Switch Electric recently unveiled the inaugural smart meter designed specifically for decentralized energy projects, allowing individuals to produce and market their electricity.

“Access to energy remains a pressing issue in Sub-Saharan Africa. Our collaboration with Drop Wireless enables us to leverage their established LoRaWAN network, financially empowering local communities to own wireless gateways. Paired with our M3tering protocol-enabled smart meters, this creates a formidable solution for enhancing energy accessibility and promoting sustainable development.”

I. Christwin, CEO of Switch Electric

To ensure the economic sustainability of the Switch Electric collaboration, Drop Wireless plans to evaluate any underutilized gateways within its community and strategically redeploy them in targeted areas to maximize societal benefits globally.

These gateways will be distributed under leasing agreements, and Switch Electric's usage fees, along with mining rewards, will be distributed among community members who contributed their gateways.

This arrangement presents an innovative economic model where underutilized wireless assets can be fully utilized in underserved regions, creating more sustainable hardware distribution models and helping local economies.

Dr. Andrew Baek, CEO of Drop Wireless, expressed excitement about the partnership with Switch Electric and the opportunity to contribute to their impactful mission. He stated that the partnership exemplified the potential of DePINs to incentivize collaboration and address real-world challenges.

Since its inception in 2018, IoTeX has been one of the leaders and pioneers of the intersection of IoT and Blockchain. The idea of a machine economy underlined by community-owned infrastructures was first formalized by the IoTeX research team in 2021 and was then called MachineFi. Fast-forward to 2023, this concept has since been universally recognized as DePIN.

The name might have changed, but the mission is always the same, encapsulated by IoTeX’s motto: DePIN is for Everyone. The collaboration between Drop Wireless and Switch Electric within the IoTeX ecosystem is a step in this direction, and it paves the way for similar partnerships across the whole IoTeX ecosystem and possibly beyond as cross-ecosystem interoperability becomes a standard for the mass adoption of DePIN.

“We’ve been working with Drop Wireless and Switch Electric for a while now, and their contribution to our ecosystem cannot be understated. It’s so great to see them come together with this initiative. This partnership is a great example of what DePIN can do on so many levels: Incentivizing sustainability by repurposing devices, empowering underserved communities, creating a better community-owned physical infrastructure, and boosting local economies. Our DePIN for Everyone motto couldn’t have been better represented! We’re really proud of the work iChristwin, and Andrew have done!”

Giuseppe De Luca from the IoTeX core team.

ABOUT IOTEX

IoTeX is a DePIN-specific blockchain that boasts over $1 billion in on-chain assets, over 400,000 users, and over 45,000 devices across hundreds of dApps. As a one-stop modular infrastructure for DePINs, IoTeX offers a comprehensive suite of building blocks and tools, ranging from the hardware abstraction layer and off-chain computing layer to its Layer-1 blockchain layer serving as the trusted anchor for identity, governance, dApps, etc., to significantly simplify the deployment of DePIN projects.

The IoTeX ecosystem is constantly evolving and is currently the second largest after Ethereum in the DePIN sector. Some of the most notable projects across various sectors include DropWireless, Switch Electric, Wayru, Network3, and enviroBLOQ.

ABOUT SWITCH ELECTRIC

Switch Electric introduced the first smart metering platform to bridge the gap between distributed energy resources (such as rooftop solar assets) and the Web 3.0 economy, allowing individuals to generate & sell their power. Its vision is to displace centralized power generation and enable cost-effective decentralized energy supply for Africa's 1 Billion people by 2100.

ABOUT DROP WIRELESS

Drop Wireless is predominantly dedicated to harnessing its state-of-the-art technologies to establish Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePIN). This endeavor is geared towards ushering in useful applications within the upcoming era of extensive interconnectedness. Its commitment extends to furnishing tools that foster a community-centric infrastructure and ecosystem.

Switch Electric and Drop Wireless lead the charge towards Africa's more sustainable and equitable energy future. Stay tuned for further updates on their progress and how you can participate in this transformative movement. For more information about this partnership and the M3tering Protocol, please contact

• Drop Wireless at https://t.me/Drop Wireless

• Switch Electric at https://discord.gg/Z4AyRjh7gW

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=dark&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=like%2Ccomment&receiver=&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2FJMXhm8OlyQRr8X_6vVaCdNRo0s1tvawy9zFsm0AS8rs&height=800&display=iframe

Accurate meteorological intelligence is crucial in Africa as the continent is (increasingly) exposed to the effects of climate change and variability. In the context of this article, meteorological intelligence is a collective term for weather and climate intelligence.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Africa is the most vulnerable continent to climate change because of its high exposure to climate stress and low adaptive capacity. The State of Climate in Africa 2022 report highlights the severe damage of climate change in Africa.

The floods that ravaged Central, Western, and East Africa affected the lives of over 1 million people. The tropical storms and cyclones that hit Southern Africa affected over 2.5 million people, resulting in the death of more than 600 people.

The northern part of Africa experienced disasters associated with extreme temperature anomalies, from the heatwaves and wildfires that raged in Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria to the heavy rainfall, snow, and sandstorms that plagued Libya.

With most of these disasters happening without warning, it is safe to say that the unavailability of accurate meteorological intelligence has left Africa at the mercy of Mother Nature. While the debilitating effects of these disasters will remain for years, WiHi is proffering a solution to prevent the unpredicted and without-warning recurrences of these disasters.

WiHi is a web3 company providing accurate meteorological intelligence everywhere, anytime. This article will discuss WiHi and its methodology for actionable meteorological intelligence in Africa.

Understanding the factors hampering accurate meteorological intelligence in Africa.

Weather is the state of the atmosphere in a particular location at any period. Climate is the average weather pattern of a place over a long period, usually 30 years or more. Meteorological intelligence is the collection and maintainability of accurate real-time weather/climate data necessary for making accurate forecasts.

These forecasts contain enough information to facilitate the implementation of policies necessary to mitigate the physical and economic risks associated with climate change. From the definition above, we can split meteorological intelligence into two parts: collection and maintainability of quality meteorological data and accurate forecasting based on the data collected.

The scarcity of quality meteorological data is the major obstacle hindering the achievement of accurate meteorological intelligence in Africa. Insufficient meteorological data has significant repercussions in measuring the extent of climate change. Also, without reliable weather records, it becomes challenging to fine-tune weather models or develop higher-quality climate models.

In particular, meteorologists cannot provide reliable forecasts or timely warnings about potential climate extremes. In the State of Climate in Africa 2022 report, Prof. Petteri Taalas, former Secretary-General of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), addressed the problem of climate data unavailability.

Climate data is critical for developing climate services that support informed decision-making. Nevertheless, significant gaps in basic weather and climate observations remain over Africa.

Prof. Petteri Taalas.

There are two major causal factors of quality meteorological data scarcity in Africa. They include a steady decline in the number of operational weather stations in Africa and the poor quality of data collected by functional weather stations. Despite facing significant natural disasters annually, Africa struggles with an outdated and deteriorating weather infrastructure system.

To further exacerbate this issue, Africa has the lowest coverage of weather observation networks, presenting a challenge in generating reliable data to mitigate the impact of climate change on the continent. According to the World Bank, Africa has the least developed weather, water, and climate observation network in the world, with less than 300 of its weather stations meeting the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) observation standards.

