web3modal VS neo

WalletConnect Web3 Modal (3700 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/WalletConnect/web3modal

Web3Modal

There are other several libraries to create a web3 enviroment as: Rainbowkit || Wagmi || Scaffold-eth || useDApp || web3modal || Web3-UI

It seems like a rare solution. There's this library which claims to help but on its demo site it has the same problem as what my code has.

Now lets install Web3Modal library(https://github.com/Web3Modal/web3modal). Web3Modal is an easy-to-use library to help developers add support for multiple providers in their apps with a simple customizable configuration. By default Web3Modal Library supports injected providers like (Metamask, Dapper, Gnosis Safe, Frame, Web3 Browsers, etc), You can also easily configure the library to support Portis, Fortmatic, Squarelink, Torus, Authereum, D'CENT Wallet and Arkane. Open up a terminal pointing atmy-app directory and execute this command

I've used web3modal in the past

The Web3Modal library is a simple Web3/Ethereum provider solution, which enables the addition of support for multiple providers in the application. The Web3Modal library supports the injected providers that we’ll rely on in this project, MetaMask and Tor.us.

I've asked in discord server, and a guy shared me that library : https://github.com/Web3Modal/web3modal

hardhat - Ethereum development environment web3modal - An easy-to-use library that allows users to connect their wallets to your app react-markdown and simplemde - Markdown editor and markdown renderer for the CMS @emotion/css - A great CSS in JS library @openzeppelin/contracts - Open source implementations of useful smart contract standards and functionality

Neo (3400 GitHub Stars) https://github.com/neo-project/neo

Some discussion that covers many of the arguments on both sides here: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2118

Take a look at something like https://github.com/neo-project/neo or https://github.com/Felandil/tangle-.net to see how much work is really required just to get something basic up and running.

Yes, this was a topic of considerable debate during N3's development. The degree to which one considers it a serious issue really depends on what one sees as the key features of governance--stability vs. democratic expression, etc. Of course, the basic fact of a node falling out of the top 21 isn't weird; the question is more around how easy it should be to get back in.

It's good discuss the voting mechanism and other aspects of NEO. Have you seen the comments on GitHub? A lot of people and devs (also people ^_^) are there, for example: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2598

One, there has been quite a bit of discussion over the past year about the design of the new governance system, and its potential flaws with respect to promoting node turnover--e.g. here, but also at various times in this sub (sidebar, you'll see that your "votes are reset" idea was proposed in that thread, say). As an oversimplified TL;DR, I think many--myself included--would agree with you that the system tends to promote the status quo. Where things get muddy is whether that's a feature or a bug. For reasons of both regulatory compliance and stability, the Neo team has intentionally designed a system where turnover, while possible, isn't specifically incentivized; that is, in their view it should happen because there's a strong, governance-related reason for it, not because of financial incentives.

The governance model has been designed to incentivise stability while still allowing flexibility. However, the issue you raise is already being discussed on GitHub here: https://github.com/neo-project/neo/issues/2598