One of the main concerns about inclusion is centralization. Another potential concern is the risk of scams, as the general public may not be aware of how the merger works.
A major drawback of merging is that it is likely to increase the concentration of power within the network. The more valuable the winner’s position is, the higher the reward for validating blocks. This may lead to a situation where a small number of wealthy individuals or groups control the majority of the stake and have a disproportionate influence on the network.
Five major organizations control 64% of the network’s share. In the event of a contentious split, these organizations could collude in choosing which chain to support, potentially censoring transactions or multiplying funds. Already, critics debate whether a merger “gets rich gets richer.” A scheme that cements the power of existing stakeholders.
Since staking will be required to earn interest on ETH holdings, those who cannot afford a share of the market may be priced in. This may lead to increased centralization as only those with large sums of money will be able to participate in the betting.
It’s also not uncommon for scammers to take advantage of big shifts like The Merge, pretending that users need to do something (usually including giving away tokens) to upgrade. Wallet upgrades are also a potential source of scams, as users may be tricked into downloading malware disguised as an official update.
Finally, miners who have been mining the Ethereum mainnet for years may decide to continue with the old Ethereum chain. After all, it is possible that many of these miners have incurred huge expenses for electricity and hardware and may feel they have more to gain by sticking to the tried and true mainnet. & nbsp;
This could lead to a split in the community, as two competing versions of Ethereum run concurrently. While this scenario is unlikely, it is still likely that investors will be aware of it.
Originally published at San Jose News Bulletin
No comments:
Post a Comment