Furthermore, 54 percent of its surface weather stations and 71 percent of its upper-air weather stations do not report accurate data. Based on the WMO database, Europe and the United States have a combined total of 636 weather radar stations for a population of 1.1 billion people. Africa, with a population of 1.2 billion people, has 37 weather radar stations variably distributed across the continent.

In Chapter 7 of the book Extreme Hydrology and Climate Variability, Tufa Dinku highlights declining investment, social or political conflict, and remote geography as the reasons for sparse climate observation networks in Africa. The lack of sufficient funding hinders the operation and maintenance of climate observation networks and related infrastructure.

One of the reasons behind this is the challenges in effectively harnessing the value added by these networks. In particular, policymakers may exhibit shortsightedness, lacking a long-term perspective on the benefits of climate observations in developing an environmentally resilient region.

Political unrest, such as the ongoing conflicts in Nigeria, can destroy operational weather stations, rendering accurate data collection difficult. The high insecurity in conflict zones discourages organizations from setting up new weather stations, as it poses a risk to the lives of their employees.

Geographical factors, such as challenging terrains like mountains, forests, and deserts, contribute to the sparse distribution of weather observation networks across the continent. The difficulty in installing and maintaining weather stations in these areas limits the overall number of weather stations.

Additionally, the dispersed nature of rural populations, especially in lowland areas, makes the setup of weather stations economically unprofitable. National planners may prioritize placing stations in cities with high concentrations of people and economic activity, overlooking the need for comprehensive spatial coverage in rural or difficult-to-access areas.

Apart from the handful of operational stations available to collect meteorological data, the quality of the data collected also poses a significant challenge in producing accurate forecasts. Poor data quality arises from poor accuracy, imprecise measurements, and missing observations.

Station measurements used to collect meteorological data are susceptible to errors. These errors may stem from human mistakes, faulty instruments used for measurements, or other factors that can affect the reliability of the collected data.

Mistakes made during data entry are another common source of error that can compromise the accuracy and reliability of the information stored in databases. Zero implementation of quality control for collected data reduces the quality of meteorological data.

The absence of skilled personnel or training on existing data quality tools can hinder the proper implementation of quality control measures. The following section will cover WiHi's approach to solving these problems to improve accurate meteorological intelligence in Africa.

A deep dive into WiHi.

What is WiHi?

WiHi is a Solana-based platform focused on providing accurate meteorological intelligence everywhere in the world, anytime, by establishing an incentivized collaboration between all actors in the meteorological sector (global and local).

WiHi achieves this by integrating them into a community-owned infrastructure and linking it to the consumer market, which currently has an unfulfilled need for weather data and forecasting valued at 11.5 billion USD.

What makes WiHi stand out amongst other meteorological entities? While other companies are piggybacking on public/ governmental institutions' work and focused on generating their data and producing forecasts at high price points, WiHi positions itself in the intersection by being a platform for all, public, private, and hobbyist meteorological entities where they can meet and collaborate, sharing data and producing pinpoint accurate forecasts, effectively sharing the revenues of the the weather forecasting market.

How does WiHi work?

Since WiHi is open-hardware, entities that own weather stations will configure their stations to stream observed data to the WiHi protocol. The protocol then rewards them with WiHi tokens for doing so via a usage reward that accounts for the quality and usefulness of the data.

For forecasting, WiHi is currently using its proprietary AI/ML model to produce accurate forecasts based on the data streamed to the protocol. At the moment, WiHi uses a centralized forecasting model. In the future, WiHi will use the collective intelligence of the weather community for its forecasting by decentralizing and incentivizing third parties to commit forecasts to the platform.

This will improve the quality of the single forecasts by aggregating them into ensemble forecasts. It is known from the Netflix challenge, that aggregating superior forecasts with inferior forecasts improves the former significantly, a phenomenon called collective intelligence in the complexity sciences.

WiHi intends to use a gamified reward system for the forecasters leveraging mechanisms from cryptoeconomics such as staking or auction markets. If the data used to make the forecast was from a WiHi-enabled weather station, the station gets rewarded because only quality data can produce accurate forecasts.

This gamified approach solves two problems: low-quality forecasts and low-quality data. Since forecasters are looking for ways to covet the price, they will only use quality data to compute their predictions. WiHi-enabled weather stations will also improve their data quality control measures to get rewards for collecting the most qualitative dataset for the forecasts.

Also, third-party weather data buyers will only purchase quality data. The winning streaks of a weather station or forecaster on the protocol is the best way to prove the quality of datasets and forecasts.

Improving meteorological intelligence in Africa through WiHi.

This section will discuss the achievable solutions WiHi can proffer to some of the problems hampering meteorological intelligence in Africa. One of the problems WiHi will tackle is the sparse distribution of weather stations in Africa.

Through its ambassador program, WiHi will provide funding to its ambassadors to install and maintain weather stations in areas without one. If this is successful, with time, the number of observation stations in Africa will increase, forming a dense observation network across the continent.

This solution will also tackle the preferential treatment of national planners towards urban settlements when it is time to install new weather stations. The problem of low-quality data is the easiest to solve. How? Most organizations are nonchalant towards processes that can increase the quality of data collected because they are not getting rewarded for doing so.

The WiHi model rewards stations collecting high-quality data while flagging stations collecting low-quality data to potential data buyers and other entities in the meteorological sector. With the knowledge of getting rewards for high-quality data collection or losing credibility and reputation for low-quality data collection, these organizations will eventually improve their data control measures.

Conclusion.

WiHi can greatly enhance meteorological intelligence in Africa, giving countries a crucial edge in preparing for extreme climate events and reducing the associated physical and economic risks. According to the World Bank, the provision of accurate meteorological intelligence can save US$22 billion in losses to well-being, and US$30 billion through a resulting increase in productivity and this is what WiHi intends to achieve in Africa.

As the adoption of the WiHi grows, we are bullish about the positive changes it will bring. To learn more about WiHi and stay updated with the latest happenings about it, visit their website, join their discord server, follow on Twitter or Linkedln, ask the right questions, and become part of the w3ather movement.

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=light&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=comment%2Clike%2Ctip&receiver=0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2F2-nyEAMk6_9cNUcquJnIxSI9kYC_QPyLQbjB7CX1mXw&height=800&display=iframe

The Monaco Protocol is a decentralized betting engine restructuring the approach to betting in the global ecosystem. When I was a kid, we usually had this game we always played: the pen game. So, the idea was that at the end of the game, every eliminated player would pay 5 NGN to the champion.

So, if we are seven players, the winning player goes home with 30 NGN. Interestingly, after a joyous pen game tournament, we usually had to settle disputes between the champion and a defaulter. A player might have refused to pay the required 5 NGN, and the winning player who is hell-bent on getting the money would resort to violence.

In situations like this, we usually ended up with serious brawls, and once these brawls began, only our teachers could intervene, and they would punish us for gambling. Bringing this to the real world, when bettors win huge, most bookmakers refuse to pay.

Unlike our junior school game, where the champion could beat up the defaulter for refusing to pay up, it is practically impossible for bettors to do anything when bookies refuse to pay their earnings because these bookmakers have a way of tilting the law to favor them.

Instead, the bookmakers involved go aggressive by closing the accounts of such bettors and even banning them from their platforms. Bettors would painstakingly put in their time and effort to accurately predict events and wager their hard-earned money on their predictions.

When the prediction comes true, the bookies can decide not to pay because the money won is large, and the company doesn’t want to part with such an amount. Here’s a compiled video showing several occasions where popular bookies refused to pay bettors.

