Anoter major ZK-rollup player that is in the spotlights: StarkNet, and its mainnet is launching soon. They do very well, as there are hundreds of DApps, services, and wallets building on the StarkNet ecosystem.

StarkNet is an extra network that works on top of Ethereum. It allows decentralized apps to have more computational power without compromising Ethereum's security. StarkNet uses a secure technology called STARK and a programming language called Cairo.

ZK-rollup
ZK-STARK is a technology that helps ensure accuracy and privacy in computations on blockchains. It uses special proofs and advanced math. With ZK-STARK, blockchains can perform computations off-chain and then verify their validity on the blockchain network.

Working dApps
A variety of teams and individuals are taking part in building StarkNet and its developer tools. Some of the notable ones include Alchemy, Argent, Infura, Ledger, and OpenZeppelin.

Conclusion revised
Tokens are not up for sale yet; they still determine the mechanism for distributing them. I noticed some glogged things like transactions that hang lately. This means their alpha mainnet can't handle the popularity (atm), so 4 stars, not 5.

Starknet is a Validity Rollup Layer 2. It provides high throughput, low gas costs, and retains Ethereum Layer 1 levels of security

Starknet

Anoter major ZK-rollup player that is in the spotlights: StarkNet, and its mainnet is launching soon. They do very well, as there are hundreds of DApps, services, and wallets building on the StarkNet ecosystem.

StarkNet is an extra network that works on top of Ethereum. It allows decentralized apps to have more computational power without compromising Ethereum's security. StarkNet uses a secure technology called STARK and a programming language called Cairo. 

## ZK-rollup
ZK-STARK is a technology that helps ensure accuracy and privacy in computations on blockchains. It uses special proofs and advanced math. With ZK-STARK, blockchains can perform computations off-chain and then verify their validity on the blockchain network.

## Working dApps
A variety of teams and individuals are taking part in building StarkNet and its developer tools. Some of the notable ones include Alchemy, Argent, Infura, Ledger, and OpenZeppelin.

**Conclusion revised**
Tokens are not up for sale yet; they still determine the mechanism for distributing them. I noticed some glogged things like transactions that hang lately. This means their alpha mainnet can't handle the popularity (atm), so 4 stars, not 5.

Jeroen

Starknet is yet another example of VC's dumping on retail investors; joining the ranks of EigenLayer, and Wormhole.

The price is down 72% since it's all time high which was at the token launch itself with a fully diluted market cap of $44B ($6.8B in circulation). On April 15th, investors and early contributors had their first unlock, between April 1st, and April 20, the price went from $2.16 down to $1.22, the next big unlock is happening today on May 12.

Overall, from this data I cannot conclude that VC's and the Core Team dumped on the community with definitive proofs unless they sniped the token at launch, but what I can conclude is that starting off with a massive FDV is not a good idea, even with great tech, the toxicity resulting from people losing more than half of their capital within less than 3 months is something that is very hard to recover from.

Was the airdrop the reason for such a failure? https://cointelegraph.com/news/starknet-airdrop-largely-successful-despite-controversies, it would appear this was the main factor contributing to selling pressure. However, why would the team not see this coming? They raised $282M from VC's prior to the listing, they should have kept a large portion of that treasury to prevent a price collapse from the selling pressure of the airdrop.

VC's involved on this raise are:
Pantera Capital
Paradigm
Sequoia Capital
Coinbase Ventures
Polychain Capital
Multicoin Capital
ConsenSys
Vitalik Buterin
Greenoaks Capital
IOSG Ventures
Tiger Global Management
Founders Fund
Naval Ravikant
Scalar Capital
Elad Gil
DCVC
Wing Venture Capital
Bossanova Investimentos
Semantic Ventures
Collaborative Fund
Floodgate
Metastable Capital
Intel Capital
Atomico
Bollinger Investment Group
Coatue Management
Alameda Research
Three Arrows Capital
Fred Ehrsam
Linda Xie

The investors that put their money during the seed round, Vitalik was part of that round but Pantera was the lead, and Polychain was also part. Polychain was also involved in the EigenLayer fiasco. Meanwhile Multicoin was also involved on the Wormhole disappointment. Overall, the Seed round was for an undisclosed valuation, but I would say probably around $40M which was a 1000X return from the $44B at launch, even after 72% decrease, it still is a 300X return.

Regardless, for me I have decided to avoid all web3 projects that are heavily funded by VC's prior to retail users having a chance to secure an allocation.

We are in a bull market, and this project is underperforming in terms of price action, can you imagine what will happen in a bear market??? I would avoid buying their token at all cost.

[Starknet](https://starknet.io/) is yet another example of VC's dumping on retail investors; joining the ranks of EigenLayer, and Wormhole. 

The price is down 72% since it's all time high which was at the token launch itself with a fully diluted market cap of $44B ($6.8B in circulation). On April 15th, investors and early contributors had their first unlock, between April 1st, and April 20, the price went from $2.16 down to $1.22, the next big unlock is happening today on May 12. 

