AC Dialogue with the Fantom Community: There is a huge divergence between using on-chain data as KPI and the development roadmap of Ethereum

Source: “Andre Cronje - infinite AMA”

Author: Andre Cronje and the Fantom community

Compiled by: Leo, BlockBeats

Recently, Andre Cronje, known as the "father of DeFi," announced his return. As one of the earliest builders in the DeFi space, AC published an article last April titled "Crypto is Dead, Crypto Lives On," announcing his exit from the scene. However, his related news still brings some volatility to Crypto, especially Fantom. After AC's return, everyone is looking at whether AC can restore the former glory of DeFi and bring better development to Fantom. Recently, AC initiated an infinite AMA event, and this article compiles and translates part of the content as follows:

Q: What is the timeline for the account abstraction (AA) feature you mentioned on Medium?

AC: This involves too many factors; any software engineering timeline is highly variable. Our internal target is to have it available on testnet at least in Q3 or early Q4, preferably on mainnet. Since this involves a lot of breakthrough core changes, coordination with third-party providers using downstream data from Fantom is necessary. Even when AA goes live, wallets/developers/Dapps will still need time to integrate, so time factors must also be considered. In reality, it may take 2-3 years for full integration and downstream services to provide AA.

Q: Will Gas Abstraction come along with AA, or is it too early?

AC: The full functionality of Gas Abstraction requires support from AA, which will play a similar role in practice. When we release gas subsidies, a subset of that will be available.

Q: What do you think about Tomb Finance (the algorithmic stablecoin project pegged to FTM)?

AC: I don't trust any algorithmic stablecoins; they are all the same.

Q: What about algorithmic stablecoins pegged to FTM?

AC: It doesn't matter whether it's pegged or not; as long as it's algorithmic or not fully collateralized, it's not acceptable.

Q: Is the FVM (Fantom Virtual Machine) still developing normally? Can you provide any updates?

AC: Everything is on track. We will be cautious about related release updates; we don't want to release information too early because we want FVM to be a competitive advantage we can ensure.

Q: Hi, Andre, three questions:

• Why did you decide to collaborate with Danielle Sestagali (founder of Frog Nation, co-founder of Wonderland) in 2021, knowing he used Wonderland (the protocol on Frog Nation) as a Ponzi scheme to promote and hype it? You must have known this was unsustainable, and many would lose money sooner or later?

• Why were you so determined to launch Solidly, knowing that many would believe in you and treat FTM as their home, and they would all be affected?

• Why do you have a relationship with Harry (Harry Yeh, founder and managing partner of Quantum Fintech Group), when Harry's only action is to harm his community?

I'm not trying to question FTM because it is my only and favorite L1, and I will always defend it, as everything else is garbage in comparison.

AC: During 2021, after the Eminence project, I was bombarded with continuous negative sentiment, a large part of which was "I don't care about users" or "I don't put users first." Danielle had successfully built what I believe to be a very strong community, and after talking with him a few times, I believed he genuinely cared about community building and his users, which is something I knew and didn't have. I didn't participate in Wonderland but respect the work they did with Abracadabra (a DeFi protocol on Frog Nation) / MIM (the algorithmic stablecoin launched by Abracadabra), as well as the research he did on Popsicle (a DeFi protocol on Ethereum); both are real products.

Danielle viewed Wonderland as a community-building activity, but as you said, it was unsustainable, which is why I never supported or participated in it. To be honest, if it weren't for what happened with 0xSifu (Wonderland CFO), there would have been no problem continuing my collaboration with Danielle. Unfortunately, the collapse meant the door to collaboration was permanently closed.

Regarding Solidly, I believe I clearly communicated two things (in hindsight, I should have emphasized these):

First, Solidly is completely immutable; after I deployed it, I can't update it, so there's nothing I can do. After I deployed it, I left. I did convey that Solidly is just a new primitive, not a "project," but it seems this point didn't receive enough attention, or I communicated it poorly, which is my fault. That's why I tried to spend more time creating a discussion environment because I didn't want this situation to happen again.

