Deploy Moonbeam On Ethereum As A Layer 2

[youngabudhabi]

Following the recent events of two major projects in the Dotama ecosystem, Manta Network and Astar Network, I believe it’s time for Moonbeam to also move forward and seek to evolve for the well-being of its ecosystem and community. I have been present since the beginning of Moonriver and have participated in the Take Flight event. I must say that I am very disappointed with the project’s progress over the past two years. Where are we headed, concretely? I don’t blame Moonbeam itself but rather the Polkadot ecosystem as a whole, which has struggled significantly to find adoption.

I understand why projects like Manta Network and Astar Network are starting to turn towards Ethereum; it is entirely legitimate given the situation and the idea of being multichain, which is supposed to be at the core of Moonbeam. We absolutely need to move on quickly, or we risk seeing this project sink. We have fewer and fewer users every day, and grants, which are a fantastic opportunity to create attraction on the network, are not working. Just look at Stella Swap, which has received a lot of grants since the beginning but is struggling to function properly without them. TVL (Total Value Locked) is decreasing drastically, and this is a major problem.

We should evolve in the same way as Manta and Astar, in my opinion. It’s a matter of survival. The token price has nothing to do with development, but the financial situation of all investors is starting to become a topic we cannot ignore. As a member of the community, I would like us to reconsider the development of Moonbeam, and I think we should also migrate to Ethereum and use grants there. This will bring us more adoption and more developers. I believe the work on the Polkadot side has been done, but it’s not working; there is very little interest in the ecosystem.

[Jim_CertHum]

It can be tempting to point to what other chains are doing, and say “we should do that”. So let me give you an example of “we shouldn’t do that”.

The ICON network which has been around for many years said “Let’s deploy parachains on Polkadot” while maintaining their own chain, and created Ice and Snow. They put in a lot of development work and effort. Rallied the community. Only to learn a very big lesson (one, which by the way, a has lesson into why the cross-connected contracts narrative is a better approach). Maintaining two code bases, support, maintenance, and communities is incredibly expensive, time consuming, and fraught with risk – ICON cancelled the Ice and Snow projects after 1.5 year’s worth of work and I imagine at great expense.

If you believe in x-connected contracts, chain interoperability, MRL, and the Polkadot ecosystem as a whole, then it makes no sense to waste resources to deploy a Layer 2 somewhere else.

[prison_mike]

Agree with Jim - splitting $, resources etc across two networks is going to be a huge effort for Astar, not sure how this will end for them.

Dot ecosystem is bad right now, no questioning that but chasing an ETH L2 narrative right now would be like chasing Sol/Avax last year.

I am curious though, what would the narrative for Moonbeam on ETH even be?

[youngabudhabi]

Moonbeam has raised millions of dollars, but what have we achieved to date? We don’t have a single noteworthy Dapp on the network like Uniswap or Aave, etc. We’re pouring millions of GLMR in grants into projects that don’t seem to attract anyone. So far, only Moonwell has managed to make a name for itself and attract TVL.

The Ethereum blockchain generates significant revenue, with the base chain generating almost $100K per day. Ethereum is where the money is, and where money is made. By deploying on Ethereum, we can create a trustworthy bridge between Ethereum and Polkadot.

I apologize if this is shocking to you, but projects like Wormhole and more recently Multichain don’t inspire confidence. Remember the Nomad hack? We seem to be encountering drama after drama. Wasn’t the initial goal of Polkadot to securely bridge any blockchain? Connected contracts are nothing special; all EVM chains can use Axelar’s tech. Moonbeam’s only unique advantage is being a parachain and using XCM between parachains. But is that a real advantage? Moonbeam is the most used parachain with the highest TVL on Polkadot. The other parachains looks like ghost towns, except for Manta and Astar, which seem to be on the right track. But do they really need Moonbeam? They can create their own connected contract systems. What sets us apart? What makes us different from the rest?

