< Back to Works
HASH: 0x0007...2025.11

Blockchain Mainnet Analysis

Research

System Description

Solo research project: technical analysis of blockchain designs (consensus safety, fee mechanisms, hybrid architecture) with mathematical modeling.

Technologies

Tendermint BFTEVMHyperledger FabricMathematical Modeling
Blockchain Mainnet Analysis
ROLE: SOLO_DEVELOPERDOMAIN: BLOCKCHAIN
!

PROBLEMThe Challenge

Translating whitepaper claims into verifiable constraints and identifying where assumptions can break under real-world conditions.

✓

SOLVEDThe Solution

Performed cross-verification and wrote a structured analysis covering safety conditions, fee smoothing dynamics, and tokenomics modeling.

Technical Deep Dive
Role: Solo Research / Analysis

Technical Analysis: Circle Arc

Consensus Safety Proof (Tendermint BFT)

We mathematically verified the safety conditions of the proposed Tendermint BFT implementation.
Safety Condition: $n ge 3f + 1$
  • ▶$n$: Total validators
  • ▶$f$: Faulty validators
Proof: If $n = 3f + 1$, then any two quorums $Q_1, Q_2$ of size $2f + 1$ must intersect by at least $f + 1$ nodes. Since there are at most $f$ faulty nodes, the intersection must contain at least one honest node. Therefore, conflicting blocks cannot be finalized simultaneously.

Fee Smoothing Mechanism

Analyzed the gas fee stability mechanism using EWMA (Exponentially Weighted Moving Average).
$$ BaseFee_{t+1} = BaseFee_t * (1 + delta * rac{GasUsed_t - GasTarget}{GasTarget}) $$
  • ▶Modeled the impact of $delta$ (adjustment factor) on fee volatility during network congestion.
  • ▶Concluded that a smaller $delta$ favors stablecoin usability but risks slower reaction to spam attacks.

Technical Analysis: PayProtocol V10

Hybrid Architecture Evaluation

Verified the performance claims of the Hyperledger Fabric (L1) + EVM (L2) hybrid structure.
  • ▶Verification: Compared against standard Hyperledger Fabric benchmarks and discussed constraints/assumptions required for peak throughput claims.
  • ▶Result: Summarized when peak numbers are plausible and what practical bottlenecks appear under more realistic workloads.

Tokenomics Modeling (Total Burn)

Derived the mathematical model for the token burn mechanism based on payment volume and DeFi yields.
$$ B = 0.5 imes (P imes f_p + min(T, T_{max}) imes f_t) + L imes g imes (1 - alpha) $$
  • ▶$P$: Payment Volume
  • ▶$f_p$: Payment Fee Rate
  • ▶$L$: Liquidity Provided
  • ▶$g$: DeFi Yield Rate
  • ▶$alpha$: Treasury Reserve Ratio
Simulation Notes: Explored how fee rates, liquidity yield, and treasury policy can change burn pressure, and documented the assumptions required for each scenario.

MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) Analysis

Estimation & Mitigation

Evaluated the potential MEV extraction surface on the proposed architecture compared to Ethereum.
  • ▶Reasoning:
    1. ▶App-Chain Nature: Limited number of arbitrage opportunities compared to general-purpose chains.
    2. ▶FIFO Ordering: Tendermint's default ordering mitigates front-running.

Proposed Mitigation Strategy

Recommended implementing a fair-ordering mechanism (e.g., encrypted mempool / commit-reveal) and documented tradeoffs.