A Deepdive into GLM - 2024

A Deepdive into GLM - 2024

History of GLM

The Evolution of Golem (GLM): Decentralized Computing's Long Road

Golem, now represented by the GLM token, has undergone significant changes since its inception, making it one of the more storied projects in the crypto ecosystem. Originally introduced in 2016 by Golem Factory, the project aimed to disrupt traditional centralized computing through a decentralized marketplace for computational power, where individuals and businesses could buy and sell unused processing capacity.

In its early days, the project's vision was ambitious but faced skepticism. The Ethereum-based Golem project targeted an untapped market: decentralized supercomputing. However, early adopters found the initial release of Golem, dubbed Brass Golem (2018), to be underwhelming, generating criticism due to its limited functionality and slow development cycle. Users noted that the proof-of-concept was functional but far from a fully mature product capable of delivering on the grand promises of the whitepaper.

A major turning point for Golem came in 2020, with the migration from the original GNT token to GLM. This wasn't merely a rebranding but a technical upgrade, offering improved token standards by adopting Ethereum's ERC-20 framework over the earlier custom design. While the migration process provided smoother compatibility with DeFi ecosystems and exchanges, it also exposed the project to criticism around usability and coordination during the migration period. Some token holders found the process confusing, and others were frustrated with its dependence on Ethereum's scalability and high gas fees.

Despite these challenges, GLM benefited from its early entrant status in blockchain, which allowed the project to foster a loyal community of developers and users while experimenting with advancements like layer-2 scaling solutions. However, one recurrent issue remained: adoption. While the technology promised a wide range of use cases, including 3D rendering, AI model training, and scientific computing, the user base and ecosystem growth lagged behind expectations. Competing decentralized platforms and cloud services provided simpler alternatives, calling Golem's value proposition into question.

Over the years, the Golem project pivoted toward fostering a broader development framework called Golem Network Protocol (GNP). By decentralizing its architecture further and introducing modular options for developers, Golem sought to provide easier integration for decentralized applications (dApps) and services. This transition, while promising, remains a work in progress, demanding continued technical refinement and clearer communication with both users and developers.

Through its ups and downs, GLM's journey reflects a key narrative within crypto: balancing innovation with execution in a highly competitive, evolving landscape. Its history is a notable example of the challenges specific to scaling and adoption in decentralized computing ecosystems.

How GLM Works

How GLM Works: Decentralized Computing on the Golem Network

The GLM token powers the Golem Network, a decentralized marketplace for computational resources. At its core, GLM facilitates the exchange of computing power between providers (individuals or entities offering unused processing capacity) and requesters (users needing on-demand computational resources). This peer-to-peer model eliminates intermediaries, reducing costs and enabling efficient utilization of underutilized hardware.

Requesting Computational Power

Requesters on the Golem Network submit computational tasks, which could range from rendering graphics to complex simulations. These tasks are divided into smaller workloads and distributed among the network's providers. The requesters pay providers in GLM tokens once the computations are completed and validated. Payments are executed through smart contracts, ensuring transparency and reliability while reducing the need for trust between parties.

Providing Resources

Providers on the network can sell their idle computing power by processing tasks submitted by requesters. Providers are incentivized to join the network as they earn GLM tokens for contributing their hardware resources. The system supports a wide array of hardware configurations, from standard CPUs to high-performance GPUs, enabling flexibility for participants with varying levels of computing power.

The Role of the GLM Token

GLM serves as the exclusive medium of exchange within the Golem Network. Beyond facilitating transactions between users, the token also incentivizes efficient workloads, with prioritization often based on payment amounts. However, this can lead to an imbalance where lower-paying tasks might face lower acceptance rates, potentially posing challenges for small-scale requesters.

Technical Framework

The Golem Network operates using a combination of Ethereum-based smart contracts and P2P technology. Its infrastructure leverages the protocol to coordinate, negotiate, and manage resource-sharing agreements while upholding a decentralized ethos. However, reliance on Ethereum imposes limitations, such as potential scalability issues if the network expands significantly, or dependence on Ethereum’s transaction fees, which can vary unpredictably.

