@joepetrowski Thank you for the clarification of system parachain and common goods parachain, quite straightforward. Since “common good chain” is an outdated term for system parachain here, I am afraid that not every Polkadot developer or community member is able to tell the difference between the system parchain and common good ones, especially when it comes to some protocols and utility apps. I think a clearer delineation and guidance would be helpful for projects to develop appchains or something common good based on Parity’s technology; maybe @Acai can also help.
I know there have been some discussions about polkadot protocol and common good parachains before, but I would also like to get an update on your views.
For the second question, I think @Acai has given some clues above, such as liquidity dashboards and tools on the front end or asset aggregation on the back end. If you check out other chains, Polygon has Quickswap and Cosmos has Osmosis, although there are dozens of IBC chains like parachains. All of these alternative chains have at least one native asset dapp to aggregate and exchange their native chain assets. But we can’t find a dominant dapp in the Polkadot system because there are too many dapps in each parachain with overdispersed TVLs.
Back to my question, multiple chains are bound to exist, but economic utility is also something we should consider. Over-diversification of assets leads to potential liquidity and security issues and a poor user experience. What’s your opinion on this? Do you prefer Parity to upgrade the existing Asset Hub to further enhance liquidity, or is it something like a new common good aggregator app from the Magnet or other teams?