[turrizt]

hey there, first of all, Welcome to the forum! It’s great to see new members joining, sharing ideas, and providing feedback

to address your point, I think your current view aligns with the broader bear market narrative. when Moonbeam / Moonriver first launched, it had impressive TVL metrics. however, challenges like the Nomad hack and the ensuing bear market impacted TVL and activity, especially when compared to ETH L2s. the DeFi as a whole seems to be struggling rn, with most activity stemming from whales farming rewards, some are trying to sybil ETH L2s that haven’t yet released tokens, hoping for potential airdrops, while many users are simply staying away

regarding Moonbeam’s integration with platforms like Axelar, L0, HyperLane, Wormhole, etc, Moonbeam is genuinely eager to incorporate as many protocols as possible. this ensures devs have a comprehensive environment where they can interact with their preferred tools and protocols. for example, the Prime protocol maximizes Moonbeam’s connected contracts, offering lending & borrowing options without users having to leave Moonbeam or other chains where they have funds. I haven’t seen such features on other chains, but that could be due to my limited exposure. Moonbeam provides all essential tools for devs to build user friendly appss. It seems some devs from other ecosystems are skeptical of everything related to Polkadot. while not many parachains stand out currently, credit should be given to those who continue to innovate and build, even during challenging times. people often compare the TVL of parachains with L2s, but I believe major Polkadot players aren’t as keen to provide liquidity to parachains as ETH whales are with L2s, which significantly affects TVL comparisons

Moonbeam offers several benefits over L2s. we’re fundamentally similar to ETH L2s, offering a broad toolset for devs. still, we also have our unique advantages, including a decentralized group of collators, on-chain governance, forkless runtime upgrades, and overall strong native interoperability within the entire DotSama ecosystem. soon, the Kusama <> Polkadot parachains will also achieve interoperability through bridges

Moonbeam’s primary aim is to leverage all of Polkadot’s benefits, striving to be a genuinely decentralized parachain, without relying on a centralized sequencer that might censor transactions. I’m confident in our advantages, instead of merely emulating others, why not chart our distinct path and develop our vision?

[youngabudhabi]

Hello turritz, glad to be here as well. I’ve always been following from a distance what was happening, quite confident in the MF and the project’s development.

The problem I have with this vision, and I truly believe I’m not alone in this, is that it seems very limited and not very innovative, far from the approach that was communicated in the white paper. In my opinion, Moonbeam should have its own interoperability tech instead of relying on others like Axelar L0, etc. We gain very little advantage from these techs because they are used by any EVM. We’re not innovating; we’re just a simple EVM, far from what I had envisioned for Moonbeam.

The XCM to connect all parachains is cool, but now that the two biggest players, Manta and Astar, are working on their own EVM, it will further limit us.

So, what is the real future for Moonbeam? Connected contracts? Is that it? Also, I must say that the network speed is really slow, which is inconvenient. L2s are much faster, and as I’ve seen in the forum, all this talk of XC this or XC that, usdc.WH, usdc.Multi, is really confusing for an average user.

We’re going in the wrong direction in my opinion. An existential reevaluation is needed, and revisiting the roadmap should be a priority. We’re a sinking ship, and whether it’s a bear or bull market, I can’t see adoption coming to Moonbeam the way we’re currently heading.

[youngabudhabi]

Well, Jim, I think this only strengthens my argument. I understand that they’ve stopped building on Polkadot. Why spend so much money to deploy on a blockchain that struggles to deliver on its promises and hardly attracts any users? I completely understand their reconsideration and even the halt of their operations.

In the opposite direction building on Ethereum makes much more sense to me. Let’s put things into perspective: Polkadot’s vision is good, but Ethereum seems to be executing it much better than Polkadot. Now that all these L2s and L3s are coming to Ethereum, does Polkadot still serve a purpose?

Mass activity is on Ethereum; just look at Arbitrum, an L2 with far more users and TVL than the entire DOTSAMA ecosystem combined. It makes you think.

Moonbeam is gaining a large community along the way, and even in the industry, we have a grant fund. We have a chance on Ethereum; the developers seem really experienced, and we really need to get rid of all these bridges. There are hacks every week; it’s terrifying.