The ability for bookies to withhold the earnings of a bettor is possible because of the centralized nature of traditional betting platforms. A bettor visits a betting platform, deposits some funds, and begins to bet on predictions. If the bettor's prediction happens, the bookie initiates the payment of earnings to the bettor; otherwise, the bettor loses the wager to the bookie.

Because bookies control the payout of funds won to bettors, they can decide against paying a bettor if the money won is a staggering sum. The Monaco Protocol is hell-bent on destroying the centralized structure most betting platforms are built on that leaves bettors at the mercy of bookmakers, erecting a decentralized system that is fair to all parties involved.

Understanding the idea behind the Monaco Protocol.

The Monaco Protocol is a fully decentralized, open-sourced, and permissionless betting protocol built on Solana. It provides a decentralized structure on which operators (betting exchanges and bookmakers) can build their platform.

The Monaco Protocol frees up the burden of dealing with complicated traditional betting systems from operators, allowing them to prioritize making betting and predicting fun and engaging for users. The Monaco Protocol is reshaping online betting, making it global and decentralized, creating a seamless user experience.

In Nigeria, there are three popular phone brands: Infinix, Tecno, and Itel. The general idea is that these brands compete with each other for sales, but this is not the case. These brands operate under a parent company: Transsion Holdings. The Monaco Protocol is like Transsion Holdings but for betting exchanges and bookmakers.

Operators can build their platforms on the protocol, enjoying quality usage from a global user base. Instead of spending the whole time marketing for users, these operators have the time to continuously improve their UX to make their product fun, engaging, and retainable for users.

Unlike traditional betting platforms, the Monaco Protocol is decentralized and permissionless, making it more transparent and secure. The Monaco protocol is not just about betting but about speeding up the globalization of prediction markets and welcoming global users.

Peculiarities of the Monaco Protocol.

The Monaco Protocol introduces a paradigm shift in the betting landscape, distinguishing itself significantly from other betting platforms. Here are some explicit reasons why. Firstly, betting platforms built on Web 2.0 and web3 work in silos, with each bookmaker/exchange operating on closed-off liquidity, limiting the scope and dynamism of the markets.

Consider two popular bookmakers, Sportybet and Betking. Sportybet users can only interact with other users and betting options on the Sportybet platform. The liquidity pool of Sportybet, which represents the total amount of money available for betting, is specific to Sportybet. Also, Betking operates independently, and its users and liquidity pool are exclusive to that platform (closed-off liquidity).

Sportybet users can only bet against each other or participate in markets offered by their preferred platform. They cannot interact with Betking's user base or markets (limited market access).

This separation among bookmakers restricts the amount of money available for betting on any given market. Changes in odds, available bets, or market fluctuations on one platform do not directly impact or influence the same conditions on other platforms.

This lack of interconnectedness reduces the dynamism of the overall betting ecosystem. Users are confined to the betting options and odds offered on their preferred platforms, limiting their choices and potentially missing out on better opportunities available on other platforms.

The Monaco Protocol creates a more interconnected and fluid betting environment that eradicates the confinement of users, liquidity, and markets to individual platform boundaries. This interconnectedness can lead to more dynamic and expansive betting markets.

Secondly, Monaco operates fully non-custodial, meaning users have complete control over their funds. Its decentralized nature ensures transparency, security, and trustlessness, unlike Web2 betting platforms where users trust the platform to safeguard their assets.

Monaco settles winnings directly to the wallet of the bettor, streamlining the process, whereas settlement processes on web2 betting platforms might involve intermediary steps, and audit transparency can vary.

With the decentralized nature of Monaco, no operator (bookie or exchange) on the protocol can withhold bettors' payouts, but the case is different for Web2 betting platforms when the payout is staggering.

The Monaco protocol introduces single-outcome binary markets, simplifying betting options to straightforward win/lose scenarios while creating markets from diverse ranges of events, from sports outcomes to weather predictions.

Other betting platforms offer a wider variety of complex betting options on a single market, which may take time to learn and understand, leaving the bettor unprofitable. The Monaco Protocol stands out as an open-source, decentralized, and ready-to-use betting engine.

Open-source here indicates the regular improvements of the protocol to satisfy users' complaints. Web2 platforms often rely on closed, proprietary systems, with updates and improvements subject to the platform's discretion. In essence, the Monaco Protocol's decentralization, emphasis on user control, efficient matching mechanisms, and commitment to transparency set it apart from other betting platforms.

Improving P2P betting experiences with the Monaco Protocol.

The Monaco Protocol can improve the quality of peer-to-peer experiences in the betting industry through top-notch security and trustlessness. The major problem of traditional betting exchanges and sportsbooks is weak security. We have witnessed cases whereby bettors get defrauded through the data these companies collect from them.

The Monaco Protocol goes all in to provide top-notch security to operators and users. Sec3 is a leading security and research firm providing top-notch security software to web3 projects that audits all smart contracts on the Monaco Protocol. With tight security measures, users don't have to worry about wallet hacks while interacting with the protocol.

Another way Monaco is improving the P2P experience in betting is through trustlessness. In traditional betting platforms, an administrative figure has to approve the payment of bettors' earnings. We have had numerous cases where betting exchanges refuse to pay bettors and even void their betslips.

Fortunately, operators on the Monaco Protocol cannot operate this way. After a bettor makes a wager, the operator matches it with other bets and secures the total placed wager in an escrow separate from the exchange.

When the operator marks the market as completed, the operator's smart contract quickly distributes earnings to the wallets of winning bettors. You might say that a developer can program the smart contract to behave otherwise. That is where Sec3, the security company mentioned earlier, comes in.

They audit every smart contract on the protocol to ensure that it works as intended and does not execute any sinister activity on the protocol. Unlike other betting platforms, users do not have to trust the protocol to do the right thing (disbursing funds to bettors if their predictions are correct) because the protocol is built to do the right thing.

Current use-cases of the Monaco Protocol.

BetDEX

BetDEX exchange is a decentralized sports betting exchange built to revolutionize sports betting by leveraging the Monaco Protocol. BetDEX provides a P2P marketplace that allows users to bet directly against each other, eliminating the need for intermediaries like bookmakers.

Consider two friends, James and John. James is a PSG fan, while John is a Sociedad fan. On Valentine's Day, both teams will face each other in the UEFA Champions League. Since the announcement of the fixture, James and John have had multiple arguments regarding the match outcome.

James is bent on his opinion that his dear PSG will win against Sociedad with a large goal gap. John thinks otherwise. He feels that PSG doesn't have what it takes to defeat Sociedad. Rather than having these pointless back-and-forth arguments, BetDEX provides a platform for these friends to bet against each other directly.

If PSG wins, John has lost the wager. The exchange will send the crypto assets he wagered to James's wallet and vice versa. BetDEX provides a risk-free first bet of up to $50 for newcomers. If you lose your first bet on BetDEX, you can get a refund of up to $50.

Secondly, BetDEX charges low fees for transactions conducted on the exchange and 1% on every winning trade. If you win a bet, BetDEX takes only 1% of it as commission. BetDEX allows immediate withdrawals.

Unlike other exchanges that may require you to do a whole lot of verification, preventing your access to your earnings for days, BetDEX does none of that. If you win, you can withdraw instantly. There's no stake limit on BetDEX. Bettors can wager any amount on outcomes without restrictions.