Second, users can manipulate the system for their own benefit, but they will ultimately suffer the consequences because they must accumulate a large Solid position (costing them a lot of money), and by seeking personal gain, they will devalue their own position. I don't think any rational person would do this, but clearly, I was wrong because Bebis and Roosh ultimately did, and their platforms devalued. Since then, all branches have decided to concentrate this part because the nature of decentralization is its weakness. I still believe (perhaps naively) that Solidly was successful because it proved that true decentralized governance doesn't work in a real-world environment (further achieving code breakthroughs in new stable AMMs, new weighted oracles, and ve tokenomics) and demonstrated that users care more about "teams and projects" than primitives. That said, I do regret the outcome of things, which is also why I am focusing more on communication this year (like this AMA).

I have no relationship with Harry Yeh; I only met him at the Abu Dhabi Fantom conference, but I have always made it clear that Harry is not part of the foundation and is not a core contributor.

I appreciate these questions; being able to discuss the good and the bad is beneficial. I think discussing the bad is better because we can learn from it.

Q: Any updates on FUSD?

AC: Currently, we have formed a dedicated team focused on first pausing FUSD and then reactivating it under a new framework. The current focus is solely on liquidating and cleaning up bad debts and significantly reducing bad debt verification. I expect this issue to be resolved in Q1.

Q: Have you looked into what people are saying about Solidly V2? What are the benefits, or is it just named after Solidly?

AC: I haven't looked at the code, but I have seen projects like Equalizer / Velodrome / SolidlyETH in my protocol and ecosystem research. I'm glad to see people building on the original foundation. The only opinion I have is that I think people are a bit too focused on improvements to ve / bribe / vote, which are the smallest improvements in the entire codebase. The larger projects are:

• New stable swap AMM formula;

• New time and liquidity-weighted TWAR (time-weighted average reserve) mechanism, which is a more practical oracle for DeFi projects compared to TWAP (time-weighted average price);

• Fee splitting, the way fee splitting means that protocols incentivizing liquidity can earn extra fees. For example, if you incentivize a pool, only veCRV holders earn trading fees, while for Solidly, if you incentivize a pool, you can earn those fees.

I hope to see more people expand and build on these foundations in the future, rather than focusing too much on ve / bribe / vote. But again, I am very happy to see more projects being built on this foundation, though I haven't seen anyone achieve it to my expectations. I think there are still many improvements that haven't been practically created.

Q: I'm glad you're back. In January 2021, I saw FTM's price surge and market cap rise. Conservatively, FTM will reach $10 in the next bull market. How do you view its ranking? Is entering the top 20 our highest goal? At the right time in the next bull market, I believe you can build a community better than Danielle and see massive growth and adoption. I'm curious about any thoughts you have.

AC: We tend not to consider or worry about price; it is a lagging indicator. Our KPI standards are:

• On-chain transaction volume

• Gas paid by users in transactions

Our revenue is tied to the above two points. We don't measure in dollars; if we improve these two KPIs, other lagging indicators will also improve.

Q: What are the next steps for the Fantom NFT marketplace Artion? Will it be actively developed or used for community-driven projects?

AC: We have a small team dedicated to Artion (about 6 people), but our goal has always been to let the community take over. When we started building Artion, we didn't have a strong NFT marketplace, while PaintSwap was doing very well. I think Artion may ultimately fall behind.

Q: A few weeks ago, your article on Medium said it was okay to leave and join a crypto project like BTC. I'm worried whether FTM's return is permanent or temporary? Because for some people, including myself, investing in crypto projects is not just about technology but also about the people behind it. How many of us have really adopted crypto technology in real life? If I'm not mistaken, it's a very small portion. Most people invest in crypto projects just for returns. I know you might not care about this area; you once mentioned you are here to build, but most investors are here for more returns.

