Recently, everyone in the market is obsessed with discussing TPS, as if higher throughput is the ultimate goal. After trying out various chains, I found one that takes a completely different approach.
Most public chains are piling on hardware and chasing bigger numbers, all aiming to handle more transactions per second. But Injective’s MultiVM architecture isn’t about playing the speed game—it’s focused on optimizing “response pathways.”
Here’s the thing: In traditional multi-chain environments, each chain and each application basically run in isolation, and syncing data takes a convoluted route. With this kind of parallel multi-VM design, different modules interact like a neural network—when the state of one contract changes, related applications can instantly sense it, without waiting for cross-chain bridges or oracles to slowly relay the message.
This “synchronous response” mechanism could be more effective for real-time interactive DeFi scenarios than just high TPS alone. After all, no matter how fast you are, if your information isn’t in sync, it’s useless.
This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.
15 Likes
Reward
15
7
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
FUDwatcher
· 1h ago
Oh wow, someone finally said it—the TPS stacking approach is so old-fashioned.
---
MultiVM is indeed a brilliant way to play; synchronized response > blindly increasing speed, honestly.
---
I really respect the optimization of the reaction chain; compared to those number games, it's more practical.
---
Wait, does this mean Injective can solve cross-chain latency issues? That's impressive.
---
Neural network-style coordination sounds good. How exactly is it implemented? The details are the key.
---
This point about information synchronization hits the core—it's almost useless now.
---
Those who stack hardware to increase numbers should reflect—they should really see how others do it.
---
Uh, it seems that in some DeFi scenarios, this architecture is quite popular, but how versatile is it?
---
High TPS is a trick to fool outsiders; real-time synchronization is what insiders care about.
View OriginalReply0
SmartMoneyWallet
· 12-09 22:05
Ha, it's the same old TPS talk again. The real issue has never been about throughput, but whether capital flows can truly move seamlessly. I've looked into Injective's architecture and checked the on-chain data; it does have fast response times, but it depends on how the whales are leveraging this design.
View OriginalReply0
BlockchainTalker
· 12-09 09:57
actually this hits different—everyone's obsessed with tps numbers but injective's really asking "what if we just... made chains talk to each other properly?" 🤔 the neural network comparison is spot on, tbh. latency matters way more than throughput when you're doing real defi
Reply0
SmartContractWorker
· 12-09 09:46
To be honest, the message-passing method used by cross-chain bridges should have been phased out long ago. Isn’t it just to ride the TPS hype?
The point about synchronous response really hit home. I once participated in a new project launch on a certain chain, and because of information delay, I got front-run. Now, looking at Injective’s approach, it actually seems promising.
High throughput is useless; fast delivery and low latency are the real game-changers.
View OriginalReply0
DegenWhisperer
· 12-09 09:41
Honestly, the whole TPS narrative is already outdated; the key is the synchronicity of data flow. Injective’s architecture does have something to it.
---
Synchronous response > artificially high throughput, that’s what really matters. Other chains are still competing over hardware specs.
---
But can that MultiVM setup really work? Seems like the idea is great, but...
---
Finally, someone is calling out this numbers game. Reaction speed really is more important than TPS.
---
The problem is that users can’t really perceive what a “reaction chain” is—they still care about transaction fees and confirmation time.
---
The neural network analogy is decent, but whether Injective can actually avoid cross-chain latency is questionable.
---
Instant contract state awareness? If that’s really possible, DeFi arbitrage opportunities would vanish instantly—interesting.
---
Yet another chain trying to change the rules of the game. Let’s see how long it survives.
View OriginalReply0
GasBandit
· 12-09 09:37
Ah, finally someone said it—these TPS competitions are really just a numbers game.
Exactly, data synchronization is the key; speed alone is useless.
MultiVM’s approach is definitely novel, and neural network integration sounds great.
But is this move by Injective real innovation or just marketing hype? Let’s wait and see.
View OriginalReply0
UncommonNPC
· 12-09 09:33
Oh, finally someone has seen through this TPS curse, I knew it...
This market is really obsessed with numbers, pumping TPS is just like playing with digital art.
The whole multi-VM parallel stuff, it really hits the pain points... Feels just like oracles—only those who use them really get it.
Damn, this is what a real architectural approach looks like, no wonder some projects suddenly stand out.
If cross-chain bridges get any slower, I might just write one myself. This article is truly an eye-opener.
Totally agree, response chain is way more important than throughput. Why did no one talk about this before?
Recently, everyone in the market is obsessed with discussing TPS, as if higher throughput is the ultimate goal. After trying out various chains, I found one that takes a completely different approach.
Most public chains are piling on hardware and chasing bigger numbers, all aiming to handle more transactions per second. But Injective’s MultiVM architecture isn’t about playing the speed game—it’s focused on optimizing “response pathways.”
Here’s the thing: In traditional multi-chain environments, each chain and each application basically run in isolation, and syncing data takes a convoluted route. With this kind of parallel multi-VM design, different modules interact like a neural network—when the state of one contract changes, related applications can instantly sense it, without waiting for cross-chain bridges or oracles to slowly relay the message.
This “synchronous response” mechanism could be more effective for real-time interactive DeFi scenarios than just high TPS alone. After all, no matter how fast you are, if your information isn’t in sync, it’s useless.