FastLane CEO: Intentional flaws create a more perfect Monad
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
FastLane CEO: Intentional flaws create a more perfect Monad
The art of trade-offs: Monad is imperfect by design.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsAuthor: Thogard
Translation: TechFlow
I've recently spoken with many VCs, and I've noticed their conversations always start—sooner or later—with some version of the same question:
"Why Monad?"
Many seem genuinely surprised to find me building on a blockchain known for its blue animal mascot and aggressive airdrop farmers. These VCs may know me from my prior MEV (Maximal Extractable Value) work on other chains, research into app-specific sequencing, academic papers, podcast appearances, or conference talks. Or perhaps they remember me for my blunt analytical style on Twitter/X...
Because they know me, they're puzzled why I haven't directed the same sharp criticism at what many see as "just another new L1." The fact that I'm now choosing to build on Monad seems to short-circuit the pattern-matching part of their brains.
After all, they know I'm more likely to mock airdroppers than become one; they know, based on my company's equity structure, I should favor Solana over Monad; they also know our app-specific sequencer has recently found product-market fit (PMF) and is growing exponentially in traction and revenue. They understand I'm not desperate, nor do I have an immediate financial incentive to invest so much time and resources into an L1 still on testnet.
So... why Monad?
After all, the Monad blockchain doesn’t deliver a 10x improvement in any single technical dimension:
-
Solana offers higher throughput
-
L2s give apps more control and better UX
-
Cosmos chains offer single-slot finality (Monad has two-slot finality—the practical difference in interoperability and composability is massive)
-
Ethereum has a more mature ecosystem (and my reputation there has greater market value)
-
Berachain has stronger incentives and community backing
-
Hyperliquid is where all the new activity and users are
And these ecosystems are already live and running.
In contrast, Monad’s application testnet hasn’t even deployed the MonadBFT consensus protocol yet. Despite this, it raised enormous funding and is over a year past its initially targeted mainnet launch date.
The VCs I’ve spoken to know all this. And they know me. To them, none of this adds up.
They’ve done their homework—they know I don’t have close friends working at Monad Labs. I did meet Keone once, back when I was running my own MEV bots, but we’re hardly close. They also know I didn’t angel-invest in Monad—I have no financial ties to the chain or its team.
These VCs know I’m married, and that I have a child. While I’m not struggling financially, I still rent instead of owning a home—and I’m certainly not at a life stage where I can recklessly burn money on speculative bets. They also know neither I nor anyone at FastLane has sold equity via OTC deals; our goal is long-term growth (so why chase short-term airdrops?). Moreover, I’m not just betting my own future on Monad, but the futures of every member of FastLane. That’s a huge responsibility… and to many outsiders, such a bet makes no sense.
What’s more, VCs know the Monad ecosystem team hasn’t publicly promoted my company (or any LST), never retweeted us, offered no token incentives, and there’s been no co-marketing. I haven’t even appeared on any Monad-run podcasts. Sometimes, the Monad ecosystem team has politely declined to join Telegram groups I created for them to meet apps or validators I referred. This has burned several bridges. It has cost me relationships.
VCs know many ecosystems have “chased” me… but not Monad. No one from the Monad team asked us to build here. I’m fairly certain many of them see my willingness to say aloud what others won’t as a risk. So far, this thread confirms their fears. Time to address it.
"Why Monad?"
It’s really simple: There was no alternative.
Monad is a deeply flawed project. But it’s the only DeFi project built with intelligence, foresight, and self-awareness—acknowledging that a perfect Layer 1 ecosystem is impossible to create, and instead designing its flaws as intentional trade-offs that preserve efficiency.
This is the essence of the Monad blockchain, its community, and its developers.
Every other project in crypto believes it can achieve perfection—but precisely because of this arrogance, they all eventually hit walls. They realize too late that they can’t have everything… and then accept inefficient, destructive, unintended flaws, patching them with grotesque “temporary solutions.” Their communities happily go along, chanting “the fix is coming soon!”
-
"We’ll decentralize the sequencer later!"
-
"Runtime 2.0 will support partial rollbacks!"
-
"Atomic composability across app-chains is enough to build a harmonious ecosystem!"
-
"Once proof times shrink, scaling will be solved!"
-
"Governance-controlled incentives won’t stifle growth once whitelists are removed!"
-
"Soon we’ll wait just 2 seconds to move funds insecurely from perpetual exchanges to L1 via bridges!"
All these claims are self-soothing. They stem from ecosystems lacking foresight, failing to understand the trade-offs required and the inevitable flaws baked into their designs.
Do you know what the common response in the Monad community is?
No.
Most of Monad’s flaws are intentional, arising from carefully considered trade-offs. These flaws won’t disappear anytime soon, because removing them would create worse problems.
"But Alex, isn’t it just another EVM L1? How could it possibly be that different?"
Monad is the only trustworthy blockchain not because the team magically invented some engineering miracle. It doesn’t have a single feature that makes it stand out.
Monad is the only trustworthy blockchain because it has been so thoroughly designed and thoughtfully planned that it has no fatal flaws. For example:
L2s cannot survive under regulatory pressure. Even if they do, using rich blockspace on a fast L1 for app-specific sequencing enables building applications that are faster, less centralized, and offer better UX.
A L1 like Monad. Frankly, if you still believe L2s offer anything novel beyond delayed finality, you probably haven’t grasped the full power of app-specific sequencing.
On app-controlled execution: Solana cannot support partial rollbacks (i.e., error catching/handling within-chain calls). This directly undermines the potential for atomic composability between adversarial parties—the key novel use case that distinguishes DeFi from TradFi. Sure, you can artificially recreate similar functionality by handling matching off-chain and hoping validators respect your sent order, but adding another layer of infrastructure between the chain and users only slows things down.