Purebet

Purebet is another use case built on the Monaco Protocol. Purebet is a sports betting exchange and more. Purebet is also a cross-chain sports betting odd/liquidity aggregator. It collects real-time betting odds and liquidity from exchanges and bookmakers across all blockchains and displays it on their site.

Andrew has hopes for Barcelona to win the El Clásico match fixed tomorrow and intends to bet on Barcelona to win. He visits his favorite betting platform, and the odds on the outcomes are way too low. Barcelona to win has 2.55 odds, Real Madrid to win has 1.79, and a draw has an odd of 2.01.

He visits purebet.io to use their aggregator and finds an exchange with 3.10 odds for Barcelona to win. If the prediction goes through, he'll make more money from this exchange offering 3.10 odds than his bookmaker offering 2.55 odds for the same outcome.

Through its cross-chain aggregation, Purebet has helped Andrew and thousands of users compare odds and find the best available prices for a particular event, maximizing potential returns. Purebet provides insights into market liquidity, allowing users to assess the volume of bets on different odds. Interestingly, Purebet offers its users political markets to bet on political outcomes.

Potential use-cases of the Monaco Protocol.

Politics Betting.

It is vital to the growth of a nation for citizens to select individuals who will represent their interests in positions of power, and these selections happen through elections.

During this period, people often engage in heated discussions throughout the day, presenting facts, opinions, and sometimes distorted statistics to support a particular candidate. Election betting is a fun way for citizens to show their support and conviction for their preferred candidate by wagering money on the outcome of political elections.

A use case I would like to see on the Monaco protocol is a global election betting exchange.

The exchange will create markets based on ongoing elections with outcomes such as overall winner, party vote shares, winning candidate in a particular region, etc, and also work directly with the country's political analysts to calculate the odds for the various election outcomes.

Odds represent the probability of a particular event happening. These odds can change due to polling data, campaign events, or public opinion shifts. People can monitor these changes and adjust their bets accordingly.

The exchange will settle all bettors once the election results are announced and the statistics are published. Those who accurately predicted the election outcome received their winnings, while those who didn't lose their money.

Custom Betting.

Another use case I would like to see on the Monaco protocol is a custom betting exchange. Every day, people bet on the most mundane things. With a custom betting exchange, users can create their markets surrounding anything they want, map odds to the possible outcomes of these markets, and still bet on them.

When I hang out with friends, we do fun stuff like drinking competitions, food competitions, etc. Usually, for the drinking competition, two people are selected to drink up to ten 60cl bottles of Coca-Cola, and the first person to finish without spilling the drink is the winner.

The last time we hung out, we selected Divine and Destiny for the drinking competition. Using a custom betting exchange, I can create a market around this competition with possible outcomes like Divine wins, Destiny wins, Divine spills the drink first, Destiny gives up first, etc.

Based on previous experience and available data, my friends and I can decide the odds and map them to these outcomes. We have done this competition about eight times. Divine has won thrice, and Destiny has never won.

Using these data, we can roughly speculate the odds for all outcomes. My friends can then log in to the exchange, search for the market I created, and place their bets. We can then record the video of the event and upload it on the exchange as a source of truth for the outcomes created. Because the event is not a media-covered event like sporting activities, my friends and I will vote publicly on the predictions that came true.

If Destiny won, we all vote that particular outcome true. Once the voting is complete, a smart contract will disburse the total funds wagered on the market to the wallets of my friends who wagered on the correct outcomes.

Conclusion.

The Monaco Protocol can enhance the experience of bettors in the betting industry, saving them from the countless headaches of traditional betting exchanges or sportsbooks. With the development of more projects on the protocol, I'm bullish about the revolution it will spark in the betting ecosystem.

To learn more about the Monaco Protocol and stay updated with the latest happenings about it, visit their website, join their discord server, follow on Twitter, and become a part of the inevitable restructuring the Monaco Protocol is bringing to the betting ecosystem.

References.

https://docs.monacoprotocol.xyz/

https://docs.purebet.io/about-purebet/why-purebet

https://www.betdex.com/

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=light&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=comment%2Cdislike%2Clike&receiver=&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2FZmH-HjpQyxWKFpJOLsbev9AcEgo49EBKhGm5BFPtJOI&height=800&display=iframe

Poor access to electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa has limited the growth and economic development of countries in this region and has drastically reduced the quality of living. We see companies exiting these countries every day due to the increasing operational costs, the bulk of which goes to providing reliable electricity to run the company. Mortality rates in hospitals keep increasing with each passing day due to the unavailability of a reliable electricity supply to operate critical medical equipment necessary to mitigate health emergency risks. The primary aim of the M3tering protocol is to eradicate these troubling issues by increasing access to reliable and affordable electricity in Sub-Saharan Africa. In this article we will discuss the M3tering protocol extensively and its approach towards eradicating energy inaccessibility in Africa.

Energy inaccessibility: the idea behind the M3tering protocol.

Energy accessibility is defined as having unlimited access to affordable and reliable electricity. Access to a reliable energy supply is paramount to the economic development of a country and a nation with an underdeveloped economy is headed towards perpetual suffering. While countries in continents like Europe, North America, and Australia are ahead in the race to provide reliable energy supply, Africa as a whole is way behind the starting line. Research by the International Energy Agency (IEA) in 2020 showed that 591.7 million people in Africa live without access to electricity. Furthermore, the IEA predicted that in 2030, 560 million people in Africa will remain without access to electricity.

The influencing factor impeding energy accessibility in countries within Sub-Saharan Africa is the insufficient infrastructural capacity to generate enough electricity to supply their citizens. According to a BBC report, Nigeria generates way too little electricity (about 4000 megawatts a day) to sufficiently supply its citizens (about 200 million people) with reliable energy. This supply shortage leads to another problem. It’s common economic knowledge that when the demand for a product is high and the supply is low, the price of the product increases. In response to the scarcity of energy resources, electricity distribution companies in these countries impose high electric tariffs, primarily affordable to the upper-income class. Unfortunately, these tariffs are unaffordable for middle-income and low-income earners, leaving a substantial portion of the population without access to essential electricity services.

Energy inaccessibility has far-reaching consequences across healthcare, education, and the overall well-being of citizens. Without access to electricity, healthcare facilities may struggle to maintain critical medical equipment, impacting the quality and reliability of health services. Such situations can lead to compromised healthcare, increased health risks (death as the worst-case scenario), and challenges in responding to medical emergencies. Lack of electricity can impede access to safe drinking water, as electricity is often necessary for water treatment and distribution systems.

Consequently, this poses a direct threat to public health and can escalate existing challenges related to sanitation. Energy inaccessibility constitutes an unconducive environment for students to learn and study, limiting their academic progress. Limited access to electricity also hampers students' study habits, adversely affecting their academic performance. Poor access to electricity also hinders the use of electronic teaching aids in classrooms, hindering the quality of education. This limitation can impede students' learning experiences, limiting their exposure to modern educational resources. Electricity is essential for powering household appliances that enhance daily living. Without it, individuals and communities may lack access to basic amenities, leading to a diminished quality of life.

Over the years, leading authorities on energy have proposed various solutions to tackle the challenge of electricity inaccessibility. Among these, solar electrification has emerged as a standout solution. Solar electrification refers to the process of harnessing solar energy to generate electricity. Given the challenges of limited access to electricity in many areas, solar electrification offers a viable solution by utilizing the abundant sunlight in these areas to produce electricity. It involves the installation of solar panels and related infrastructure to generate electricity, providing a reliable and sustainable energy source that can improve living conditions, supports economic activities, and enhance overall development in countries facing energy scarcity.

