Crypto expert Polynya focuses on ‘paralyzingly bad’ monolithic blockchains

A post from crypto commentator Polynya went viral after he claimed there was pointless and toxic competition between monolithic blockchain communities. With over 340,000 views on

Polynya even lashed out at supporters – calling them “bagholders” – of a certain monolithic blockchain token: BTC, ETH, ADA, SOL, TRX, AVAX, LTC, BCH, XLM, BSV, XMR, etc. Polynya didn’t focus the criticism of a particular protocol.

The post calls the competition between blockchains a disgrace and says most developers should give up on “cripplingly bad” monolithic blockchains completely.

Polynya was once a popular member of several crypto communities and had amassed a number of them 90,000 followers on X before it shut down on June 2. The unexpected return to commentary attracted attention, mainly because of the blog post’s random and emotionally charged rant against all blockchains.

Polynya simply argues why monolithic blockchains will never reach a global scale. Specifically, it seems impossible to have mobile devices verify the integrity of every transaction on a major blockchain.

Full node hardware is not suitable for most people

It is clear that the majority of people only have access to mobile devices. Mobile phones and tablets are not suitable for ‘always on’ and>

Polynya says the biggest problem with monolithic blockchains concerns the high hardware overhead that normal users need to use the blockchain in a meaningful way. Since most monolithic blockchains are active today, users must choose between confirming the validity of every transaction and confirming the validity of every transaction relying on a third party to do the work for them.

So-called ‘light’ or pruned nodes exist, but these shortcuts still reintroduce trust in third parties. Incomplete nodes can also limit a blockchain network’s ability to withstand a worst-case scenario when there are not enough full nodes to archive and validate all transactions around the world.

Read more: Ethereum’s centralization is becoming a serious problem

Cryptotoxicity

Although Polynya addressed the criticism of monolithic blockchains in detail, most of the post’s virality is likely due to the criticism of toxicity.

Toxicity on social media, especially X (formerly Twitter), is a particular problem for the digital asset community. Often the most toxic bag holders are those that are desperate to unload their bags on others. That approach drew a nod from Polynya, which didn’t mention any blockchains in the blog post, aside from one positive mention of Bitcoin.

Polynya received a lot of sympathy in the comment and reply sections. “It’s a shame that some people consider looking after their own interests more important than having meaningful discussions,” said one reader.

Kyle Banta said, “There’s a lot of good in all these communities, but the loudest ones usually aren’t the best.”

This feature of monolithic blockchains limits the accessibility of individuals who are part of Bitcoin’s original target group: those who cannot open a bank account or want an alternative to regular financing. Removing trust in third parties is indeed one of the measures primary value propositions in the original Bitcoin whitepaper.

Because most users cannot download and verify every transaction on a blockchain, there is little need for virtually any monolithic blockchain. “Unless of course you don’t need scale, like Bitcoin,” says Polynya.

There are few benefits to using additional monolithic blockchains outside of Bitcoin if users still need to trust a third party. If all these different blockchains simply add additional trusted third parties, how can they contribute to a meaningful improvement in finance?