Technology Selection

Glue’s choice of Substrate and the use-case optimised model is a deliberate strategy to ensure rapid iteration and agile development. This approach enables Glue to deliver new technologies and enhancements more effectively than traditional monolithic blockchains, avoiding the endless cycles of quality assurance that impedes progress. By prioritising flexibility and modularity, Glue ensures that it can move faster and more decisively, solidifying its position as a pioneering force in the blockchain space. The iteration method implemented not only allows for continuous improvement and innovation but also ensures that Glue can adapt to and lead the evolution of the blockchain industry.

Substrate

Selection of the Substrate framework was driven by a set of stringent criteria aimed at ensuring the success and scalability of Glue. For clarity’s sake, there is no connection between Glue and Polkadot, and Glue is neither built on Polkadot nor reliant on its progress. The first and foremost criterion was the need for unprecedented scalability. To achieve unparalleled scalability, Glue employs use-case optimised Layer 2 (L2) solutions that are meticulously integrated with the Layer 1 (L1). Unlike the fragmented and myopic approach seen in other ecosystems, where L2s operate independently with conflicting and often adversarial interests, Glue's integrated strategy ensures that each L2 is tailored for specific applications such as finance, gaming, and asset transfers. This holistic approach allows for optimal performance and scalability, as each L2 can be customised to handle its unique workload without compromising the overall system integrity. The use-case optimisation of L2s extends to critical aspects of the blockchain, including consensus mechanisms, transaction processing, block times, fees, and data storage.

Glue's approach is an improved version of sharding. Each shard, in the case of Glue, is a use-case optimised L2 that maintains interactivity and integration with other shards. This ensures composability is preserved, allowing for seamless functionality across the entire system. This granularity ensures that the Glue blockchain can scale effectively, handling a prodigious volume of transactions with unparalleled efficiency. The Substrate framework's modular design and highly optimised runtime environment are pivotal in achieving this scalability. Each component can be fine-tuned and adjusted to meet the specific demands and needs of diverse applications, ensuring that Glue remains robust and performant under varying conditions. Moreover, the seamless integration of L1 and L2 within Glue obviates the inefficiencies and redundancies that plague other blockchain ecosystems. In the fragmented model exemplified by Polkadot, L2 solutions are essentially auctioned off to third-party entities with misaligned objectives and incentives, resulting in a cacophony of competing interests that undermine cohesive development and scalability. Glue’s strategy, in stark contrast, leverages the Substrate framework to maintain a unified and strategically aligned development trajectory for the L1 as well as all the current and future L2s. This alignment ensures that the entire blockchain ecosystem, from L1 to L2, operates in concert towards common goals, thereby maximising scalability, performance, and user experience.

The Substrate framework, with its modular architecture, facilitates this seamless integration and customisation. The ability to tailor various blockchain components, such as consensus algorithms, transaction throughput, and data management protocols, ensures that Glue can adapt to the dynamic requirements of a rapidly evolving technological landscape. This adaptability is crucial for sustaining high performance and scalability as new applications and use cases emerge. Furthermore, the Substrate framework’s highly optimised runtime environment significantly enhances Glue’s scalability. By allowing for the precise adjustment of runtime parameters and the integration of specialised modules, Substrate ensures that the Glue blockchain can efficiently manage and process a vast number of transactions. This capability is essential for maintaining the integrity and performance of the blockchain under high-demand scenarios.

Use-Case Optimised Model vs. Generic L2 or Monolithic Model or App Chain

The decision to adopt a use-case optimised model for Glue, as opposed to a generic L2, monolithic, or app chain model, is grounded in our commitment to delivering exceptional performance, scalability, and user experience. This strategic choice is informed by a critical analysis of the limitations inherent in generic, monolithic, and app chain blockchain models, which often fall short in addressing the nuanced requirements of diverse applications.

Figure 1: Generic L2 Model. A Layer 1 with multiple Layer 2s that all have roughly equal functionality such as EVM, Turing complete, etc, with no meaningful functional differences between L2s. Capable of running any dApp or smart contract. All dApps share the same underlying resources (e.g., computation, storage). All L2s must handle the full variety of transaction types and operations.

Figure 2: Monolithic Model. All functions (consensus, execution, data availability) are run by a single blockchain and are integrated making it challenging to scale. The architecture is straightforward but can become inefficient and hard to keep live as it scales. To handle the increased load, nodes require significant hardware upgrades, which can lead to centralisation as only those with high-end hardware can participate in validation. The monolithic design makes it difficult to introduce upgrades or changes, as every modification impacts the entire system, potentially leading to longer deployment cycles.

Figure 3: App Chain Model. An app chain model uses multiple specialised blockchains, each optimised for specific applications. Ensuring seamless interaction between various app chains and the relay chain can be complex and may require robust protocols to maintain consistency and security. Cross-chain communication can introduce vulnerabilities, as each app chain may have different security standards and mechanisms, potentially creating weak links​. Each app chain requires its own maintenance and updates. Overall, an app chain architecture is not a cohesive and united ecosystem.

Figure 4: Illustrating Glue's integration of Substrate framework for optimal scalability: The use-case optimised approach combines a Layer 1 and multiple use-case optimised Layer 2 solutions, ensuring tailored performance for diverse applications such as finance, gaming, and asset transfers. This unified strategy maximises efficiency and scalability, contrasting with fragmented models seen in other ecosystems. One dApp might at the same time use multiple Layer 2s for different operations and functions.

Limitations of Generic and Monolithic Models

Blockchains with generic L2s, such as Arbitrum and Optimism, aim to provide a one-size-fits-all solution. Both Arbitrum and Optimism are Turing complete and EVM compatible, meaning anything deployed on Arbitrum can also be deployed on Optimism or Ethereum. There is no specialisation among them, as each L2 can handle any type of application. While this approach may offer a large degree of flexibility as everything can do everything, it inherently lacks the specificity required to optimise performance for particular use cases. The generic model by definition results in suboptimal performance, as it is forced to balance a wide array of conflicting demands. Consequently, it struggles to deliver the high throughput, low latency, and specialised functionality that specific applications necessitate.

Monolithic models like Solana, on the other hand, attempt to consolidate all functionalities within a single, unified framework. While this has advantages, it leads to significant drawbacks as well. Monolithic architectures are notoriously difficult to scale, as the entire system must be upgraded or modified to enhance any single component. This rigidity hampers the system’s ability to evolve and adapt to new requirements. Furthermore, monolithic models are prone to inefficiencies and bottlenecks, as the centralised approach often leads to resource contention and suboptimal allocation. Worse, the monolithic model suffers from all the same drawbacks as the generic models in addition to its own challenges.

The App Chain Model: A Misguided Approach

The app chain model, while initially promising, has revealed itself to be an impractical and inefficient approach. By creating independent chains for each application, this model inevitably leads to the proliferation of ghost chains; blockchains that operate below capacity or become entirely inactive. These underutilised chains waste valuable resources, including computational power and network bandwidth, without contributing meaningful activity or value to the ecosystem.

Moreover, the app chain model, such as Cosmos, fosters fragmentation and isolation rather than integration and cooperation. Each chain operates independently, often with little to no interaction with others. This isolation stifles composability, as the fragmented environment discourages the sharing of solutions and best practices. Consequently, the app chain model fails to achieve the cohesive, synergistic ecosystem that is essential for sustained growth and development in the blockchain space. Because of this, both the underlying chains as well as the App chains built on top of them fail to ever gain critical mass as they are too loosely connected to get meaningful network effects.