Polygon deploys Madhugiri hard fork, aims for 33% throughput boost

cointelegraphОпубліковано о 2025-12-09Востаннє оновлено о 2025-12-09

Анотація

Polygon has deployed the Madhugiri hard fork, targeting a 33% increase in network throughput and reducing block consensus time to one second. The upgrade includes support for three Fusaka Ethereum Improvement Proposals (EIP-7823, EIP-7825, EIP-7883), which improve efficiency and security by limiting gas consumption for heavy mathematical operations. It also introduces a new transaction type for Ethereum-Polygon bridge traffic and adds flexibility for future upgrades. This enhancement aims to better support high-frequency use cases like stablecoins and real-world asset (RWA) tokenization. The hard fork follows the recent Heimdall 2.0 upgrade, which significantly reduced finality times, despite a brief disruption in September due to a bug that was later resolved.

Blockchain network Polygon has rolled out its latest protocol upgrade, known as the Madhugiri hard fork, which aims to achieve a 33% increase in network throughput and reduce block consensus time to one second.

Polygon core developer Krishang Shah said on X that the update includes support for three Fusaka Ethereum Improvement Proposals, specifically EIP-7823, EIP-7825 and EIP-7883. These EIPs make heavy mathematical operations more efficient and secure by limiting the amount of gas they consume.

They also prevent single transactions from consuming excessive computing power, helping the network run more smoothly and predictably.

The upgrade introduces a new transaction type for Ethereum to Polygon bridge traffic and adds a built-in flexibility feature for future upgrades. Polygon previously said that the update makes throughput increases as easy as “flipping a few switches.”

“We are also decreasing the consensus time to 1 second, so blocks can now be announced in 1 second if ready, instead of waiting the full 2 seconds,” Shah wrote.

Source: Krishang Shah

New update reinforces Polygon for stablecoins and RWAs

With Madhugiri now live, Polygon aims to reinforce its infrastructure while materially improving its performance. These are prerequisites for high-frequency and high-trust use cases, such as real-world asset (RWA) tokenization and stablecoins.

Aishwary Gupta, the global head of payments and RWAs at Polygon Labs, previously forecasted a “stablecoin supercycle.”

Gupta said there will be a surge of “at least 100,000 stablecoins” in the next five years. However, he said this would not only be about minting tokens and must have a corresponding utility like yield.

Gupta also advocated for more transparency and accountability in the RWA sector. He previously argued that RWA numbers are meaningless if the assets cannot be audited, settled or traded.

“When transparency and accountability are established, RWAs will reach even greater heights, unlocking trillions in institutional capital,” he wrote.

Related: Polygon co-founder mulls resurrecting MATIC a year after POL rebrand

Hard fork follows major Heimdall upgrade

The upgrade comes on the heels of rapid prior improvements. On July 10, Polygon deployed Heimdall 2.0, dubbed by Polygon Foundation CEO Sandeep Nailwal as the network’s “most technically complex” hard fork since its launch.

The update reduced transaction finality times from one to two minutes to roughly five seconds.

However, on Sept. 10, the network experienced a significant disruption when a bug caused finality delays of 10 to 15 minutes, affecting validator sync, remote procedure call services and third-party tooling. Despite this, the team assured the community that blocks were still running.

On Sept. 11, the Polygon Foundation announced that the consensus and finality functions had been restored through a hard fork. With the update, nodes were no longer stuck, while checkpoints and milestones were finalized as expected.

Magazine: Ethereum’s Fusaka fork explained for dummies: What the hell is PeerDAS?

Пов'язані матеріали

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

**Summary: A Conversation with Jia Hang on Two Decades of China's Payment Globalization** Jia Hang, a veteran with over twenty years in payments, reflects on China's attempts to build a global payment network through three key phases: UnionPay (card networks), Alipay+ (digital wallets), and now, stablecoins. His journey began at UnionPay International, aiming to establish China's card network abroad. While successful in following Chinese tourists ("where Chinese go, UnionPay goes"), it struggled to achieve true global scale. The core lesson: card networks like Visa/Mastercard's unassailable advantage isn't just technical standards, but their deeply entrenched **governance and profit-sharing models** that create powerful network effects. Competing as the "same species" is nearly impossible. At Ant Group, he led Alipay+, a strategy to bypass card networks by interconnecting local e-wallets worldwide. While innovative, it faced a similar ceiling. Mobile QR payments and card swipes were essentially **the same species competing for the same pie**, lacking a disruptive value proposition for users or a sustainable new incentive model to replace the card networks' established flywheel. Today, at Singapore's DCS, Jia focuses on stablecoin-based payments. He argues stablecoins represent a fundamental shift. They are not competing with Visa for consumer payments but challenging the **traditional banking and account system for value movement**. Products like "U Cards" (stablecoin-linked payment cards) are transitional, leveraging existing card networks for acceptance while building new rails. The real potential lies in stablecoins enabling seamless, low-cost global value transfer, potentially reorganizing the financial infrastructure around **accounts rather than cards**. Jia believes stablecoin adoption for local retail payments, cross-border transactions, and as high-yield savings vehicles is becoming irreversible. This could gradually reduce reliance on traditional fiat channels, especially in regions with weak currencies or capital controls. The quest for the "next global payment network" continues, now centered on whether stablecoins can successfully bridge Web2 and Web3, establish new governance, and create compelling user value beyond mere cost reduction.