Privacy and Security

The network employs task-sandboxing to isolate requester data and ensure privacy during execution. While this is a secure design, providers still cannot fully audit tasks they are processing, raising potential concerns about unknowingly running malicious code. Furthermore, securing accurate computation verification remains a technical hurdle, as certain workloads may not easily lend themselves to validation mechanisms.

Potential Usability Barriers

While the Golem Network and GLM token provide a promising decentralized alternative for computational resources, their adoption still faces usability challenges. Non-technical users may struggle with the complexities of setting up nodes, managing wallets, and overseeing task submissions. This reliance on crypto-savvy participants could hinder widespread acceptance beyond niche communities. Additionally, fluctuations in network activity and varying task availability may reduce the predictability of income streams for providers.

Use Cases

GLM Crypto Asset: Exploring Key Use Cases

The Golem Network Token (GLM) is designed to power the Golem Network—a decentralized marketplace for computing power. Below, we delve into the specific use cases of GLM, both its practical utility and the challenges it faces in its ecosystem.

1. Decentralized Computing Power Exchange

GLM plays a central role in facilitating transactions within the Golem Network, where users can rent out or purchase unused computing power. This creates a decentralized framework for tasks like rendering, machine learning, and computational-heavy simulations. GLM acts as the medium of exchange, enabling resource providers to monetize their idle computing resources. However, the adoption of this use case hinges on sufficient infrastructure decentralization and maintaining competitive pricing compared to centralized cloud computing services like AWS or Google Cloud. The occasional latency issues inherent in peer-to-peer setups may also impact market growth.

2. Support for Web3 Applications

GLM is uniquely positioned to enhance Web3 development by providing scalable, decentralized back-end computational resources for dApps. Developers can leverage the Golem Network as an alternative to centralized APIs, ensuring resilience in a decentralized architecture. While this use case is promising, the network must address onboarding barriers, such as the requirement for a steep learning curve to integrate custom tasks into the system and competition from more streamlined platforms aimed at dApp developers.

3. Rendering Services and Creative Workloads

One of the most notable real-world applications of GLM is in the field of rendering, especially for 3D models, animations, and visual effects. By paying with GLM, users can tap into distributed machines for high-performance rendering tasks. The cost efficiency of the network can be a significant advantage, but concerns arise regarding reliability, as tasks are dependent on the availability and performance of individual resource providers in the network at any given time.

4. Network Governance and Development Incentives

Although not an explicit governance token, GLM indirectly supports the ecosystem by incentivizing participation and contributions to the network’s continuous development. This includes encouraging resource providers and developers to engage with the platform. However, the lack of formalized governance mechanisms through GLM may limit its ability to evolve in response to community demands compared to other governance-centric tokens in DeFi ecosystems.

5. Experimentation in Computational Sharing Models

GLM’s integration allows users to explore novel computational sharing paradigms, such as crowdsourcing computing for scientific research or simulations. These experimental use cases highlight the potential of the network beyond traditional industry solutions. Nevertheless, standardization and security concerns remain underdeveloped, making it difficult for institutional users to adopt GLM-based solutions with full confidence.

GLM Tokenomics

Tokenomics: Exploring the Economic Framework of GLM

GLM, the native token of the Golem Network, serves as the backbone of its decentralized marketplace for computing power. Its tokenomics structure is thoughtfully designed, but like any crypto asset, it presents both strengths and challenges. Here’s a breakdown of the critical components shaping GLM’s utility and distribution.

Initial Allocation and Supply Cap

GLM operates with a fixed maximum supply of 1 billion tokens. This capped supply introduces scarcity, a mechanism that can underpin its value. The majority of the supply was pre-mined and distributed during the Golem ICO, and subsequent token swaps transitioned the original GNT (Golem Network Token) to GLM. While this fixed limit might appeal to investors interested in deflationary tokenomics, questions around equitable distribution have surfaced. Early adopters and ICO participants essentially control a substantial portion of the tokens, potentially leading to centralization risks if these holders dominate decision-making or liquidity.

