Doctorka

Here's a detailed breakdown of the security risks and centralization concerns related to the USDC smart contract, especially since it's implemented using an Admin Upgradeability Proxy (commonly via OpenZeppelin's TransparentUpgradeableProxy pattern).
1. Admin Upgradeability Proxy Risks
Upgradable contract means the core logic of USDC can be changed by the admin (Circle or its designated entity).
The admin has full control to upgrade the token's implementation to something malicious or flawed, such as one that:
• Freezes specific addresses or all tokens.
• Changes how balances are computed.
• Redirects or burns user funds.

Real Risk: The admin could, in theory, introduce a rug-pull mechanism or bugs during an upgrade. However, Circle is a regulated entity, so this risk is more about centralized control than technical incompetence or malicious intent.

2. Contract Not Renounced
Contract ownership is retained, meaning Circle can:
• Mint new tokens (within authorized limits).
• Burn tokens.
• Blacklist and freeze user accounts.

USDC is explicitly designed to be a centrally managed stablecoin, unlike DAI or LUSD.

3. Unlimited Minting?
Minting is usually tied to real-world fiat deposits. But yes, technically:
The admin can mint as much USDC as they want if they chose to.
There’s no smart contract-enforced hard cap like in Bitcoin or some altcoins.
This power could be abused, although such action would destroy trust and likely lead to legal consequences, making it unlikely - but still possible.

4. Blacklisting & Freezing Balances
Yes, #USDC can freeze user addresses.
They’ve done it before in compliance with OFAC sanctions and law enforcement.
The contract includes a function like freeze(address) or blacklist(address).

Funds in blacklisted addresses are locked forever - they can’t be moved or spent.
This centralization is by design but represents a major risk for users in controversial jurisdictions or using DeFi protocols that Circle disapproves of.

5. Other Risks
Censorship: USDC can be censored at the protocol level (e.g., if a DeFi dApp relies heavily on USDC liquidity).
Depegging Risk: Though rare, if there's a loss of confidence in Circle’s ability to redeem 1:1 for USD, the token could depeg.
Regulatory Risk: If Circle is forced to comply with new regulations, it may affect how users can interact with USDC globally.
Whitelisting/Permissioned DeFi: USDC has been moving toward supporting “compliant” DeFi - this means USDC-based protocols may become permissioned.

Final Thoughts
$USDC is not trustless. You are trusting:
Circle (the issuer),
The U.S. regulatory system,
That the smart contract won’t be abused.

This is fine for many use cases (trading, payments), but it's unsuitable for trust-minimized applications like censorship-resistant savings or decentralized governance.

Here’s a list of notable blockchain networks and their associated tokens, sorted by their theoretical maximum transactions per second (TPS) capabilities, from highest to lowest:
1. Solayer ($LAYER ) – 16 billion TPS (InfiniSVM theoretical max)*
2. $TON (The Open Network) – 1 million TPS (theoretical max)
3. Aptos (APT) – 160,000 TPS
4. Solana (SOL) – 65,000 TPS
5. Polygon (MATIC/POL) – 65,000 TPS
6. Arbitrum (ARB) – 40,000 TPS
7. Internet Computer (ICP) – 11,500 TPS
8. Algorand (ALGO) – 6,000 TPS
9. Avalanche (AVAX) – 4,500 TPS
10. BNB Chain (BNB) – 2,200 TPS
11. TRON (TRX) – 2,000 TPS
12. Ripple (XRP) – 1,500 TPS
13. Cardano (ADA) – 386 TPS
14. Ethereum (ETH) – 119 TPS
15. Bitcoin (BTC) – 7 TPS

This is not a full list of all blockchains but rather a list of the fastest and for comparison the most notable blockchains with a high market cap.
Correct me if I missed something worth adding.

*LAYER Utilizing hardware-accelerated SVM blockchain technology, Solayer's InfiniSVM aims to achieve over 16 billion TPS for simple workloads and approximately 890,000 TPS for conflicting workloads.

Solayer has announced ambitious plans to develop a blockchain capable of processing over 1 million transactions per second (TPS) with network bandwidth exceeding 100 Gbps. To achieve this, Solayer is implementing a hardware-accelerated SVM (Solana Virtual Machine) blockchain, termed InfiniSVM, which employs a multi-execution cluster architecture connected via Software-Defined Networking (SDN) and Remote Direct Memory Access (RDMA).

