prices drop significantly, two major corporate treasury holders, Strategy and Bitmine, are facing massive unrealized losses—approximately $100 billion and $90 billion, respectively. The article compares their financial health and underlying risks. Bitmine, holding over 5.4 million ETH, relies primarily on equity financing (like ATM offerings) and has substantial cash reserves, alongside staking income from its ETH holdings. It plans a $300 million perpetual preferred stock offering. In contrast, Strategy, holding Bitcoin, is burdened by significant convertible debt and preferred stock dividends, with cash reserves covering only about six months of its annual dividend obligations. Strategy's leverage is higher, and it faces potential liquidity pressure if BTC prices fall further, possibly forcing asset sales. While both companies are under pressure, Bitmine’s financial structure appears more resilient, whereas Strategy’s high leverage makes it more vulnerable to continued market declines.

Odaily星球日报9 min fa

Both Suffer Losses Exceeding $9 Billion, Which Is More at Risk: Strategy or Bitmine?

Odaily星球日报9 min fa

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit17 min fa

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit17 min fa

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Metamorphosis of Crypto

Bitcoin's decline signifies a structural transformation within the crypto industry. Its two traditional core functions are being usurped: AI has absorbed speculative capital that once flowed into Bitcoin, while dollar stablecoins have replaced it as the foundational on-chain currency. This decoupling is not a sign of crypto's demise but of its maturation. Projects are now valued based on fundamentals like revenue and user growth, independent of Bitcoin's price movements. Examples include the on-chain exchange Hyperliquid, with transaction volumes surpassing Coinbase, and the prediction market Polymarket, valued at $200 billion. Privacy has emerged as a critical new sector, with assets like Zcash surging and protocols like NEAR enabling private, cross-chain transfers without requiring users to hold a new token. The landscape is shifting toward a multi-chain ecosystem anchored by stablecoins. A new layer of infrastructure for cross-chain coordination, privacy, and AI-agent interaction is emerging to connect this fragmented world, a role once implicitly held by Bitcoin. The era where all altcoins moved in lockstep with Bitcoin is over. The industry's health should now be gauged by project fundamentals and the underlying infrastructure enabling private, dollar-settled, and interconnected crypto-economy.

marsbit25 min fa

Bitcoin's Decline Marks the Metamorphosis of Crypto

marsbit25 min fa

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

"Standing in the Light: Understanding the Optical Module and CPO Industry Chain" This article analyzes the critical role of optical communication technology, specifically optical modules and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO), as the "nervous system" for modern AI data centers. With exponential growth in AI computational demands (e.g., NVIDIA's Vera Rubin architecture), traditional electrical interconnects using copper cables face severe bottlenecks in bandwidth, power consumption, and signal integrity over distance. The core function of an optical module is to act as a "translator," converting electrical signals from chips into optical signals for transmission over fiber (and vice-versa). Key internal components include lasers, modulators, photodetectors, drivers, and DSP chips. The industry is currently transitioning from 800G to 1.6T modules. However, the future lies in CPO. This next-generation technology integrates the optical engine directly with the switch ASIC/XPU on the same package substrate, drastically reducing power consumption (by ~3.5x according to NVIDIA), overcoming bandwidth density limits, and minimizing signal attenuation compared to traditional pluggable modules. Key challenges for CPO include advanced packaging capacity (dominated by TSMC), thermal management, repairability, and standardization. The article details the broader technology landscape, including Near-Packaged Optics (NPO, a pragmatic intermediate step), Linear-drive Pluggable Optics (LPO), Optical I/O (OIO for chip-level integration), and Optical Circuit Switches (OCS). A comprehensive CPO industry chain is mapped, highlighting shifting power dynamics: * **Architecture Definers:** NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Marvell now hold greater influence. * **Advanced Packaging & Manufacturing:** TSMC is central; Fabrinet is a key EMS player. * **Lasers ("The Heart"):** A strategic bottleneck. EML lasers are led by Lumentum and Coherent (both receiving major NVIDIA investments). CW lasers, favored for CPO/silicon photonics, see strong Chinese players like Source Photonics and Sicoya. * **Silicon Photonics Chips:** The mainstream path for CPO engines, with key players like Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, and China's Accelink. * **Fiber Connectivity Components:** A major new, high-growth market created by CPO, including Fiber Array Units (FAU), Polarization-Maintaining Fiber (PMF), and MPO connectors. Companies like Tianfu Communication and US Conec are leaders. * **Fiber & Cable:** Experiencing a super-cycle (e.g., Corning, Yangtze Optical Fiber). * **PCB/Substrates:** Requiring advanced materials (e.g., Shengyi Tech). * **DSP & SerDes:** Functions are integrated into switch ASICs in the CPO era (e.g., Broadcom, Astera Labs). * **Optical Module Makers:** Transitioning from standalone module suppliers to providers of optical engines and NPO/LPO solutions while riding the current pluggable boom (e.g., Zhongji Innolight, Eoptolink). The investment timeline is segmented: Short-term (2026-2027) features the "last feast" for pluggable modules and CPO's initial rollout. Medium-term (2027-2029) will see CPO expand and NPO peak. Long-term (2029-2032+) involves CPO/OIO penetration into intra-rack scaling. In conclusion, optical interconnects are fundamental to AI infrastructure. The competitive landscape sees US firms leading in architecture and high-end chips, TSMC in advanced packaging, and Chinese firms holding strong positions in modules, connectivity components, CW lasers, and fiber/cable. The future belongs to companies that can navigate the technological shift from "selling shovels" (modules) to "building highways" (CPO/OIO infrastructure).

marsbit27 min fa

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

marsbit27 min fa

Trading

Spot

Futures