marsbit2 хв тому

Dialogue with Jia Hang | Looking Back at Two Decades of Chinese Payment Going Global

marsbit2 хв тому

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

Circle's stock price has plunged approximately 76% from its 2023 peak, reflecting a major market revaluation. Despite this, Circle President Heath Tarbert emphasized the company's focus on long-term execution and its dominant position with USDC's $73 billion circulation across 34 blockchains. The competitive landscape is intensifying. A new consortium-backed stablecoin, Open USD, is attempting to challenge incumbents by sharing reserve yields with partners. More significantly, Visa's new stablecoin platform, initially supporting Open USD while also being compatible with USDC, could erode Circle's network effects. In response, Circle is expanding into real-world payments through partnerships like the one with Japan's JCB. Separately, Tether (USDT) faces a two-year compliance window under new U.S. regulations, requiring it to adjust its reserve composition away from assets like Bitcoin and loans towards cash and U.S. Treasuries. Meanwhile, in Hong Kong, Standard Chartered-backed fintech firm Dian Dian is poised to launch a licensed HKD-pegged stablecoin (HKDAP), moving the industry into a phase where the real test is integrating licensed stablecoins into actual payment flows and corporate treasury systems. The sharp decline in Circle's stock underscores a broader shift: the stablecoin market is moving from a winner-takes-all dynamic to a multi-player competitive arena where execution, compliance, and real-world utility are becoming paramount.

marsbit3 хв тому

Circle's Stock Price Plunges 76%, Hong Kong Dollar Stablecoin Set to Launch Within Two Weeks

marsbit3 хв тому

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

In a landscape dominated by power and profit motives, the author argues that decentralization is not merely one desirable feature among many in blockchain design—it is the singular, non-negotiable defense against corporate and capital capture. The article adopts a Machiavellian, realist perspective on human institutions, positing that businesses will inevitably attempt to co-opt any valuable network to protect their profits and dominance. While external attacks like 51% forks are often discussed, the greater existential risk is internal capture—the gradual erosion of a protocol’s neutrality by vested interests, as seen historically with platforms like Visa and Google. The piece critiques permissioned chains, highly centralized “permissionless” layer-1s, and layer-2s without sufficient decentralization (e.g., single sequencers) as inherently vulnerable. These compromised systems, promoted by established financial players, are framed as delaying tactics to stifle truly open networks that threaten existing high-fee, inefficient business models. Real-world examples, such as closed enterprise consortiums that exclude competitors, illustrate how such systems cement oligopolies rather than foster innovation. The author concludes that while decentralized protocols like Ethereum are imperfect and costly to operate, they represent the only viable long-term equilibrium. In a market where value naturally flows to the most secure and neutral settlement layer, only maximally decentralized public blockchains can resist being subsumed by capital and powerful incumbents.

Foresight News13 хв тому

Amidst Capital's Encirclement, Decentralization is the Sole Defense for Public Blockchains

Foresight News13 хв тому

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Bitcoin's governance is once again at the center of a heated debate, this time ignited by BIP-110, the "Reduced Data Temporary Softfork." This proposal aims to curb non-monetary data (like inscriptions and Runes) by introducing seven new consensus-layer restrictions over a year, such as limiting new output scripts to 34 bytes and restoring the OP_RETURN cap to 83 bytes. The controversy stems from BIP-110's fundamental shift: it moves the battle against "spam" from node relay and miner policies to the consensus layer, rendering currently valid transactions invalid. Supporters, arguing that default policy governance has failed (highlighted by Bitcoin Core v30's relaxation of OP_RETURN limits), see this as necessary to protect node resources and Bitcoin's monetary focus. Opponents, led by figures like Michael Saylor and Adam Back, warn it dangerously centralizes governance. Saylor listed 110 reasons against it, criticizing its low 55% miner activation threshold and potential for chain splits. Back emphasized Bitcoin's "permissionless" ethos, arguing no single group should impose value judgments via consensus rules. Further complicating matters, technical critiques suggest BIP-110 may be technically circumventable, and a "BlockSlop" vulnerability in its upgrade path poses a consensus risk. The debate has drawn in diverse stakeholders: miners (with pools like Ocean signaling support and Foundry polling clients), node operators (like Bitcoin Knots), and new players like corporate treasury holder MicroStrategy (Saylor), whose market influence adds a novel dimension. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a governance stress test, exposing the unresolved question: who decides Bitcoin's rules? It pits the authority of miners, node operators, developers, and capital holders against each other, with each side claiming to defend Bitcoin's core principles of neutrality and security.

marsbit30 хв тому

Who Decides the Rules of Bitcoin? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

marsbit30 хв тому

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

Title: Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate A new technical proposal, BIP-110 (Reduced Data Temporary Softfork), has sparked a fundamental governance debate within the Bitcoin community. It aims to impose new consensus rules for one year to limit non-financial data (like inscriptions and Runes) on-chain, moving beyond simple node and miner policy filters to invalidate currently valid transactions. Supporters argue that default policies have failed due to workarounds, necessitating consensus-layer changes to protect Bitcoin's core monetary function from data spam. Critics, including Michael Saylor and Adam Back, contend this dangerously centralizes judgment, undermines permissionlessness, and sets a risky governance precedent. They advocate for market-based solutions like fees or Layer 2s instead. The debate exposes deeper tensions: miners are divided on activation; node operators assert their sovereignty; Bitcoin Core developers influence defaults without direct accountability; and large corporate holders like MicroStrategy now wield narrative influence. Technically, BIP-110 may not fully block data and carries a disclosed consensus bug risk. Ultimately, BIP-110 acts as a stress test, forcing the community to confront the unresolved question: who legitimately decides what Bitcoin is and how it evolves, amidst competing claims from miners, nodes, developers, and capital holders.

链捕手42 хв тому

Who Decides Bitcoin's Rules? BIP-110 Ignites Governance Debate

链捕手42 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片