AC: For now, my goal has always been to decentralize any project I participate in. "Decentralization" and "team" are antonyms. History has shown that while I am committed to crypto, I have been too emotional and personal. So if you are investing in a project because of me, I suggest you reconsider your investment. My mental health means I need to periodically "detox from anger," and unfortunately, I will continue to do so.

I also want to point out that I do not represent the Fantom team; there are over a hundred people driving it forward. Just as the project continued to move forward when I was not around, it will continue to do so if I leave in the future.

Q: Assuming Fantom will be one of the most user-friendly, cheapest, safest, fastest, and highest throughput blockchains, will people eventually expect use cases for this blockchain to appear outside of DeFi? Do you think we are close? Supply chain, voting, electronic medical records proof of concept, etc.? Does the FTM Foundation have a team focused on these features and/or building middleware products for companies to enable them to do anything with Fantom?

AC: This is a natural evolution of technology:

BTC corresponds to ------ the initial broadcast internet. This version of the internet was not user-friendly for consumers; it was a broadcast protocol used to share critical static information during wartime;

Ethereum corresponds to ------ the move towards an interactive internet, AOL, IRC, bulletin boards, etc. Until the software/hardware stack expanded, the network we have today was impossible during that time;

Fantom genesis corresponds to ------ a step towards a dynamic internet, early eBay, MySpace, Amazon (at this stage, high-frequency systems like Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, etc., cannot exist within it);

Fantom future corresponds to ------ a high-frequency, accessible decentralized network.

The first application of any technology is almost always in the currency (financial products) field until the barriers to entry (costs) are lowered to a level that can be accessed for free. In the early internet, we often paid a lot for access (dollars per megabyte), which is no different from gas fees. Now we can get gigabytes of data for a few cents (that's the future).

The problem is that the narrative is always faster than the accessible reality. If we look from the beginning to now, BTC in 2009 - Ethereum in 2015 - Fantom in 2019, it took nearly 30 years for Amazon and other products we use daily to reach today's level. The blockchain as a whole has only about 14 years of history; we may still need 10 years to reach any technological point where applications are available.

So I think we are close, yes, I believe "close" means within 5-10 years, not a few months. Applications (outside of DeFi) cannot exist until the foundational layer is ready, which is why we are working so hard to push FVM + flat storage, etc. We know our consensus can handle the throughput required to support demand, but EVM cannot. Therefore, expecting to build these applications now is actually unfeasible because the foundational layer needs to enable them first. This year, we will focus on removing EVM limitations, which will push us closer to the limits, and then we can see such applications.

Trying to create future applications without the right foundation is a disaster, so now is the time to be patient and cautious.

Q: With the emergence of cheap and fast Ethereum L2s, do you think L1s (like Fantom) face adoption issues? How can we improve adoption? Additionally, have you considered institutional adoption/use cases? This is an area where I believe we are lagging behind other L1s/L2s like Polygon. Back to my point, technology is great, but we need to improve adoption.

AC: I don't think any other blockchain, sidechain, or L2 will pose adoption issues for Fantom. Blockchain is not a zero-sum game; like all other industries, you don't just have one phone brand, car brand, or internet provider. There is enough adoption for everyone.

Fantom is currently not focused on "adoption" (and I think this term has now solidified into a meme). We haven't even completed our product yet. With changes like account abstraction, economic abstraction, and FVM, there will be groundbreaking changes like hard forks. For this reason, we think it's unwise to spend time and energy adapting to changes. As you mentioned institutional adoption, when I refer to institutions, I mean slow-moving entities that don't like to be forced to change their products. Once deployed, they don't want to update/migrate. It is irresponsible to bring them into this round of change now.

I want to turn the question back to you. You said, "We need to improve adoption." Why? Doesn't it make more sense to complete our roadmap before we shift our focus to adapting to changes? Before optimizing the sales cycle, you first complete the manufacturing of products like cars/phones/computers.

Q: I have three questions:

• I saw your response above regarding FUSD. Is the team waiting for U.S. stablecoin regulations?

• fWallet is okay now, but are there any updates planned for it as part of the DeFi suite fWallet?