Now, the question is, if solar electrification is the solution to energy scarcity in Africa, why is a large-scale implementation taking so long? The stark reality is that implementing solar electrification on a large scale is capital-intensive. According to Forbes, the average cost of setting up a solar panel system is around $16,000 (₦22,400,000), with prices ranging from $4,500 (₦6,300,000) to $36,000 (₦50,400,000) depending on the type and model of the panels, the inverters as well as any other equipment required to operate the system. Considering the prices stated above, it is safe to say that only the upper-income earners will easily afford solar electrification. With the M3tering protocol, it doesn’t have to remain that way.

What is M3tering?

M3tering is a protocol built on the IoTeX blockchain. Its primary goal is to ensure that energy generated through solar electrification is economically accessible to individuals across all income classes. The M3tering protocol achieves this through the implementation of Solar as a Service. Solar as a Service is a business model where a consumer pays a recurring monthly fee to a solar provider to enjoy access to the reliable and stable energy supplied by a Solar PV system belonging to the provider. It is a service for users who desire the reliable accessibility of energy generated through solar PV systems but do not have the financial resources to set up such a system.

Understanding How M3tering Works.

There are two categories of users on the M3tering protocol: the providers and the offtakers. A provider here is usually an actual solar solution company that provides a means for offtakers to enjoy solar electricity through a subscription-based model. The provider makes available all the equipment and materials necessary to set up a standard solar PV system. An offtaker is simply an entity seeking to utilize the Solar as a Service model to enjoy solar-generated electricity. Once an offtaker reaches out to a provider to purchase solar electricity, a Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) is drafted to this effect. A PPA is a documented agreement between a provider and an offtaker that contains the price the provider is selling a unit of electricity for, the timeframe the PPA will last for, and the terms and conditions the offtaker must adhere to while the PPA lasts. Once the provider and offtaker physically or electronically sign the PPA, it is encoded into the M3tering smart contract.

Offtakers are required to pre-pay for some units of electricity using DAI stablecoins based on the tariff specified in the PPA. The amount of DAI pre-paid for electricity can be thought of as collateral intended to ensure the commitment of the offtaker to the PPA and eliminate any economic benefit the offtaker might stand to gain from going against the agreement. Once the offtaker completes the payment is done, the provider proceeds to set up the solar PV system at the offtaker’s preferred location. Once the provider finishes setting up the infrastructure and the Maxwell smart meter is live, the meter will communicate with the M3tering smart contract to get the total kilowatt-hour (kWh) of electricity the offtaker pre-paid for. This kilowatt-hour of electricity is what the system will provide to the offtaker. The offtaker won’t make another payment until it uses up the energy it pre-paid for. Once the offtaker uses up the energy, Maxwell will cut off the energy supply until the offtaker renews the subscription.

The Maxwell smart meter.

Maxwell is the M3tering protocol custom smart meter integrated into solar PV systems mounted by providers on the protocol. Maxwell is designed to accurately detect any attempt by the offtaker to bypass the meter or engage in energy theft and mete out due punishment. Furthermore, Maxwell tracks the energy consumption rate of the offtaker in real time to avoid using estimates that may be unfair to the offtaker or the provider. Interestingly, Maxwell has a precise, automated diagnostics system that can discover operational faults in the connected solar infrastructure and promptly inform the provider about it.

There are ongoing upgrades to integrate Maxwell into an IoT network that provides LoRaWAN coverage to ensure seamless functionality and communication with the protocol in remote areas where wireless communication is difficult or unavailable. LoRaWAN, short for Long Range Wide Area Network, is a wireless technology that allows devices to communicate with each other over an extended distance, consuming little power in doing so. Currently, plans are underway for a mobile app enabling offtakers to link respective Maxwells. This app will allow offtakers to renew their utility subscription and monitor their energy consumption from the comfort of their homes. The app will have a support team working tirelessly to provide online assistance and customer support to offtakers when needed.

Each Maxwell has a representative M3ter NFT on the IoTeX blockchain. These NFTs serve as digital proof of ownership to the physical meters they represent. Maxwell meter stores information such as the unique ID, the wallet address of its owner (a provider), the tariff, and the data collected while the meter is running as metadata in its matching NFT. All offtaker payments are linked to the unique IDs of their energy provider's M3ter NFTs. Ownership of an M3ter NFT grants you a direct income stream based on the electricity consumption of linked offtakers. The transparent connection between payments and NFTs streamlines the distribution of revenue within the protocol.

M3tering protocol and its network effect.

Because offtakers pay for electricity using DAI, the protocol works in the background to convert the DAI to its equivalent amount in solaxy (SLX), the protocol’s native token using a decentralized exchange pool. The protocol then sends providers their revenue in SLX tokens.  This conversion allows SLX to increase gradually in value due to the network effect of the protocol. In M3tering, the network effect occurs when the value of SLX increases as many participants on the protocol begin to transact with it. How does this work?

On the provider side, when solar providers off the protocol see that their colleagues on the protocol have established a consistent flow of revenue generation for their companies and are earning token rewards for their contribution towards the growth of the Solar as a Service business model, they’re enticed to join. On the offtaker side, when a normal energy user comes in contact with an offtaker enjoying a stable and reliable power supply, surely, they will want to know how come because it is way too uncommon to see an average person enjoying 24 hours of steady electricity without a power outage. The normal energy user will be shocked to find out that the offtaker pays less compared to what the traditional electricity distribution companies charge the normal user.

The enticing advantages that seem too good to be true are sufficient to attract the average user to join the protocol. More offtakers means more DAI payments and more DAI payments translate to increased demand for SLX tokens in the decentralized exchange pool for conversion. It is common economic knowledge that the increase in demand for a product is directly proportional to the increase in the product price. Providers in turn will get more value for their SLX tokens. As this cycle repeats, the number of participants in the protocol increases alongside the value of the SLX tokens. This cycle is known as the flywheel effect. Note that this effect is in no way unique to the M3tering protocol but to a set of applications known as Decentralized Physical Infrastructure Networks (DePINs) of which the M3tering protocol is an example.

The Garage: a real-world use case of M3tering.

The Garage, a popular workspace hub in UNN, is arguably the first company in Nigeria to benefit from the solar subscription model provided by the M3tering protocol through Switch Electric, a solar solution provider operating in the state. This workspace distinguishes itself by providing a blend of consistent power supply, high-speed Starlink internet access, and comfort to its users. Consequently, it attracts a daily influx of students and other university community members.

During the BlockchainUNN 2.0 conference, Raymond Chuma-Onwuoku, a co-founder of The Garage, talked about the idea of the Garage and how it could bolster the increase in work rates of tech workers. After the brief talk, I was bullish and bearish about the project. I was bullish because the project intended to address the challenges of unreliable power supply and epileptic internet speed, two problems limiting the productivity of tech workers in Nigeria. I was bearish because I couldn’t fathom the practicality of running a startup heavily reliant on electricity in an environment with an unreliable power supply. It is no longer news that the university community experiences frequent and prolonged blackouts. The cost of petrol, a potential alternative, was almost N700 per liter.

