ETH can't scale - simply because of the account-baded architecture instead of UTXO and shared global state. Sharding is bs.
More precisely ETH would never be able to outperform a relational DBs that also can be (and are) sharded (e.g. Visa, banks)
The contracts on BSV can be composable too. All interactions with contracts will be on-chain, so there is no problem of locking liquidity in one app. Off-chain is only a contract business logic - purely scalability reason - shared state is not scalable L1
Thats the point. Order matching is not possible in Bitcoin L1. Thus it will be an off-chain/L2 centralized app doing order-matching.
Then why people will opt for using decentralized order matching vs. off-chain centralized if both are non-custodial?
Well, I can imagine a DEX built on BSV, where the orders are utxos locked with scrypt contracts, and the centralized off-chain order matching engine combines utxos into the swap transactions. It is non-custodial - exchange operator can't touch funds.
But besides the argument "crypto market likes code-is-law-de-fi", what are the actual benefits/value propositions of the decentralization (over simpy "non-custodial centralized institutions")?
Again, the market values the odds of future financial system being "code-is-law" as 300:1. Ok. It's just that I with my 12 years in IT don't want to live in the society where "code is law"😅
Disclaimer: these considerations are not counting the fact that "the market" is currently valuing odds for complete anarchy financial system as roughly about 300:1 😂
Uniswap, and all the rest liquidity pools with non-upgradeable smart contacts are edge cases, legally now only possible for tokens/coins backed by nothing. If this concept is ever applied to the rest of the finance it will mean complete anarchy.
As a rough big picture - automated offer-agreement for nft placement (also covering lifecycle and interactions with these nfts). With the set of rules and audit trail on BSV ledger.
Each nft is a kind of contract as well😀
