About ETHPAR

Step 1: Admit the Problem

Step 2:

Identify Issues

Step 3:

Find Critical Path

Step 4: Understand Current State

Step 5:

Ethpar Solution

Customer

Experience

User learning curve is steep. Information is fragmented for onboarding.

Key pain points:

1. a) not easy to find apps

   or working bundles

2. b) buy ETH for gas or L2

   tokens, you figure it out?

3. c) multiple L2 chains with

different rules, liquidity

Neutrality for the diverse world of non-financial applications, while neglecting the mainstream

Ethpar promotes development of consumer apps like payments, loans, ramps.

Customer

Experience

Ethereum does not own the customer, lost loyalty and brand value.

Key pain points:

1. a) L2 chain economics

   are parasitic

2. b) dApps have little

   incentive to stay on L1

3. c) technology, people and value move outward, away from ETH

Ethereum is like an insurance company for L2 chains: We call them “Re-Swiss ETH“

Ethpar is a technology company with a focus on customers. Our stakers are like ISVs and can earn the fees from their own dApps.

EF

Leadership

Leadership became more political.

EF leadership was not aligned with builders. Vitalik was a single point of failure.

EF appointed two new co-directors in 2025.

Ethpar leadership is aligned with our ecosystem goals, stated here.

ETH

Valuation

ETH valuation does not reflect the primacy of Ethereum and its ecosystem.

Intangibles, not book assets, are the value in technology. Ethereum has been spending value, not growing value.

EF leadership has been dismissive of criticism and ETH valuation concerns.

Long term value accrued to the Ethpar token is the way to reward stakeholders.

EF

Incentives

EF incentives are reversed, pushing talent away from the core.

Exodus of core talent to L2 and other projects. In 2024, EF made a rule against consulting, further discouraging those not already rich.

ETH 2021 price is about the same as today. EF talent has moved to more lucrative projects.

Ethpar tokenomics incentivizes builders with familiar ISV model and core team with stock options.

Throughput

Gas limits smart contract complexity and transactions per block

Processor speed, including EVM and concurrent workloads on the client

Ethereum plans to increase gas limit graduall. Surprise: Vitalik makes the case for Ethpar-like scaling in this post.

Ethpar today builds many blocks at once on parallel nodes, optimizes concurrent workloads.

Throughput

Small block size means fewer and smaller transactions per block.

Cost of high throughput NVMe limits data transfer and storage capacity.

Bandwidth not available

everywhere.

Ethereum limits chain size and bandwidth required to permit solo stakers.

Ethpar solo stakers can run worldstate nodes without sacrificing scalability.

Throughput

EVM opcodes not efficient, ZK solvers for L2 blobs is a bottleneck

System architecture is not ideal. Ethereum is “anti-parallel”, with 1,000,000 validators to produce a single block.

Ethereum plans RISC-V retooling but sadly, not to scale L1, rather to speed ZK solvers for L2.

Ethpar plans parallel L1 EVM processing and FPGA hardware offload and encoding of smart contracts.

Latency

Block interval is a long wait (12 seconds).

It does not take 12 seconds to produce a block. Communication delays are the issue.

Sophisticated block building with MEV auctions cause delays.

Multiple proposers build blocks independently using

mempool subgraphs.

Latency

Finality takes

an eternity.

Communication and coordination of a million validators is the limiting factor in epoch finality.

Ethereum talks about slot level finality but mostly pushes users to L2.

Finality can be achieved dynamically with a mempool DAG, smart contract business rules and order flow.

MEV

MEV is a

problem.

MEV skims value created by dApps and causes customers to lose trust. Technical solutions exist, but there is little desire to implement them.

Ethereum staking return is so low as to be unattractive without MEV-boost. MEV results in centralized block building.

Multiple block proposers on Ethpar limit most MEV. Contract specific validators can enforce their own sequencing rules.