I imagined how they planned to maintain student-friendly prices amid the potential financial challenges that might arise due to this electricity shortage. Remarkably, The Garage utilized the solar subscription model of the M3tering protocol through Switch Electric, a provider to forestall the potential issues I was concerned about. Switch Electric installed a reliable solar electricity system at The Garage. So, whenever there’s no power supply from the grid, The Garage uses the electricity generated by the solar electricity system. Below is a live video showing one of Switch Electric's engineers configuring the Maxwell meter with the solar energy system at The Garage.

Partnerships between investors and solar providers

The original idea for the m3tering protocol was to work with providers already in the solar industry. Over time, this idea has evolved to accommodate providers unfamiliar with the solar industry. There are two categories of providers within the M3tering protocol: solar providers and investors. Investors are providers with little or no knowledge about the solar industry but are interested in generating revenue from selling solar electricity through the protocol. Solar providers possess first-hand knowledge about the industry and the technical expertise required to excel in the solar sector.

It is usually in the best interest of investors to collaborate with solar companies within the protocol to save time and money. An investor delegates the task of setting up the solar infrastructure at the offtaker’s location to a solar company on the protocol. The investor will supply the solar provider with sufficient capital to cover the cost of purchasing the equipment and materials needed to set up the infrastructure, transporting these materials to the offtaker’s location, and their pay for the job done. After setting up the infrastructure, the solar provider will transfer the M3ter NFT of the Maxwell smart meter integrated into the infrastructure to the investor. The protocol links every payment the offtaker makes to the M3ter NFT. So, anyone in possession of the NFT gets the revenue generated by the smart meter. If necessary, the investor can pay the solar provider a monthly commission fee to perform regular maintenance checks on the infrastructure.

Conclusion.

Adopting the M3tering protocol in a country suffering the effects of energy inaccessibility can trigger a chain of events capable of boosting the nation’s economy. Through the provision of a stable and reliable energy supply, mortality rates in hospitals will be reduced, the quality of education and living will increase, mass production of local products will surge higher, the rate of crime will reduce, burning fossil fuels to produce energy will be a thing of time past and so on. As the adoption of the M3tering protocol increases, we are bullish about the positive changes it will bring. Visit here to learn more about the M3tering protocol or join their discord server and follow on Twitter to stay updated with new changes and improvements to the protocol.

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=light&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=comment%2Clike%2Ctip&receiver=0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2FWW7-XOysTNrooXwEpiPZCOVRUAFDGZD53Zd-XbTU0P0&height=800&display=iframe

EIP-4844 also known as proto-danksharding marks a pivotal development in the evolution of Ethereum's scaling solutions. In line with Ethereum's goal of executing at least 100,000 transactions per second (TPS) through rollups, this proposal focuses on enhancing the capabilities of rollups. It carries significant implications for the overall scalability and efficiency of the Ethereum network. In this article, we'll delve into the key aspects of EIP-4844 and explore its stands on improving Ethereum's scalability through rollups.

Understanding rollups

Before we explain EIP-4844, you must have a basic understanding of rollups. This prerequisite knowledge will help you appreciate the end goal EIP-4844 is driving towards. A rollup is a layer-2 blockchain designed to enhance scalability and reduce transaction costs by moving a significant portion of transaction processing off the main blockchain (layer-1). There are four basic responsibilities every blockchain should be able to perform; execution, consensus, data availability, and settlement. Execution is the process through which nodes on the blockchain carry out and validate transactions. Settlement is simply the finalization of transactions i.e., a certain point in time when a transaction on a blockchain can no longer be reversed. Consensus refers to the mechanism through which nodes agree on the state of the blockchain. Data availability is the accessibility and ever-presence of transaction data across the blockchain for verification.

A layer-1 (L1) or a primary blockchain carries out the four core responsibilities of a blockchain without reliance on another chain e.g., Ethereum while a layer-2 (L2) or secondary blockchain depends on an L1 blockchain to carry out some of its responsibilities e.g., rollups.

Ethereum execution rollups were designed to combat the high transaction fees users were made to pay, stemming from the increased demand and competition for blockspace on Ethereum. This increase in demand, more often than not, usually resulted from some increased activity on the main chain e.g. airdrop farming, NFT minting, etc. This occurrence is known as blockspace scarcity.

Blockspace scarcity explained.

An Ethereum block has a limit of 30 million gas. This means that transactions contained in a single block must not consume up to 30 million gas when they're executed by the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Gas is a unit for measuring the computational effort used by the EVM to perform any operation. As a result, users compete for blockspace to ensure that their transactions are executed and finalized within the shortest possible time. This competition is based on two factors; the amount of gas that the user is willing to pay for execution of the transaction (gas limit) and the amount of ETH that the user is willing to pay for each unit of gas spent in executing the transaction (gas price). The transaction fee or gas fee is the product of the gas limit and gas price set by the transactor. A transaction with a higher transaction fee is more likely to be included in a block by a block proposer faster than a transaction with a lower fee. This is because high-fee transactions increase the reward the block proposer gets for proposing the block.

Back to rollups

The introduction of execution rollups offered users a cheaper way to utilize Ethereum. Instead of transacting directly on Ethereum, users could now conduct their transactions through rollups which offer lower transaction fees, availability of transaction data on Ethereum, and faster confirmation times than Ethereum. In the EIP-4844 documentation, it's noted that optimistic rollups like Optimism and Arbitrum typically have transaction fees that are 3-8 times lower than fees on Ethereum, whereas ZK rollups boast even lower fees, ranging from 40-100 times less than what Ethereum charges.

The image compares the gas fees for transferring ETH and exchanging tokens on Ethereum’s layer 1 and its layer 2 rollups.

Types of Rollups and how they work.

There are two major types of rollups; optimistic rollups and validity rollups. Optimistic rollups also known as fraud-proof rollups take an approach where the default assumption is that the majority of transactions conducted on it are valid, requiring intervention, specifically dispute resolution, only when discrepancies arise. A rollup sequencer bundles multiple transactions conducted on the rollup into a single block which is compressed and sent off as calldata to the main chain (Ethereum). To compensate for its assumption of transaction validity, optimistic rollups implement a challenge period usually 1 to 2 weeks for nodes to investigate and challenge the validity of transactions in the batch sent by the rollup on-chain which is done through fraud-proofs. A fraud-proof is a claim demanding the immediate reversal of a batch because a transaction in that batch was found invalid. If after the waiting period, there’s no fraud-proof against transactions in a particular batch, the transactions are finalized and added to the Ethereum blockchain.

Similar to optimistic rollups, a validity rollup sequencer bundles multiple transactions conducted on the validity rollup into a single block which is compressed and ready to be sent off as calldata to the main chain. This is where the similarities between both types of rollups end. A validity proof is generated using a Zero Knowledge Proof (ZKP) algorithm which is sent alongside the calldata to the main chain. The validity on-chain smart contract proceeds to verify the validity proof by reconstructing it using the same algorithm and parameters used off-chain. If the resulting validity proof from the smart contract matches the validity proof sent alongside the calldata, then the transactions in this particular block are considered valid and finalized immediately.

The major drawback of rollups.

Rollups have made the cost of transactions way cheaper than ever before. But “cheaper” is not the goal of rollups. I believe that rollups can be fine-tuned to the extent that users no longer have to pay transaction fees. Unfortunately, this is very much unlikely to be achieved because rollups currently bear the burden of paying exorbitant high gas fees solely to send their batches of transactions to Ethereum as calldata. The weird thing here is that these high fees are consistently influenced by the increasing demand for blockspace (blockspace scarcity) whereas the calldata sent by rollups are not stored in blockspaces. Why is this so?