Utility-Driven Demand

The primary utility of GLM is within the Golem Network ecosystem—acting as a payment medium for purchasing computational resources. Providers are incentivized to share their idle hardware resources in exchange for GLM tokens. While this utility fosters network participation, it ties the token’s demand directly to platform adoption. This dependency raises concerns if the demand for decentralized computing services does not scale or faces competition from alternative platforms, potentially stagnating token utility.

Staking and Incentivization Mechanisms

Unlike some crypto projects, GLM does not currently have a staking mechanism. This lack of passive income opportunities may deter token holders seeking yield-generating assets. Additionally, the absence of staking impacts network security, governance participation, and liquidity locking, creating a less dynamic economic model compared to staking-enabled ecosystems. Introducing staking mechanisms could enhance token holder engagement, but this is absent in GLM's current framework.

Liquidity and Exchange Ecosystem

GLM enjoys strong liquidity across multiple exchanges, making it accessible to a broad audience. However, concerns arise regarding reliance on centralized exchanges for trading volume, which could conflict with the decentralized ethos of the project. While current liquidity supports efficient trading, low participation on decentralized exchanges may limit resilience against regulatory scrutiny faced by centralized counterparts.

Inflation and Token Burn Policies

Given the fixed supply, GLM has no inflationary aspects. However, its tokenomics lacks a native burning mechanism to address surplus supply or transaction-driven deflation, which some other projects use to complement scarcity. Without such mechanisms, token velocity may remain high in periods of speculative trading, potentially undermining a stable valuation tied to network utility.

In summary, while GLM’s tokenomics demonstrate deliberate planning to support its decentralized marketplace, issues around centralization risks, limited incentivization mechanisms, and utility scaling must be considered for a comprehensive understanding of its economic framework.

GLM Governance

Governance of GLM: Decentralization, Challenges, and Processes

The governance structure of GLM, the utility token of the Golem Network, reflects its aim to function as a decentralized platform for sharing and monetizing computing power. However, as with many crypto assets, the governance mechanisms of GLM carry both innovative elements and inherent challenges that demand attention.

Decentralized Governance Framework

GLM governance revolves around the principles of decentralization, intending to minimize control by any single entity or centralized authority. Token holders are granted influence within the ecosystem, creating a model where decision-making aims to reflect the collective interest of the community. Any on-chain or off-chain change proposals impacting the Golem Network, such as protocol upgrades or resource allocation, theoretically hinge on broad participation by GLM token holders. However, achieving widespread participation in decentralized models often remains a persistent challenge.

Lack of Formalized Governance Processes

Unlike governance-heavy protocols that rely on explicit frameworks like DAOs (Decentralized Autonomous Organizations), the governance methodology for GLM is relatively lightweight. While this allows for operational efficiency and adaptability, it can also lead to ambiguity in critical decision-making processes. Without a clearly defined set of voting parameters or stakeholder incentives, the ecosystem may struggle with low engagement or unequal representation among token holders.

Centralization Risks

Although GLM governance strives to be decentralized, several risks remain. For instance, governance participation often hinges on token distribution. If a small number of entities hold a disproportionately large share of GLM tokens, decisions could become skewed, compromising the platform's claimed ethos of decentralization. Hidden centralization risks are a concern not just for governance but for the overall health of the network.

Proposal Execution and Transparency

A vital issue in many decentralized networks, including those involving GLM, is clarity around the status of proposals and their implementation. Who ensures that community-approved decisions are executed as intended? What accountability mechanisms exist to prevent deviations? The lack of robust, transparent reporting on governance actions and outcomes can erode trust within the community, potentially discouraging participation.

