Ethereum and the cryptoeconomy in general can’t reach anything close to their true potential until a corner is turned on the problem of scalability, i.e. powering fast and cheap transactions en masse. Alas, solving scaling is the top mission for numerous novel projects in the ecosystem.
In the diverse constellation of scaling projects, Matic Network and Loom Network are among those that focus on sidechain and Plasma tech to boost blockchains’ transaction throughput. But whereas Matic has notably been rising recently, Loom has instead become beleaguered.
Both efforts certainly started out promising, as both were early Layer 2 scaling efforts — or solutions built atop Ethereum or other blockchains, and not within them — that gave dApp projects an avenue to explore faster and cheaper transactions. Yet between the two, only Matic has kept up positive momentum as of late. Why?
Beyond the thing’s Matic’s been been getting right, the answer to that question largely lies in how Loom’s leadership recently totally re-envisioned their project in media res, which sent teams building atop the project scrambling and some key network participants heading for the exits. But before digging deeper here, let’s first compare how Matic and Loom work for better context.
Two Scaling Approaches, But Not Equal
As we’ve mentioned already, both Matic Network and Loom Network are Layer 2 scaling solutions, but naturally they approach the scaling question in unique ways.
As for Matic, it uses an account-based variation of More Viable Plasma, or simply Plasma, and its sidechains are underpinned by a network of proof-of-stake (PoS) validators. This model ensures fast and secure Layer 2 transactions.
“The system is designed to enable quicker partial confirmations for better user experience,” the Matic team has previously explained.
On the flip side, the Loom Network relies on a version of Plasma known as Plasma…