Every operation carried out on Ethereum consumes gas and has to be paid for. The price for storing a zero byte and a non-zero byte in a calldata is 4 gas and 16 gas respectively. When the demand for blockspace skyrockets, the cost of 1 gas does the same. This is done to allow proper management of the network’s congestion. Once this happens, the gas fee rollups have to pay for calldata increases too. Calldata refers to the input data that is passed to a function in a smart contract during a transaction. It is a read-only area where function arguments and data sent to a smart contract are stored. The EVM processes this calldata to execute the desired function within the contract. With rollups, the calldata is passed to the function of the roll-up smart contract responsible for verifying that the data sent corresponds with the rollup state. The larger and more complex the calldata is, the more gas the EVM consumes to execute the function.

Solving the rollup problem with EIP-4844

EIP is short for Ethereum Improvement Proposal. An EIP is a proposal that is approved by the Ethereum community and written by one of its members. It either describes a solution to a problem on the blockchain or suggests a possible feature that could improve the blockchain’s system. EIP-4484 also called proto-danksharding proposes the idea of having rollups send in their transaction batches to Ethereum as blobs instead of calldata. The cost of calldata arises from the computational effort the EVM will expend to process the calldata before it can be used by the verification function of the roll-up smart contract. With the implementation of blobs, a lot of things change. Firstly, the EVM will no longer have to access nor process the rollup data because the blobs containing the rollup data will be sent to the beacon chain (Ethereum’s consensus layer) instead of the execution layer like calldata. Since we won’t be sending blobs to the EVM, how then is the rollup smart contract going to verify the rollup state? This is where blob-carrying transactions come in. A blob-carrying transaction has a blob_versioned_hashes parameter that stores the hashes of all the blobs it is linked to in a list. The roll-up smart contract accesses this list of hash(es) from the blob_version_hashes parameter and proceeds with reconstructing and verifying the rollup state.

Blocks and blobs

A blob is large and putting it in a block would increase the size of the block which in turn increases the computational difficulty of verifying and finalizing the block; a huge disadvantage for lightweight nodes on the network. To avoid such complications, a blob is attached to a block in a manner resembling a sidecar configuration while the commitment (hash) of the blob is referenced inside the block it is attached to. This serves as evidence that at a certain point in time, XYZ rollup sent its data in a blob and the blob was attached to this block. This is because blobs unlike calldata are not designed to be stored permanently on-chain. Blobs will be left on-chain for about 4096 epochs (approx. 18 days) after which they are pruned from the blockchain. It is assumed that this is enough time for any node to challenge the validity of any transaction from the blob data or reconstruct the rollup state. EIP-4844 specifies 3 blobs per block and 6 blobs per block as the ideal and maxblob-to-block attachment respectively. The adoption of EIP-4844 will introduce a new fee market, the blob gas fee market that will operate alongside the gas fee market. The cost of storing rollup transaction data on-chain will be measured in blob gas instead of the gas. If there's increased network activity in Ethereum and the cost of gas skyrockets, rollups are not affected in any way because they expend blob gas in sending blobs on-chain, not gas.

The Dencun upgrade which was all about implementing EIP-4844 on the Goerli testnet happened today, the 17th of January, 2024, and the entire Ethereum community is excited about the changes this upgrade will facilitate in the Ethereum ecosystem.

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=dark&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=like-lite%2Cdislike-lite%2Ccomment&receiver=&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2F2Bu7JAaUIwPoN-YgXfzTv5XYK0Fbd7bM_y98RWfdHzc&height=800&display=iframe

• Introduction.

• Phases of the Ethereum roadmap.

• The Merge: Let's dive right in!

• Conclusion.

Introduction

On December 30th, 2023, Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum, shared a late gift from Santa with the Ethereum community and the world at large: the updated Ethereum roadmap for 2024.

The Ethereum roadmap outlines near-term and long-term plans for improving Ethereum. This article is the first in a series that seeks to explain exhaustively the phases of this roadmap (from the beginning of the tunnel to the end where we find the light) and the implications it has for Ethereum.

Phases of Ethereum's roadmap

There are six phases of the roadmap: the merge, the surge, the scourge, the verge, the purge, and the splurge. In this article, we will delve intensively into the merge phase.

The Merge: Let's dive right in.

This phase officially kicked off on September 15, 2022, and comprises four major plans.

1. Ethereum switch from Proof-of-Work (PoW) to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus.

Before the merge, the Ethereum mainnet used the PoW algorithm to achieve consensus. PoW is a consensus algorithm where miner nodes compete to add new blocks of transactions to the network by solving a cryptographic puzzle that requires a lot of computing power. The miner who successfully solves the puzzle earns crypto rewards for doing so.

PoS, on the other hand, is a consensus algorithm where validators must stake crypto assets to earn the right to validate and add new blocks to the chain, earning crypto rewards in return. For the switch to happen, the Ethereum mainnet, which made use of PoW, and the Ethereum beacon chain, which used PoS, were merged, hence the name of this phase: the merge. This merge saw the PoS validators from the beacon chain take over the validation of transactions on the mainnet.

Introduced in 2020, the Ethereum beacon chain was designed to run in parallel with the mainnet and intensively test the logic of PoS consensus, ensuring it was sound and sustainable before it was enabled on the mainnet. It was a stepping stone to the switch from Ethereum's energy-intensive PoW to the eco-friendly PoS system.

The switch from PoW to PoS was necessary because the high energy consumption of PoW called for concerns about its negative impact on the environment. This switch officially deprecated proof-of-work in Ethereum and reduced its energy consumption by ~99.95%.

2. Reducing the time-to-finality of a transaction on Ethereum through Single Slot Finality (SSF).

Time's up. You can't reverse that transaction anymore.

In every blockchain system, the goal of consensus is to achieve transaction settlement. Transaction settlement is simply the finalization of transactions on the blockchain. Ideally, this means a transaction can't be reversed or changed once the block it is contained in is validated and finalized. While Ethereum used PoW for consensus, the concept of finality was vague. The possibility of chain reorganization always existed, so DApps on Ethereum would have to wait for five to ten blocks before they confirmed the status of transactions to their users.

Chain reorganization also known as reorg is the deletion of a block from the chain to make room for a longer chain. Take a look at the image below.

In a Proof-of-Work system, two miner nodes, A and B simultaneously mined and published blocks (blue and yellow) linked to the previous block (red). This creates a fork, with two potential main chains: one through the blue block and another through the yellow block. More often than not, the determination of the main chain often relies on Miner C, the node that mines the next block.

If Miner C, while mining its block (green), links it to the blue block, the main chain proceeds from the white blocks to the red block to the blue block and down to the green block (fig. 1a). Alternatively, if Miner C links its block to the yellow block, the main chain follows from white blocks to red block to yellow block and down to the green block (fig. 1b). In this case, choosing to link to the blue block leads to the deletion of the yellow block (fig. 1c). Its transactions are returned to the mempool. The deletion of the yellow block is called chain reorganization.

With the switch to PoS, finality was now an established concept in Ethereum. With a 15-minute time interval, blocks were finalized. A finalized block is a block that can only be altered or reversed if 33% of the total staked ETH is burnt.

As of the time of writing, the total amount of staked ETH is 28 million, amounting to a staking market cap of 62.5 billion USD. It will cost 20.625 billion USD to delete or alter a finalized block; a very unwise financial decision to make.