Low Token Holder Participation

Governance effectiveness is largely dependent on active involvement from token holders. Historically, decentralized networks—including those that leverage GLM—have experienced voter apathy. Whether due to the complexity of participation, lack of direct incentives, or general disinterest, this disengagement can lead to decisions being made by a small minority of stakeholders. Such outcomes might not reflect the wider community’s best interests.

Evolving Governance Priorities

The governance processes of GLM must continuously evolve to adapt to the technical and economic needs of the Golem Network. While this adaptability reflects the project's ambitions, it also opens the door to potential missteps or conflicts as governance priorities shift over time. Balancing transparency, decentralization, and decision-making efficiency remains an ongoing challenge for GLM.

Technical future of GLM

GLM Crypto Asset: Current and Future Technical Developments

The GLM token powers Golem Network’s decentralized computational resource-sharing ecosystem, with its technical roadmap steadily evolving to address scalability, interconnectivity, and ecosystem adaptability. Below is a dive into its ongoing and future technical developments, including potential challenges hindering progress.

Transition to Layer 2 Solutions

Scalability limitations inherent in Ethereum’s Layer 1 have driven GLM towards exploring integration with Layer 2 scaling solutions such as rollups and off-chain computation frameworks. By utilizing Layer 2, the Golem Network aims to significantly lower gas fees and boost transaction throughput for payments and interactions between resource providers and requesters. However, transitioning to Layer 2 introduces complexities in network architecture, including fragmented liquidity between layers or issues related to bridging GLM tokens. Such hurdles require coordinated governance and active community engagement to mitigate inefficiencies.

Decentralized Task Economy Upgrades

Technical developments are underway to enhance the decentralized task processing infrastructure. Efforts include improving task verification protocols to prevent fraudulent computations and introducing more robust staking mechanisms for participants. These upgrades seek to incentivize providers while maintaining trustless operations. A notable challenge, however, lies in achieving an optimal balance between security and usability, as overly complex verification layers could deter active adoption.

Multi-Platform Interoperability

The roadmap emphasizes creating compatibility between Golem and alternative blockchain platforms. Introducing multi-chain operability has the potential to broaden the usability of GLM, enabling developers to use the network across diversified ecosystems. Yet, constructing seamless cross-chain bridges poses technical challenges, particularly with ensuring decentralized governance and mitigating the risks of smart contract exploits.

Marketplace Development and SDK Expansion

To cater to a larger audience of developers, the Golem team is advancing its software development kits (SDKs) by incorporating more tools, libraries, and cross-language compatibility. Such improvements facilitate the creation of decentralized applications (dApps) that tap into the network’s computational power. At the same time, efforts to decentralize the internal marketplace remain a focus—moving away from centralized coordination towards a fully autonomous smart-contract-driven solution. Expected bottlenecks include the computational inefficiencies tied to managing increasing demand for complex workloads.

Adoption of Privacy-Enhancing Techniques

In response to the growing need for privacy-conscious computations, GLM seeks to incorporate privacy-enhancing technologies such as trusted execution environments (TEEs) and homomorphic encryption. However, integrating these methods without adding significant latency or computational overhead has proven complex. Compounding this issue, increased hardware requirements for privacy-focused computations could restrict entry for smaller users, potentially centralizing the network.

GLM’s technical roadmap illustrates a deliberate strategy toward scaling and diversifying its ecosystem, but the complexity of execution and associated challenges underline the nuanced nature of decentralized system innovation.

Comparing GLM to it’s rivals

GLM vs. FIL: Decentralized Computing vs. Decentralized Storage

The Golem Network (GLM) and Filecoin (FIL) provide distinct solutions within the blockchain ecosystem, yet share some overlapping use cases. GLM focuses on decentralized computing, enabling users to buy and sell unused computational power. In contrast, FIL is centered on decentralized storage, offering a blockchain-based solution for storing and retrieving data. Comparing these projects reveals key differences in technical architecture, use cases, and scalability challenges.

