This may take 3 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,293 pending submissions
waiting for review.
If the submission is accepted, then this page will be moved into the article space.
If the submission is declined, then the reason will be posted here.
In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the
talk page of a
relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant
WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
This draft's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about
mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you have not resolved the issues listed above, your draft will be declined again and potentially deleted.
If you need extra help, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors.
Please do not remove reviewer comments or this notice until the submission is accepted.
Where to get help
If you need help editing or submitting your draft, please ask us a question at the AfC Help Desk or get live help from experienced editors. These venues are only for help with editing and the submission process, not to get reviews.
If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the
talk page of a
relevant WikiProject. Some WikiProjects are more active than others so a speedy reply is not guaranteed.
To improve your odds of a faster review, tag your draft with relevant
WikiProject tags using the button below. This will let reviewers know a new draft has been submitted in their area of interest. For instance, if you wrote about a female astronomer, you would want to add the Biography, Astronomy, and Women scientists tags.
This submission appears to
read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a
neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of
independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's
verifiability policy and the
notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
This draft's references do not show that the subject
qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:
in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about
mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Comment: Sourcing issues not addressed. Too many primary sources, too many cryptocurrency sources. Strongly suggest you write a version entirely based only on mainstream RSes with no cryptocurrency media -
David Gerard (
talk) 10:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Update from 21-March-2024: Page re-written based on mainstream RSes as suggested. All details listed on the main article's
talkpage. --
Mgloor (
talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Update from June 2024: It's time to bring this page on-line to WP main namespace. Draft overview on
talkpage. Page in DRAFT namespace since March (4 months), not challenged since weeks. All concerns eliminated. --
Mgloor (
talk) 05:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Pulsechain's development began in response to the growing challenges faced by the
Ethereum network scalability issues.[6] As
Ethereum gained popularity, transaction fees (gas) skyrocketed [7][8], hindering user adoption and limiting the functionality of Decentralized Applications (dApps) built on the platform.
Conception (2021):
Richard Heart, the founder of the HEX project, proposed PulseChain as a solution to
Ethereum's scalability issues.[6]
Sacrifice Phase (Early 2023): PulseChain conducted a "sacrifice" phase, allowing users to contribute various cryptocurrencies or fiat currency to designated addresses. In return, participants received equivalent amounts of Pulse (PLS) tokens once the network launched. During the PulseChain sacrifice, 25 million dollars were raised for the SENS foundation.[9]
Mainnet Launch (May 2023): PulseChain's mainnet and its native
Decetranlized Exchange (DEX) PulseX. This airdrop was hailed by some as the largest in crypto history, while others questioned its long-term economic sustainability.[10][11][12][13]
Present Day (2024): PulseChain exists as a functional network, processing transactions and facilitating dApps. Close to 50,000 active
Blockchain validators validate transactions and participate in the consensus process to secure the network, ensuring adherence to network rules and preventing tampering. They contribute to block production, network security, and governance while incentivized through rewards mechanisms, fostering trust and decentralization within the blockchain ecosystem.[14]
Technical Specifications
Pulsechain is a full-state fork of the architecture of
Ethereum 2.0. with major modifications reflected in PulseChain's Gitlab repository, in summary:[1]
Consensus Mechanism: While details are still emerging, PulseChain is expected to utilize a Proof-of-Stake (PoS) consensus mechanism similar to
Ethereum's current model after the Merge.
Block Time: PulseChain boasts a faster block time compared to
Ethereum, aiming for quicker transaction processing.
Native Token: The native token of PulseChain is called Pulse (PLS). It serves various purposes within the network, including:
Activating validators
Paying transaction fees
Bridging assets to other blockchains
Promises and Controversies
PulseChain promises to offer several advantages over
Ethereum, including:
Lower transaction fees: By improving scalability, PulseChain significantly reduced the gas costs associated with
Ethereum transactions on its PulseChain network.
Faster transaction processing: With a faster block time, PulseChain has proven significantly quicker confirmation times for transactions.
Support for existing
Ethereum projects: By replicating the
Ethereum state, PulseChain claims seamless compatibility with existing
Ethereum-based Decentralized Applications (dApps) and tokens. This "free" replication provides users with copies of their
Ethereum holdings on the PulseChain network.
PulseChain is a contentious project also facing criticism:
Centralization Concerns: The project's founder,
Richard Heart, has been accused of wielding excessive control over the network, raising concerns about centralization.
Sustainability of "Free" Tokens: Doubts exist around the long-term economic viability of replicating
Ethereum assets without a clear value proposition for the PulseChain network itself.
Legality and Regulatory Issues: The legality of PulseChain's token distribution method (referred to as a "sacrifice" phase) has been questioned, with potential regulatory hurdles on the horizon.[15][16]
-
in-depth (not just brief mentions about the subject or routine announcements)
-
reliable
-
secondary
-
strictly independent of the subject
Make sure you add references that meet all four of these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.