I think Jito’s BAM (Block Auction Market) is a brilliant attempt, and I fully support it—that team is excellent. But BAM is an optional infra layer for validators, so it can never achieve 100% uptime, undermining most high-value use cases for ACE (App-Controlled Execution)/ASS (App-Specific Sequencing).
This isn’t Jito’s fault—Solana was designed for high TPS (transactions per second). Like a driver who removes airbags to go faster, then instinctively drives slower due to increased risk, Solana removed the ability for transactions to self-repair mid-execution, forcing more transactions to be sent. As a result, it simply doesn’t support the features FastLane needs.
So no matter how good the Jito team is, their TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) infra layer will never be as fast or reliable as app-specific sequencing natively on Monad… because we have zero latency and 100% uptime. Long live smart contracts!
I have great respect for the Cosmos team and truly believe their composability solution is years ahead of its time… but perhaps they should first focus on creating an ecosystem willing to cooperate. What’s the point of seamless interoperability between isolated apps if there’s no incentive to collaborate?
Ecosystem management is an extremely complex topic, and I’m certainly no expert—but the Monad team has shown remarkable pragmatism in their strategy. When building an ecosystem, there’s a spectrum of trade-offs: one end is a purely free-competition system where any app can win based on merit; the other end is where certain apps get enough support that they don’t need to worry about local users and can almost exclusively focus on bringing in new users to the ecosystem.
Like everything else at Monad, their ecosystem team doesn’t lean entirely toward either extreme, but strives to manage the ecosystem in the most efficient way possible. For apps, this ecosystem is both fair (but not perfectly equal playing field) and supportive (but not a “kingmaker” ecosystem like megaeth or berachain—which appeals more to developers like me who prefer market-driven success and showcasing superior tech, where victory doesn’t depend on a single angel investor’s backing).
Hyperliquid blocks are only 2 million gas. This perpetual exchange isn’t even directly integrated into the L1… you can bridge funds from Ethereum to Arbitrum via Across faster than from HypeEVM to Hypercore.
I genuinely can’t understand why all validators run on AWS Tokyo while block size is only 2 million. Ethereum is already at 45 million. Sometimes, I feel the entire Hyperliquid ecosystem is an elaborate prank everyone’s playing on me.
Ethereum’s ZK-proof scaling roadmap might be correct… but at this point, the blockchain is already flooded with entrenched intermediaries and third parties. These mechanisms look great in theory, but every infrastructure middleman between users and the blockchain adds latency and has rent-extraction incentives.
The bigger problem is that removing these middlemen will be extremely difficult, especially politically… though I know if anyone can do it, it’s Tomasz. He’s an absolute legend—a radical yet incredibly smart choice as leader, one I never imagined Ethereum would make.
But maybe they’ll succeed? I wouldn’t bet on it—even if they solve it, they still have a long way to go to reach modern L1 standards—but I’m still rooting for them.
I have nothing bad to say about SUI, except its VM has far weaker support than EVM or SVM. If it had launched earlier, giving its dev toolchain time to mature before new AI agent coding tools started learning EVM and SVM and taking over much of the work, maybe I’d consider building on SUI.
Of course, if Monad didn’t exist, SUI might’ve been my final choice. But Monad does exist.
I’m a developer who likes planning products before building. I’m also acutely aware of how painful it is when fundamentals shift mid-development cycle.
"Why Monad?"
To me, it’s obvious: Only one blockchain is designed around real-world trade-offs, not naive ideals or principles.
To me, it’s obvious: Only one blockchain has a foundation solid enough to remain relevant without requiring massive, disruptive changes.
To me, it’s obvious: Only one blockchain is built to support real-world user scenarios, not founder-led engineering slogans or mechanism design fantasies.
To me, it’s obvious: Only one blockchain’s ecosystem strategy acknowledges its own strengths, understands that fair usage reduces overall impact, and actively seeks balance. While no founder celebrates every Monad ecosystem decision—we’re all selfish beings—we all respect the reasoning behind them.
To me, it’s obvious: Only one blockchain doesn’t force app developers to sacrifice their core principles. We all entered DeFi for a reason—don’t lie to yourself and forget why.
Monad isn’t the most decentralized L1. Monad doesn’t have single-slot finality. Monad doesn’t have the highest throughput. But Monad is decentralized, Monad does have fast finality, and Monad’s throughput is high. Every so-called “flaw” is acceptable. None are fatal. None force me to compromise my values.
To me, Monad took a long time to launch their Layer-1… but they were thorough. That’s why it has all these amazing features, and why all trade-offs are so well-considered. Developers don’t have magic pills. Monad is the best blockchain because of hard work, deep experience, and meticulous analysis by the team.
It’s these nuances that compound into truly extraordinary outcomes. Read the consensus engine code, and you’ll tell me it’s unimpressive.
To me, for serious developers, there’s only one blockchain worth choosing.
"Why Monad?"
Because to me, there is no other choice.
I also know it won’t be long before all of this becomes equally obvious to you.
If you’re lucky, perhaps those odd purple animals might start making sense to you too. By the way, they’re called “Monanimals.”
Unfortunately, when VCs or other interested parties ask me “Why Monad?”, I rarely have twenty minutes to explain. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this, yet struggled to express it more concisely. Thank you for taking the time to read through these lengthy thoughts—even if you disagree or aren’t convinced, the fact that you’ve engaged with my perspective means a lot.
See you on-chain!
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
@ThogardPvP
