The opinions expressed here are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views and opinions of the editorial article crypto.news.
For over a decade, blockchain developers have followed one primary performance metric: speed. Transactions per second (TPS) became the industry benchmark for technological progress as networks raced ahead to outpace traditional financial systems. However, speed alone has not delivered the mass adoption once anticipated. Instead, high TPS blockchains have repeatedly stumbled during periods of real demand. The root cause is a structural weakness rarely discussed in technical papers: the bottleneck problem.
A 'fast' blockchain, in theory, should excel under pressure. In practice, many fail. The reason lies in how network components behave under heavy load. The bottleneck problem relates to a series of technical limitations that arise when blockchains prioritize throughput without adequately addressing systemic friction. These limitations are most apparent during peak user activity. Ironically, at these moments, blockchains are needed the most.
The first bottleneck occurs at the validator and node level. To support high TPS, nodes must quickly process and verify vast numbers of transactions. This requires significant hardware resources: computational power, memory, and bandwidth. But hardware has limitations, and not every node in a decentralized system operates under ideal conditions. As transactions accumulate, inefficient nodes delay block propagation or go offline altogether, fragmenting consensus and slowing the network.
The second level of the problem is user behavior. During periods of high traffic, the storage areas for pending transactions—mempools—become overwhelmed with activity. Experienced users and bots employ front-running strategies, paying higher fees to skip the queue. This crowds out legitimate transactions, many of which ultimately fail. The mempool turns into a battleground, and the user experience deteriorates.
The third level is propagation delay. Blockchains rely on peer-to-peer communication between nodes to share transactions and blocks. But when the volume of messages rapidly increases, propagation becomes uneven. Some nodes receive critical data faster than others. This delay can cause temporary forks, wasted computations, and, in extreme cases, chain reorganization. All of this undermines trust in finality.
Another hidden weakness lies within the consensus itself. High-frequency block creation is necessary to maintain TPS, which places immense stress on consensus algorithms. Some protocols were simply not designed to make decisions with millisecond urgency. As a result, validator mismatches and cut errors become more common, introducing risk into the very mechanism that ensures network integrity.
Finally, there is the issue of storage. Chains optimized for speed often neglect storage efficiency. As transaction volumes increase, so does the size of the ledger. Without pruning, compression, or alternative storage strategies, chains bloat in size. This further raises the cost of running a node, consolidating control in the hands of those who can afford high-performance infrastructure, thereby weakening decentralization. To address this issue, one of the key challenges for layer 0 solutions in the near future will be to seamlessly integrate storage and speed within a single blockchain.
Fortunately, the industry has responded with engineering solutions that directly address these threats. Local fee markets have been introduced to segment demand and alleviate pressure on global mempools. Front-running countermeasures such as MEV protection layers and spam filters have emerged to shield users from manipulative behavior. New dissemination methods, such as the Solana (SOL) Turbine protocol, have radically reduced message delays on the network. Modular consensus layers, introduced by projects like Celestia, distribute decision-making more efficiently and separate execution from consensus. Finally, in the storage front, snapshots, pruning, and parallel disk writes have enabled networks to maintain high speed without sacrificing size or stability. Beyond technical impact, these advancements have another effect: they disincentivize market manipulation. Pump-and-Dump schemes, sniper bots, and artificial price inflation often rely on exploiting network inefficiencies. As blockchains become more resilient to overloads and front-running operations, such manipulations become harder to execute at scale. In turn, this reduces volatility, increases investor trust, and alleviates pressure on the underlying network infrastructure.
The reality is that many first-generation high-speed blockchains were built without considering these interrelated limitations. When performance dropped, the remedy was to fix bugs, rewrite consensus logic, or install more hardware to address the issue.
Author: Christopher Luis Tzu
$BTC , $TON , $SUI
#MarketRebound , #Сryptomarketnews
In this group, we strive to promptly acquaint readers with informational news (more than a dozen websites) related to changes in the cryptocurrency market and financial markets. There is no goal here to impose on any of the readers the correctness (or incorrectness) of the article of the site!
