Ethereum's design philosophy feels like it went through too many compromises—trying to be all things to everyone, which often means it's not particularly good at anything specific. The result reads more like a hodgepodge of competing ideas than a cohesive technical vision.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
14 Likes
Reward
14
9
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
HashRateHustler
· 01-14 04:12
Speaking of ETH, this design concept is indeed a bit of a mess; it wants to do everything but ultimately can't do anything perfectly.
View OriginalReply0
ImpermanentSage
· 01-11 23:33
Too true, ETH just wants to please everyone but ends up pleasing no one.
View OriginalReply0
Whale_Whisperer
· 01-11 15:02
This design philosophy of ETH is really "too many cooks spoil the broth"; as a result, wanting everything ends up with nothing working well.
View OriginalReply0
CascadingDipBuyer
· 01-11 09:57
Doing things with ETH really gives off a both sides both sides vibe...
View OriginalReply0
ser_aped.eth
· 01-11 09:56
This perspective is interesting, but I think it's precisely because of these "compromises" that ETH has survived until today.
View OriginalReply0
TestnetScholar
· 01-11 09:55
Is Ethereum's design philosophy really about messing around until the end, wanting to do everything but ending up not excelling at anything?
View OriginalReply0
BoredStaker
· 01-11 09:49
Doing things with ETH like this really feels a bit off... Wanting to do everything, but in the end, everything turns out mediocre.
View OriginalReply0
DataPickledFish
· 01-11 09:38
Hmm... that’s a bit of a punch to the gut. Ethereum does feel a bit like a hybrid right now.
View OriginalReply0
StableCoinKaren
· 01-11 09:36
Overdesign becomes a burden, and ETH is indeed a bit awkward in this regard.
Ethereum's design philosophy feels like it went through too many compromises—trying to be all things to everyone, which often means it's not particularly good at anything specific. The result reads more like a hodgepodge of competing ideas than a cohesive technical vision.