ASTAR’s vision is the right one, in my opinion. Let’s not wait for their success to say, ‘Oh, it’s true, some random guy on the forum talked about it during the bear market, and he was right…’

[turrizt]

I believe that as a project, we cannot implement everything and refuse to use battle tested tech, which offers GMP protocols, like Axelar, L0 and so on, since these protocols are focused on one thing creating interoperability around chains and probably using their solutions is more reasonable. we are not purely EVM, we are a decentralized EVM with its on-chain governance, a comprehensive staking system, low tx cost, XCM, forkless runtime upgrades and etc. Manta and Astar continue to be built and be parachains on Polkadot, they just also build separate EVM chains, which in turn is quite energetic and financially costly and I don’t really understand the point, it’s probably just a hype chase, but I don’t condemn, but just reflect based on my vision

real use casess are also under development, for example, XCM to EVM, which will allow remote call Moonbeam based smart contracts from parachains, that is, parachains will be able to interact with Moonbeam based dApps without leaving their parachain, which in turn should provide additional liquidity and new opportunities

Moonbeam also recently added a new experimental MRL feature, which allows parachains to access EVM liquidity, directly benefiting Moonbeam by paying gas fees with GLMR, and users can eventually move this liquidity back to Moonbeam, which in general will be a plus. If we talk about the tx speed, then the long-awaited improvement called async backing will soon be possible to implement for all parachains, which should make things 12x faster, block time will be reduced from 12 to 6 seconds. also with the introduction of Polkadot 2.0, with a high demand, Moonbeam will be able to acquire more cores, which will be especially helpful during periods of high congestion

also, native USDC is set to arrive to Polkadot. this means we will have native USDT / USDC, and FRAX in the Moonbeam ecosystem, which certainly improves things. with the introduction of native USDC, we might see an increase in liquidity. a significant issue, however, is that to obtain native USDT / USDC, users currently have to navigate a complex process. this involves moving assets from a CEXs to the Polkadot Asset Hub, and only then transferring them to the parachains. this process is neither convenient nor time-efficient for users. as a solution, Parity is developing tools that exchanges can implement, if they choose to. these tools will allow for the direct transfers of USDT / USDC to parachains, bypassing the Polkadot Asset Hub in the UI

[MAR1]

Hello @youngabudhabi,
Thanks for your post!

First of all, I’d like to emphasize the fact that the price of a token and the quality of the underlying technology are not correlated. Especially in a bear market.
I get the impression that you’re mixing the two up a bit, which makes your point a little bit unintelligible.

As far as your main idea is concerned, I don’t think it’s at all necessary or even desirable. A L2 on Ethereum wouldn’t bring us much, other than ephemeral exposure as a result of riding the wave.
Moonbeam is already deploying extremely advanced compatibility with EVM, and is even adding features that no other parachain has: batch, call permit, XCM calls, staking… In that sense, I think our technology is already very advanced.

As for your criticism of non-native assets, whether from Wormhole, Nomad, Multichain or elsewhere: I totally share your point. You’ll notice that we already have xcUSDT, xciBTC and soon xcUSDC. Favoring native assets is the way forward. It may not be going fast enough, but coordinating all these players and technologies unfortunately takes time.

As for the slowness of our chain: this should be fixed by asynchronous backing, which will increase our block production’s speed by 50% (6s). Of course, we’ll always be slower than other L2s you’ve mentioned. But shared security comes at a price. It’s important to understand that we’re in a network of chains: this is the Polkadot principle. We’re not alone on an island, but rather a district of a large city.

Finally, as far as Astar is concerned, because I have the feeling that you’re comparing us to them: it turns out that the philosophy of our chain is different. You’re free to appreciate one project or another, but it’s not right to come to your neighbor’s house and say your house is more beautiful. For example, they don’t have on-chain governance. That’s a fundamental point of difference.

Finally, the fact that their strategy seems to deviate from Polkadot can be seen as an opportunity for us. Moonbeam already has the most liquidities and the most users on Polkadot. Imagine the return of bullrun and the success of Polkadot 2.0: what tech will future builders use? They’ll come to us because we’re the EVM gateway to Polkadot.
Of course, this is just my opinion and you’re free to disagree.

Respectfully,
Marin

[youngabudhabi]

"I don’t believe that Astar wants to distance itself from Polkadot; quite the opposite. It’s gearing up to write Polkadot’s history with intelligent and strategic moves. I don’t see Moonbeam benefiting from this in any way, but rather the opposite. Our competitors are innovating and building, truly creating a bridge between Polkadot and Ethereum, which I believe is indispensable. In my opinion, I have no confidence in wormholes, etc., and it seems logical to connect to a blockchain like Ethereum that dominates the market.