Protocol Architecture Differences

GLM’s core functionality lies in its task distribution protocol, where computational tasks are split, distributed, and processed across a network of participant nodes. This modular system is efficient for parallel computations like AI model training, scientific research, and CGI rendering. FIL, on the other hand, operates using a Proof-of-Storage protocol—more specifically, Proof-of-Replication (PoRep) and Proof-of-Spacetime (PoSt)—to validate that data is reliably stored over time. FIL’s system significantly prioritizes data verification, while GLM directs its resources toward processing power. This distinction results in GLM leaning computationally intensive, whereas FIL emphasizes data integrity.

Use Case Complexity

Though both projects enable decentralized solution scaling, their primary use cases diverge in practicality. GLM appeals to developers, organizations, or research-focused entities that require on-demand computation without investing in physical hardware. FIL’s utility is broader in the sense that secure storage is a universal requirement, but its adoption tends to depend on entities with large-scale, persistent data needs. That said, some niches—like rendering pipelines or distributed AI workloads—could potentially adopt either network, creating minor overlap but also competition for developer mindshare.

Economic Model Challenges

From a tokenomics perspective, sustainability differs markedly between the two. GLM relies on a simpler marketplace mechanism where GLM tokens serve solely as transaction payments for computational tasks. FIL, however, embeds a more complex fee model that combines storage collateral and retrieval incentives. While GLM’s straightforward economic design arguably increases accessibility, FIL’s mechanism can deter smaller participants due to capital lockup requirements and potentially uneven incentive distribution.

Scalability and Adoption Hurdles

Scaling limitations play out differently between GLM and FIL. GLM’s bottleneck lies in task execution speed and network bandwidth constraints when managing large datasets across decentralized nodes. FIL faces similar challenges, but with a stronger emphasis on ensuring long-term data reliability and maintaining cryptographic proofs, which can hinder scalability in high-demand scenarios.

Ultimately, the GLM and FIL ecosystems cater to different niches, and their comparative advantages—and shortcomings—highlight the trade-offs inherent in decentralizing computation versus data storage.

GLM vs RNDR: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Decentralized Compute Power

The Golem Network (GLM) and Render Network (RNDR) both operate within the decentralized compute power space, but their approaches and underlying technologies diverge in notable ways. These differences make them suitable for distinct user needs, while also highlighting potential limitations when examined critically.

Use Case Differentiation

GLM facilitates the renting of computational power for a wide array of tasks, including but not limited to machine learning, CGI rendering, and scientific simulations. This broad-spectrum approach appeals to developers and organizations seeking versatile solutions. On the other hand, RNDR is laser-focused on enabling decentralized GPU rendering specifically for 3D designers, artists, and other creators requiring high-fidelity, graphics-intensive workloads. This niche focus has allowed RNDR to carve out a strong foothold in the creative space, but it could be viewed as restrictive for broader computational use cases, which may limit its addressable market.

Network Architecture and Scalability

GLM relies on a marketplace-driven model where contributors—referred to as "providers"—offer idle computing resources ranging from CPUs to GPUs. Its marketplace is designed to be agnostic regarding hardware configuration, a feature that promotes greater inclusivity among providers. Conversely, RNDR’s architecture leverages GPU-specific rendering nodes, producing superior performance for rendering tasks but inherently narrowing its resource pool. While RNDR’s GPU specialization ensures higher-quality outcomes for its intended purpose, this emphasis could lead to scalability challenges if demand for GPU resources outpaces supplier availability. In contrast, GLM’s flexibility across computational tiers might better cushion it against scalability bottlenecks.

Performance vs. Accessibility

While RNDR’s ecosystem excels at producing high-efficiency rendering at competitive costs, its onboarding process for artists and contributors is reported to have a steeper learning curve due to its technical requirements. The requirement for specialized GPUs means that participation as a node operator is inherently restricted to those with higher-end hardware. GLM, by contrast, allows more generalized participation, reducing barriers for those who may have underpowered or varied computing resources. However, this inclusivity sometimes comes at the expense of task-specific optimization, where RNDR maintains its advantage.

