After establishing a signing mechanism, the next challenge was selecting an appropriate web framework. Our search revealed that webzjs—maintained by ChainSafe—was essentially the only viable option in the ecosystem. Initially, it seemed promising for our use case. However, as we dug deeper into the implementation details, we discovered some practical limitations that required further evaluation. The framework's capabilities looked solid on paper, but real-world deployment presented unexpected complexities that forced us to reassess our architectural approach.
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.
21 Likes
Reward
21
8
Repost
Share
Comment
0/400
GasOptimizer
· 14h ago
Can the on-paper data really differ so much from the actual implementation? How deep is the Webzjs pit? We need to add an extra factor during cost estimation.
View OriginalReply0
DefiPlaybook
· 01-04 03:03
It's the same old trick... When choosing a framework, the on-paper data looks great, but once it's on the chain, you realize it's full of pitfalls. I've also tinkered with webzjs; ChainSafe's maintenance level is indeed good, but how do we solve the issue of a single ecosystem?
View OriginalReply0
HashBandit
· 01-03 09:47
lmao webzjs being the "only viable option" hits different when you remember back in my mining days we had actual choices... now everything's just bottlenecked by ecosystem limitations anyway. paper capabilities always feel so cute until production goes sideways, ngl. this is why rollups matter fr
Reply0
GasWaster
· 01-03 09:42
Webzjs looks good, but it really underperforms when used in practice. This is the current state of Web3... There are too few options in the ecosystem.
View OriginalReply0
FancyResearchLab
· 01-03 09:38
In theory, it's perfect, but in reality, it's another smart trap. Webzjs seems capable, but once you use it, it's full of surprises—like a construction site with Luban No. 7.
View OriginalReply0
GasFeeSurvivor
· 01-03 09:36
The old trick of armchair strategizing is full of pitfalls when actually used.
View OriginalReply0
SnapshotBot
· 01-03 09:28
Webzjs looks pretty good, but actually it's just so-so. The theoretical work and real deployment are way off.
View OriginalReply0
StablecoinSkeptic
· 01-03 09:23
Webzjs sounds like a scam, flashy on paper but a letdown in practice... Isn't this just the norm in the Web3 ecosystem?
After establishing a signing mechanism, the next challenge was selecting an appropriate web framework. Our search revealed that webzjs—maintained by ChainSafe—was essentially the only viable option in the ecosystem. Initially, it seemed promising for our use case. However, as we dug deeper into the implementation details, we discovered some practical limitations that required further evaluation. The framework's capabilities looked solid on paper, but real-world deployment presented unexpected complexities that forced us to reassess our architectural approach.