Overall, from this data I cannot conclude that VC's and the Core Team dumped on the community with definitive proofs unless they sniped the token at launch, but what I can conclude is that starting off with a massive FDV is not a good idea, even with great tech, the toxicity resulting from people losing more than half of their capital within less than 3 months is something that is very hard to recover from.

Was the airdrop the reason for such a failure? https://cointelegraph.com/news/starknet-airdrop-largely-successful-despite-controversies, it would appear this was the main factor contributing to selling pressure. However, why would the team not see this coming? They raised $282M from VC's prior to the listing, they should have kept a large portion of that treasury to prevent a price collapse from the selling pressure of the airdrop.

VC's involved on this raise are:
- Pantera Capital
- Paradigm
- Sequoia Capital
- Coinbase Ventures
- Polychain Capital
- Multicoin Capital
- ConsenSys
- Vitalik Buterin
- Greenoaks Capital
- IOSG Ventures
- Tiger Global Management
- Founders Fund
- Naval Ravikant
- Scalar Capital
- Elad Gil
- DCVC
- Wing Venture Capital
- Bossanova Investimentos
- Semantic Ventures
- Collaborative Fund
- Floodgate
- Metastable Capital
- Intel Capital
- Atomico
- Bollinger Investment Group
- Coatue Management
- Alameda Research
- Three Arrows Capital
- Fred Ehrsam
- Linda Xie

The investors that put their money during the seed round, Vitalik was part of that round but Pantera was the lead, and Polychain was also part. Polychain was also involved in the EigenLayer fiasco. Meanwhile Multicoin was also involved on the Wormhole disappointment. Overall, the Seed round was for an undisclosed valuation, but I would say probably around $40M which was a 1000X return from the $44B at launch, even after 72% decrease, it still is a 300X return.

Regardless, for me I have decided to avoid all web3 projects that are heavily funded by VC's prior to retail users having a chance to secure an allocation.

We are in a bull market, and this project is underperforming in terms of price action, can you imagine what will happen in a bear market??? I would avoid buying their token at all cost.

Crypto Rookies

Starknet Changes Token Unlock Schedule for Early Investors and Funds.

Under the previous schedule, Starknet would unlock a third of the token supply for investment funds, approximately $1.3 billion worth of $STRK, on April 15th. However, this event garnered mixed reactions from both the community and retailers due to the staggering inflation rate of 200% in just 2 months.

In response to the feedback received, Starknet has rearranged the token unlock schedule to be slower, as follows:
64 million $STRK will be unlocked on April 15th instead of $1.3 billion.
Subsequently, the remaining 64 million tokens will be gradually released until the end of March 2025.

As a result, in 2024, Starknet will unlock approximately 580 million $STRK with an inflation rate of about 75%, rather than the initially planned 2 billion.

This information has also led to $STRK returning to $2. In terms of strategy, this is a fairly sensible decision by the Starknet team, although it demonstrates a lack of foresight in organizing tokenomics from the outset, which is also a concern for retailers.

Starknet Changes Token Unlock Schedule for Early Investors and Funds.

Under the previous schedule, Starknet would unlock a third of the token supply for investment funds, approximately $1.3 billion worth of $STRK, on April 15th. However, this event garnered mixed reactions from both the community and retailers due to the staggering inflation rate of 200% in just 2 months.

In response to the feedback received, Starknet has rearranged the token unlock schedule to be slower, as follows:
- 64 million $STRK will be unlocked on April 15th instead of $1.3 billion.
- Subsequently, the remaining 64 million tokens will be gradually released until the end of March 2025.

As a result, in 2024, Starknet will unlock approximately 580 million $STRK with an inflation rate of about 75%, rather than the initially planned 2 billion.

This information has also led to $STRK returning to $2. In terms of strategy, this is a fairly sensible decision by the Starknet team, although it demonstrates a lack of foresight in organizing tokenomics from the outset, which is also a concern for retailers.

Jethro

Do we really need ANOTHER L2 solution in the market especially as there already is another big fish in the ZK Roll up pond with zkSync?

Well Starknet fans would argue yes due its method of proofing protocols & its unique advantages with its STARKs (Scalable Transparent Arguments of Knowledge), as opposed to zkSync's use of SNARKs (Succinct Non-Interactive Argument of Knowledge).

ZK-SNARKs method undermines decentralisation due to its set up where a small group of developers must be trusted to not manipulate code or divulge vulnerability information, whereas ZK-STARKs use publicly verifiable randomness to enable trustless verifiable systems without the need for a trusted setup. STARKs also are quantum resilient whereas SNARKs have the possibility of being cryptographically cracked by a quantum computer attack. ZK-STARKs are more scalable in computational speed & size than ZK-SNARKs, proving speed improvements of up to 10x. However ZK-STARKs’ one present drawback is that the technology is not very mature which limits its broader adoption.

Based on this information it seems that Starknet might have a slight edge in the competition for the L2 scaling solution after all.

Starknet

More Reviews of Starknet