No products in the cart.
- Latest
- Trending
ADVERTISEMENT
One of my biggest concerns with Merge is the issue of centralization. Another potential concern is the risk of fraud, as the general public may not know how his Merge works.
A fundamental flaw of Merge is that it can increase the concentration of power in the network. The higher the value of the staker position, the more rewards are given for validating blocks. This can lead to a situation where a few wealthy individuals or groups control the majority of the stock and have a disproportionate amount of influence over the network.
Five major organizations control 64% of the network’s shares. In the event of a controversial fork, these organizations could collude to choose chains to support, censor transactions, or double-spend funds. Critics are already debating whether or not Marge is a “get rich” one. A scheme to anchor current stakeholder power.
Earning interest on your ETH holdings requires staking, so those who cannot afford to stake may be discounted from the market. This could lead to greater centralization as only those with large amounts of funds will be able to participate in staking.
It’s also not uncommon for scammers to take advantage of major migrations such as The Merge to pretend that users need to do something to upgrade (usually including abandoning tokens). Wallet upgrades are also a potential source of fraud. Users can be tricked into downloading malicious software disguised as official updates.
Finally, miners who have been mining on Ethereum’s mainnet for years may decide to continue using Ethereum’s old chain. Ultimately, many of these miners are likely to incur huge power and hardware costs and could benefit more from staying on the proven mainnet. You may feel
This could lead to two competing versions of Ethereum running at the same time, splitting the community. While this scenario is unlikely, it is still a possibility that investors should be aware of.