Sixty seconds make 1 minute, 32 slots make 1 epoch.

In Ethereum, time is measured in slots and epochs. A slot is a 12-second window offered to a random validator by the PoS algorithm to add a new block to the blockchain. Ideally, the number of elapsed slots should match the number of blocks added to the chain, but practically, this isn't the case. Slots with no blocks are called missed slots.

An epoch is made up of 32 slots. One epoch equals 384 seconds or 6.4 minutes. The finality of block A is determined by the number of epochs between the epoch containing block A and the current epoch.

Let's assume the current epoch is epoch X, and the epoch containing the block we want to check its finality is epoch Y. If there are 2 or more epochs between epoch X and Y, then we can consider epoch X and all other epochs before it finalized. At this point, the chances of altering or removing the block are zero because it will require burning 33% of the total staked ETH. The amount of ETH required to reverse a finalized block is extremely high.

Alas, single-slot finality.

Currently, it takes about 15 minutes for a block to finalize. Fifteen minutes is too long a timeframe for block finality to occur because it is impractical for certain real-time DApps or DApps that require high transaction throughput. It also increases the likelihood of frequently occurring chain reorganization.

The merge phase will see Ethereum developers improving the consensus algorithm of the blockchain to validate blocks more efficiently and drastically reduce finality time. Instead of the usual fifteen minutes, blocks will be proposed and finalized in the same slot, i.e., 12 seconds. This concept is the single-slot finality.

3. Introducing the Single Secret Leader Election (SSLE) to permanently eradicate DOS attacks against validators.

Since the list containing upcoming block proposers (validators assigned the task of proposing a block in a slot) is public, a malicious validator can map out the IP addresses of these proposers and determine which validator is due to propose a block and, for financial gains, perform a Denial of Service (DOS) attack restricting the validator from proposing a block in time.

Say we have two validators; A and B which are the listed block proposers for slot X and slot X+1, but their slots haven't been reached yet. Once A is due to propose a block in their assigned slot (Slot X), B performs a DOS attack against A, preventing them from proposing a block for their slot.

This attack if successfully carried out would allow Validator B to extract the Miner Extraction Value (MEV) of both slots or propose a block with a lot of transactions that could have been split across two blocks, gaining all the associated fees. In the merge phase, Ethereum will adopt a Single Secret Leader Election (SSLE) to efficiently combat this problem, reducing the likelihood of a DOS attack to zero.

The ideology behind SSLE.

Using SSLE, validators will submit a commitment to a secret they all share. These commitments are then reconfigured and reshuffled so that no third party can match a commitment to a particular validator. Only Validator A would know its commitment. Then one commitment is chosen at random. If a validator detects that their commitment was chosen, they know it is their turn to propose a block.

The Ethereum website has a more technical explanation of SSLE. You can also read more on Whisk, Ethereum's SSLE implementation.

4. Research for quantum-resistant signature algorithms.

Digital signatures? I'm confused.

A digital signature is proof generated to demonstrate possession of the private key associated with a wallet, without disclosing the private key itself for authentication of transactions. A digital signature is generated by passing the transaction hash and the private key into any digital signature algorithm, e.g. ECDSA, RSA, etc. The output is the digital signature for that transaction.

ECDSA?

Ethereum uses the Elliptic Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) for the creation and verification of digital signatures necessary for the authentication of transactions. A transaction is signed with the sender's private key using the ECDSA algorithm, and the signature is appended to the transaction data. Nodes on the network employ the same algorithm to validate the signature using the sender's public key when the transaction is broadcast to the network.

What has quantum computing got to do with ECDSA? Well, the security of ECDSA and Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) at large is tied to the difficulty of solving the Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem (ECDLP) because it involves extremely large numbers. With every advancement in the field of quantum computing, the chances of solving the ECDLP increase.

A little bit of math.

ECDSA uses key pairs derived from Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) to create and verify digital signatures. The general equation of elliptic curves is y² = x³ + ax + b but when we start using these curves in cryptography, the equation is modified to y² = x³ + ax + b mod (p) where a and b are constants, and p is a 256-bit prime number representing the finite field of the curve. A finite field, also called Galoid field, is simply a mathematical structure containing a finite number of elements from 0 to p-1 in this case.

Without a finite field, the results of operations performed on elliptic curves could potentially be infinite, which would make computations impractical. The finite field imposes constraints using modular arithmetic, ensuring that all calculations stay within a well-defined set of values. The general equation of elliptic curves is y² = x³ + ax + b.

We introduce mod (p) to the equation when using the curves in cryptography to restrict the results gotten from the curve to the size of the finite field, i.e., the result of any operation performed when modulo-ed with p will always produce a number that is 256 bits or less.

Ethereum, in particular, uses the secp256k1 curve to generate its asymmetric key pairs. The image below is the secp256k1 curve and its equation.

To generate an asymmetric key pair, the private key is randomly generated, and the formula K = k * G is used to calculate the corresponding public key where x is the private key randomly generated, X is the public key to be generated, and G is a standard point on the elliptic curve.

The Elliptic Curve Discrete Logarithm Problem.

Imagine you have a point (A) on an elliptic curve, and you know another point that is a multiple (B) of the first point. The elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem is like trying to figure out how many times you need to add the first point to itself to get the second point, but without knowing that number directly. You wouldn't know if B is the 1 billionth multiple of A, the 2nd multiple of A, or the 13th multiple of A.

Consider the equation K = k * G. It's kind of like a puzzle – you know the starting point G, and you know the result (K - the public key), but figuring out the exact multiple of G (k - the private key) it took to get K is computationally difficult. The security of elliptic curve cryptography relies on the difficulty of solving this puzzle, making it hard for someone to figure out the private key from the public key in a secure system, but this might not hold for long.

With the advancement in quantum computing, ECC, and by extension ECDSA, are considered quantum-unsafe, though theoretically. Quantum computers have the potential to break widely used cryptographic schemes, including Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC), through Shor’s factoring algorithm.

Shor's algorithm leverages the parallelism (the ability of quantum computers to perform parallel calculations at a time and superposition properties of quantum bits (qubits) to efficiently factor large numbers, which is a fundamental operation underlying the security of many cryptographic protocols.

ECC relies on the difficulty of solving the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem. Shor's algorithm can efficiently solve this problem on a quantum computer, posing a threat to the security of ECC-based encryption. Since it is better to be safe than sorry, there might be ongoing research to produce or implement a quantum-resistant signature algorithm in Ethereum.

Conclusion

The Ethereum roadmap shows a significant evolution, with the merge phase initiating the switch from Proof-of-Work to Proof-of-Stake, finding efficient ways of reducing transaction finality time through Single Slot Finality, and enhancing security against DOS attacks with Single Secret Leader Election. As Ethereum navigates these transformative phases, the implications for its scalability, security, and environmental sustainability are profound. Stay tuned for more upcoming articles delving into the remaining phases, and exploring their impact on Ethereum's future and the broader blockchain landscape.

https://widget.0xecho.com?color-theme=light&desc=&has-h-padding=true&has-v-padding=true&modules=comment%2Clike&receiver=&target_uri=https%3A%2F%2Fmirror.xyz%2F0xeB867784a54bC9c311db18bdeFEFdB6C714bF962%2FCYqAQSmsUptePW6mzhVVrFQ5kZ3UJyzlNEa-ZheyBqE&height=800&display=iframe