Polkadot doesn’t have to be an “Ethereum killer” to succeed, according to protocol founder Gavin Wood.

In a ‘fireside chat’ with podcaster Laura Shin during Thursday’s Polkadot Decoded business summit, Wood was asked if his protocol could co-exist with Ethereum given his lofty development goals and growing success in attracting new developers.

Wood acknowledged that the blockchain ecosystem is large enough for both protocols, but said Polkadot is essentially a “bet against blockchain maximalism”.

He said the story surrounding Ethereum today is that “there only needs to be one blockchain,” but added that he never adopted that concept.

“When Ethereum becomes a chain that can be bridged […] I think there is a very good chance that Polkadot and Ethereum will happily co-exist. ”

Polkadot is being built as a ‘network of networks’, where ‘bridging and connectivity’ are the two main factors driving the creation of a more fluid ecosystem.

Founded in 2016, Dot is a multi-chain interoperability protocol that allows the transfer of any type of data or assets on its network. Sometimes it is referred into an “Ethereum killer” due to the surge in active development on the platform and potential use cases.

The project’s initial coin offering, or ICO, generated $ 144.63 million in revenue in 2017, making it one of the most successful crowdfunding campaigns. Since launching its mainnet in May and following a successful token, DOT, in August, Polkadot has quickly emerged as a top ten cryptocurrency.

At the time of writing, DOT had a total market capitalization of just over $ 4.8 billion.

During the hour-long conversation with Shin, Wood was also pressed about the possible legal implications of this Polkadot’s so-called initial parachain sacrifice, or IPO, which is billed as a more transparent funding method for decentralized applications and other cryptocurrency projects.

While Wood admitted that there have not yet been any legal consultations regarding the offering of parachains, he is not overly concerned about the regulations as IPOs are more like stake out than value transfer. He described IPOs as “a guaranteed lock-up situation and a guaranteed return when the lock-up is over.”