At the moment, we do not have a clear understanding of the long-term development strategy of the Arbitrum team.
To better understand this issue, let's look back to when the idea of using ZK solutions for scaling the Ethereum network first emerged. When this idea emerged, various projects began to solve the problem of Ethereum scalability using two approaches: rollups and ZK proofs. Developing a solution based on ZK proofs requires significant computational power and has difficulties with implementing existing dApps on the Solidity programming language in a network with ZK proofs. Therefore, developing a solution that can be released on the mainnet took much longer than a solution based on rollups. That's why projects such as Arbitrum and Optimism were launched earlier and have already gained their audience. However, this simplicity came at a cost of security, and when working solutions based on ZK proofs appeared, the competitiveness of projects such as Arbitrum in terms of security and scalability was lost.
The team behind Arbitrum's main competitor Optimism understands this and recently announced that it is now focused on developing its network as a super chain. We now have a long-term vision for the development of this project. However, we have not yet received the same understanding from the Arbitrum team, and it is unclear how they plan to compete if their technology is already lagging behind projects entering the market. If their technology is also expected to fall behind in the long run, user and application churn will be inevitable, which raises questions about future demand for the token.
I am sure that such a strong team has an understanding of how they plan to address this situation, and we look forward to their future announcements on this topic.
However, until we have a clear picture of the future of the project, i refraining from purchasing the token. Show Less
5