Key Architectural Components:
1. Hardware-Accelerated Multi-Executor Design:
#Solayer divides transaction processing into microservices, assigning each to specialized hardware clusters.
This approach reduces individual hardware load and enhances overall system scalability.
2. Transaction Processing Pipeline:
Ingress and Edge Filtering: Utilizes GPUs or FPGAs to verify signatures and eliminate duplicate transactions.
Pre-Execution: Independent clusters simulate transactions to identify and process non-conflicting ones promptly.
Execution Planning and Routing: Employs an Account State Cache and hardware acceleration to schedule and route transactions efficiently.
3. Data Sharding and RDMA Integration:
Implements data sharding to distribute data across multiple nodes, reducing individual node load.
Incorporates RDMA technology, enabling rapid data exchange between nodes without operating system intervention, thereby achieving network bandwidth exceeding 100 Gbps.
4. Hybrid Consensus Mechanism:
Combines Proof-of-Authority and Proof-of-Stake to designate a "mega leader" (sequencer) responsible for processing and publishing transaction batches ("shreds").
This structure aims to facilitate the processing of over 1 million TPS.
Code Review and Verification:
As of now, Solayer has not publicly released the source code for their InfiniSVM blockchain. Without access to the actual codebase, it's challenging to independently verify the feasibility of their TPS claims. The architecture and technologies described are theoretically capable of achieving high TPS; however, practical implementation details, optimizations, and real-world testing are crucial to substantiate these claims.
For developers interested in contributing or reviewing Solayer's progress, the project encourages engagement through their official channels.
In summary, while Solayer's proposed architecture presents a promising approach to achieving high transaction throughput, the absence of publicly available code and empirical performance data makes it difficult to confirm the accuracy of their TPS claims at this time.

You should think twice before launching new coin on the Ethereum blockchain.
1. High Transaction Fees Are a Major Bottleneck
One of the most significant drawbacks of using Ethereum for new projects is the consistently high transaction fees, or "gas fees." These fees are paid to miners for validating transactions on the blockchain. While this system ensures network security, the costs have become exorbitant, especially during times of network congestion.
For developers, this creates a massive hurdle:
User Friction: When fees for basic token transfers or smart contract interactions cost $20, $50, or even $100 during peak periods, end users are discouraged from engaging with dApps or transacting with new coins.
Deters Small-Scale Projects: High gas fees disproportionately impact smaller projects and startups, which may not have the capital to absorb these costs or the user base willing to pay them.
Limits Scalability: Projects designed to handle high volumes of microtransactions, such as gaming or micropayment systems, become practically unfeasible due to prohibitive fees.

Even with Ethereum's transition to Proof-of-Stake (PoS) through Ethereum 2.0, gas fees remain an issue, as the fundamental cost mechanics have not changed.

2. Network Congestion Hinders Performance
Ethereum's popularity comes at a price: network congestion. When the network becomes crowded, gas fees spike further. This lack of scalability can be detrimental to new projects relying on consistent and fast transaction processing.

For instance, during high-profile NFT drops or token launches, the Ethereum network often becomes clogged, leading to failed transactions or exorbitant costs. Developers launching new coins risk alienating their user base if their project's usability suffers due to these congestion issues.

3. Intense Competition and Lack of Differentiation
Ethereum is already saturated with thousands of tokens, many of which are redundant or offer little innovation. Launching a new coin on Ethereum often means competing with established projects that dominate user attention and liquidity.
Additionally, newer blockchains like Binance Smart Chain, Solana, and Avalanche offer lower fees, faster transaction speeds, and growing ecosystems, providing developers with alternative platforms to stand out and attract users.

4. Erosion of Developer and User Trust
The unpredictable and often excessive gas fees can erode trust in projects built on Ethereum. Users may perceive such projects as less accessible, while developers struggle to maintain consistent user engagement. Over time, this damages the reputation of the coin and undermines its potential for success.

Conclusion
While Ethereum has historically been the go-to platform for creating new coins, its high transaction fees and scalability challenges make it increasingly unattractive for developers in 2025 and beyond. With more efficient and cost-effective blockchain platforms available, developers should consider alternatives to maximize their project's success and user adoption.

By choosing a platform with lower fees, faster speeds, and modern technology, developers can focus on innovation and user satisfaction without being burdened by Ethereum’s well-documented shortcomings. Ethereum remains a powerful blockchain, but for many, the costs simply outweigh the benefits.
$ETH #ETHProspects #bnb #sol #avax