• Will the FTM earnings obtained through gas tokenization be locked, granted, or only staked as options for a while?

AC: Thank you for your questions. Our team is currently not taking any action based on U.S. stablecoin regulations, but we will closely monitor any developments and make adjustments accordingly. There are plans to upgrade fWallet after the account abstraction is released. No, the team can use it freely as needed; it is just their source of income, so we don't want to restrict its use.

Q: Hi, Andre, can you share some names of various DeFi protocols from the FTM Foundation? If not, can you share some names of protocols you think are safe enough for beginners?

AC: There are no safe protocols; everything is high risk. However, some protocols we use include: Curve, Convex, Geist, SpookySwap, Beets, and Multichain.

Q: Since this tweet was posted, how has your view of Fantom changed?

AC: I believe Ethereum is more focused on L2 rather than how to scale their foundational layer. When they focus on their foundational layer, we work together. Now that they have shifted their attention to L2, what they are doing won't help us, and what we are doing won't help them (when we are no longer focused on EVM). This year, we will see a significant divergence between the two, as both move towards their new directions. Fantom is focused on UX and foundational layer expansion, while Ethereum is focused on L2 and relayer UX.

Q: Hi, Andre, I have a question that has been bothering me for a while. By standard, validators get more APR than delegators. Doesn't that make more sense, especially given the extra costs of running a node? Of course, you get some extra benefits from those who delegate to you, but this situation has ceased to exist with the decrease in stakes and increase in validators. One last interesting question: how will Fantom be in 5 years?

AC: Validators do indeed get more than delegators, but this is up to the individual validators. If they wish, they can charge 0 fees; that is their right, and it's not something we can decide.

Fantom in 5 years needs to adopt a more humble posture. Fantom now is equivalent to the early internet of the 1990s. You are very aware that you are entering the internet era; you need a dial-up modem, RJ11 cable, wait for dialing, and a custom browser. Even then, access was slow and expensive. 20 years later, users don't care whether they are in the internet era because the internet has always been available. Given technological advancements, I believe we can achieve this goal with Fantom in the next 5 years, not 20.

Q: I want to ask you about the future of Solidly. Will there be plans to reopen or compensate users? I have a suggestion: users interacting with popular Dapps in Fantom could be rewarded with NFTs or something else.

AC: There are no plans for the future of Solidly. It presents an immutable crypto primitive rather than a project, and I am no longer involved with it, just as I am no longer involved with Yearn or Keep3r.

Q: I have two questions for you:

• Is the FTM Foundation considering removing the cap of 3.175 billion tokens and launching a dynamic emission model similar to Ethereum? This could allow validators to earn rewards for their work over the coming years. The reason for this question is that there is no guarantee that validators will profit solely from transaction fees after token distribution ends.

• As a DeFi expert, what are your thoughts on Uniswap V3 and related optimizer projects like Popsicle Finance? If I remember correctly, the V3 fork prohibition license will expire in April, which means some forks may occur, including Fantom. If needed, Popsicle could also deploy optimizers. Since V3 liquidity management is too complex for ordinary users, V3 optimizers will have a clear use case. But can these optimizers be profitable? Because I see many reports that the likelihood of users making money through V3 LPing is greater than losing money. Using the Fragola V3 optimizer, Popsicle rarely profits. Now, the team seems to be focused on JIT integration to reduce its losses. What do you think about this? Perhaps you have discussed this concept with Danielle Sesta before.

AC: Stay tuned. First, I want to see if we can significantly increase fees to offset emissions. It might be quick. If we can achieve 2-4% APY on fees, we can stop emissions. We could even stop it before the supply reaches 3.175 billion, but that requires more data.

Uniswap V3 could choose to extend, but I think they might enforce it unless they release V4 before April, in which case V3 would become invalid. However, it's too early to talk about it now. Concentrated liquidity also means concentrated impermanent loss (or just loss), which is a system dominated by advanced users. Not everything in life is overly simple.