Tokenomics Comparison

Both projects are built on token-based economies, but RNDR’s token utility directly ties into its rendering payment system, creating straightforward usage for artists purchasing compute power. GLM’s broader use cases could dilute its token's purpose, as end-users might not always find clarity in how the GLM token functions relative to each individual compute task. This divergence can impact both adoption and perception among crypto-savvy participants evaluating utility.

Conclusion

The GLM and RNDR networks each fill critical roles in decentralized computation, but their trade-offs in flexibility, scalability, and network focus make them better suited for different target audiences and needs.

GLM vs. GRT: A Focused Comparison of Use Cases and Technology

When evaluating Golem (GLM) against a decentralized indexing protocol like the Graph (GRT), the distinction lies squarely in the nature of function and target user base. While both are blockchain-based projects, their technical purposes and applications operate in fundamentally different spheres of Web3 infrastructure, leading to notable differences in user adoption, scalability challenges, and developer reliance.

The Graph focuses on blockchain data indexing, enabling dApps to query on-chain data efficiently through its open, decentralized APIs known as subgraphs. In contrast, Golem is a decentralized marketplace for computing resources, leveraging underutilized hardware to power diverse tasks—from CGI rendering to machine-learning computations. These contrasting use cases mean that GRT, unlike GLM, serves more directly as a backbone for on-chain data retrieval while developers build their applications. This tight integration with querying for dApps places GRT deeply embedded into core blockchain ecosystems, potentially giving it a greater moat in Web3 infrastructure.

From a technological standpoint, the protocols also diverge in how they leverage decentralization. GRT operates on a system reliant on indexers, curators, and delegators to maintain the network, resolving a specific bottleneck for real-time, scalable blockchain data management. GLM, on the other hand, decentralizes CPU and GPU power allocation, providing flexibility for compute-heavy tasks. However, this focus can create hurdles for certain niche markets. For instance, users of Golem often need scripting know-how to integrate jobs effectively into the network, whereas GRT appeals directly to developers who already rely on subgraphs for seamless querying.

A practical challenge arises in terms of network throughput. GRT's heavy dependency on Ethereum causes performance bottlenecks for projects relying on slower blockchains until Layer 2 scaling becomes universal. Meanwhile, GLM faces an entirely different issue—convincing developers and enterprises to switch from traditional cloud solutions like AWS or Azure. Despite lower costs on decentralized alternatives, skepticism regarding compute-job reliability persists, a critical adoption barrier.

Tokenomics also warrants attention. GRT’s staking model and incentivization of workflow participants result in a holistic ecosystem driving consistent utility. By contrast, GLM’s primary utility lies in compensating providers for compute tasks, creating a use case that can feel one-dimensional outside of its core functionality.

In summary, the fundamental dichotomy between GRT’s focus on blockchain infrastructure and GLM’s computation-market model creates unique advantages and friction points for each. These distinctions make it vital to assess how their adoption curves evolve to cater to increasingly specialized Web3 demands.

Primary criticisms of GLM

Primary Criticism of GLM: Challenges and Limitations Impacting Usability

GLM has drawn significant attention for its decentralized computational power marketplace, but it hasn’t escaped criticism, especially from a technical and operational standpoint. Below are some fundamental issues and drawbacks frequently raised within the crypto and developer communities.

Limited Decentralized Network Adoption

One of the main criticisms of GLM revolves around its dependency on widespread adoption to achieve its intended vision of leveraging dormant computational power. While the platform theoretically enables a peer-to-peer economy for resource sharing, critics argue that enterprise-grade use cases have yet to materialize. The decentralized network effect, essential for providing robust computational options, appears constrained. Without an extensive and active base of both providers and requestors, the ecosystem struggles to scale to its full potential, diminishing its overall utility.

