3 ms·

> There are more downsides than that. The eUTxO model is not equivalent to accounts when it comes to its capabilities for building dApps. > I explained it in m

> There are more downsides than that. The eUTxO model is not equivalent to accounts when it comes to its capabilities for building dApps. > I explained it in more detail recently in a problem statement document for Cardano: https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/874 https://github.com/cardano-foundation/CIPs/pull/874 I think I'm siding with Michele in this situation that what you describe as a problem is rather just a UX painpoint of UTXO and not a flaw or issue that needs to be fundamentally changed. If you want to be able to coordinate to construct transactions you need to do it off-chain. The network can have standard systems for doing that or for verifying content (ex: DA-ed data that doesn't commit to L1) but any transactions that are settling on chain need to be 100% deterministic.

klntsky 2y ago
> any transactions that are settling on chain need to be 100% deterministic. If "100% deterministic" means absence of shared mutable state, then this approach will surely lead nowhere in the DeFi context, because even a proper order book with immediate execution AND partial order filling is impossible to build. If partial order filling is allowed, then either - order execution is not permissionless (no "De" in "DeFi") - which basically means the batcher can exploit users (and there have been claims that one of the Cardano DEXes does exactly that) - or orders are censorable (one can delay the market pressure indefinitely by filling a large order for $0.001 repeatedly) If partial order filling is not allowed, that would give an insanely inefficient price discovery (basically an OTC situation). I recommend you to take a look at the current state of DeFi on Cardano vs. account-based chains