Yes, the price isn’t correlated with development, but what exactly are we developing? Governance? I don’t see how Moonbeam distinguishes itself from the hundreds of EVMs on the market, except for the fact that we’re on Polkadot and therefore have the opportunity to use XCM. That’s it. We don’t have any significant DApps on the chain, even though we’ve been live since January 2022. It’s becoming really concerning. You can reassure yourselves however you want, but without strategic moves, all we’re doing is waiting for Polkadot to succeed. Is that what we should expect as part of this community? It’s frightening

[chris.casini]

@turrizt

which in turn is quite energetic and financially costly and I don’t really understand the point

I have to agree with this. They essentially need to run two separete code bases if they want to be both on Polkadot and Polygon. It will be very time consuming and expensive.

I am not an expert so perhaps I am missing something.

[chris.casini]

@youngabudhabi

Moonbeam should have its own interoperability tech instead of relying on others like Axelar L0, etc.

I see the point you are trying to make. However, I do believe that it’s more effective ( cost wise and time wise) to use Axelar, L0, and Wormhole for interoperability.

[Lordglmr]

I totally understand where you’re coming from. The bear market’s price swings have been tough for all of us. Some big whales, possibly with a master plan, are selling, and we’re keeping our fingers crossed for that. But hey, when it comes to Ethereum, we’d essentially become just another layer 2 solution. I personally love the idea of staying unique and special within the Polkadot family. After all, we’re deeply tied to the Polkadot story, and choosing otherwise might affect our overall project image and credibility.

[db_defiedge]

Thanks for sharing this.
What specific use cases or advantages can Moonbeam gain by integrating with Ethereum as a Layer 2 solution? How will this benefit both existing and potential users?

[youngabudhabi]

I think that deploying on Ethereum can generate much more interest for Moonbeam from the Polkadot side as well, somewhat like what Astar is trying to do - creating a trustworthy bridge between Ethereum and Polkadot. Attracting more developers through grants on Ethereum. Bridges like Wormhole are not good for the long term; they have already been hacked and probably will be again. I don’t understand why we’re not learning any lessons from Nomad and Multi-Chain, and we continue to dig ourselves deeper by using bridges with vulnerabilities. It’s not sustainable in the long term

[youngabudhabi]

Let’s open a snapshot vote; I’m curious to know the opinion of the holders. I tried to create one, but apparently I can’t.

[turrizt]

hey cryptokichta. I remember your snide remarks and smirks regarding Moonbeam, leading to your ban from our channels. your behavior persists on Twitter, and I see right through your intentions. a simple name change won’t erase your past actions. we, whom you labeled as “lazy fanboys” highlighted the advantages of developing on Polkadot. I don’t see the logic in emulating others merely for fleeting hype. you might not realize it, but narratives do shift. Solana, for example, created significant buzz in the past, but it quickly diminished. currently, the rush is towards Ethereum activity, but a significant portion of it involves sybils vying for airdrops. Moonbeam might need a new token to draw users to our L2, which in essence splits it into two distinct projects: Moonbeam L2 and Moonbeam parachain on Polkadot. such a move feels like we’re being pitted against ourselves.

creating an L2 would demand substantial resources and time from the Moonbeam Foundation. this would be to understand the ecosystem, identify potential niches, and determine our unique selling points in contrast to other L2s. personally, I find this approach redundant.

Polkadot’s philosophy emphasizes utmost decentralization, forkless upgrades, robust on-chain governance, and XCM interoperability within the dotsama ecosystem. being EVM compatible parachain, we possess the flexibility to develop and adapt akin to L2s. this compatibility ensures our alignment with all Ethereum tools and protocols, facilitating connections between diverse chains and ecosystems. moreover, we reap the multifaceted benefits that Polkadot provides

[youngabudhabi]

What are you talking about ?

[turrizt]

as I see it, MF has no intentions of deploying as L2 since we have prioritized compatibility, decentralization, and interoperability. by compatibility, we’re referring to both XCM and EVM. the emphasis on decentralization and interoperability informed our decision to build as a parachain on Polkadot. If we were to deploy Moonbeam as L2, we would compromise these principles of decentralization and interoperability, which are fundamental to the project’s vision and goals. I believe this is a direct answer to your initial question. for a more exhaustive reply please read above.

now, I’d like to close this topic to avoid going in circles