User Experience Complexity

GLM's onboarding and usage processes are another area of concern. Despite offering an innovative solution, accessing its features can often feel overly technical and labor-intensive for non-developers or smaller-scale users. The requirement to integrate custom scripting, manage dependencies, and handle network mechanics may alienate casual users or small-scale enterprises. This complexity puts GLM at a disadvantage, especially when compared to more user-friendly centralized cloud solutions.

Token Model Criticism

GLM operates on a payment model that uses its native token as the medium of exchange between providers and requestors. Critics highlight that this introduces friction for users unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies or those who prefer to avoid holding volatile digital assets. Additionally, the token's value dependency on external market dynamics, outside of platform utility, is seen as a vulnerability. Such factors can deter broader adoption by entities wary of financial exposure unrelated to computational needs.

Regulatory and Legal Uncertainty

Running a decentralized computing marketplace at scale may expose GLM to regulatory scrutiny in multiple jurisdictions, especially when dealing with entities providing or requesting services across borders. Legal ambiguities surrounding distributed workloads and jurisdiction-specific compliance (e.g., GDPR issues with privacy-sensitive data processing) are potential roadblocks to mass adoption. These uncertainties add an extra layer of risk for end-users who require assurance regarding security and legality.

Competitive Pressure from Centralized Giants

GLM’s vision to decentralize computation faces an uphill battle against centralized cloud computing giants like Amazon Web Services or Google Cloud, which dominate the space. Not only do these competitors offer a seamless user experience and extensive documentation, but they also come with the financial capabilities to undercut pricing or rapidly innovate new services. This has led observers to question whether GLM’s decentralized model can carve out sufficient market relevance to stand apart.

Founders

GLM Founding Team: Insights into the Minds Behind the Project

GLM, previously known as Golem Network, was conceptualized and brought to life by a team of innovators deeply rooted in blockchain technology and decentralized computing. While the project has garnered significant attention for its ambitious vision of creating a decentralized marketplace for unused computational power, understanding its foundations begins with analyzing the people who set the direction.

At its core, the foundational team includes tech entrepreneurs and blockchain pioneers with a mix of technical, academic, and entrepreneurial backgrounds. Julian Zawistowski, often cited as the key driver behind GLM, serves as the most recognizable face of the project. His background predominantly focuses on economics and decentralized systems, having previously been involved in initiatives aimed at leveraging technology to solve inefficiencies in traditional frameworks. Notably, Zawistowski’s emphasis on creating systems that prioritize fairness and transparency formed the philosophical underpinnings of GLM’s development.

Another central figure in the founding team is Piotr Janiuk, the project's co-founder and CTO. With a strong engineering background, Janiuk’s expertise lies in software architecture, specifically systems requiring high scalability and computational efficiency. His work has been critical in shaping GLM’s technical framework and ensuring the network's computational functionality aligns with its ambitious goals. However, the pairing of such high-level technical challenges with the blockchain ecosystem has reportedly stretched the initial development timeline, drawing criticism from some in the crypto space.

Aleksandra Skrzypczak, another co-founder and technical lead, complements the team with her specialization in programming and distributed systems. Skrzypczak's involvement has extended beyond development into articulating the project’s vision, particularly how decentralized computing can empower users through resource sharing. Yet, internal reports from community discussions have speculated on occasional communication gaps between the technical team and the broader ecosystem, which may have contributed to misunderstandings about the network's progress.

The team’s origins are closely tied to Poland, with all founding members having strong professional and educational connections to the region. This localized origin, while fostering a tight-knit initial development phase, may have somewhat limited the project’s early ability to diversify its community and build a global brand image compared to competitors. Critics have noted that the team’s heavier focus on technical milestones early on may have come at the expense of strategic partnerships or broader outreach.

While the founding team holds significant technical expertise and a clear vision for GLM, their execution has not been without challenges. Lack of transparency in certain phases of development and varying communication strategies have sparked debates about their ability to effectively lead the project in the long term. The team's capability remains evident, but their approach continues to be scrutinized by the crypto-savvy community.

Authors comments

This document was made by www.BestDapps.com

Sources

Back to blog