跨链已死?多链未来只剩两个方向

区块律动Pubblicato 2022-04-02Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-04-02

Introduzione

其他公链将会发展出自己的独特优势,但随着时间的推移,大多数链(尤其是 EVM 链)最终还是会迁移成为一条以太坊 Rollup。

本文梳理自加密研究员 pseudotheos 在个人社交媒体平台上的观点,律动 BlockBeats 对其整理翻译如下:
跨链从技术角度来看已经是一个死胡同,未来加密世界的发展只有两条路径:通过以太坊 Rollups 提供安全保障,或者多链独立发展。
事实证明,在单个跨链桥合约里存放巨额财富并非是一个优质的解决方案,不仅充满了单点故障,而且还为目标链引入了巨大的传染风险向量。
Poly Network 被盗 6.11 亿美元、Wormhole 被盗 3.26 亿美元、Ronin 被盗 6.24 亿美元,短短几个月,这样的案例就已经不胜枚举,而这些被盗事件的相同点全是因为跨链桥出现了问题。
如果你还不了解跨链桥的机制,以下是它们的工作方式:
用户将自己的资产锁定在源链上的合约中,跨链合约在确认资产后在目标链上铸造一个等价的资产凭证,来代表该资产。(律动注,在《当你在进行跨链时,资产真的转移了么?》中有详细介绍)
在目标链上,用户实际是在拿这个 IOU 凭证在进行交易,而真正的资产仍存储在源链的智能合约里,这就是传染风险的源头。
如果源端合约出现漏洞利用事件,目标链上的 IOU 资产就失去了背书,也就没有了任何价值。这时所有在目标链上使用该 IOU 资产协议都必将受到影响,比如资产定价错误、清算等。
正因为如此,「跨链」这一思路很可能已经是死路一条。在我看来,任何声称它还有复生希望的人都是因为自己与其有利益关系。
在这样的前提下,加密行业目前就只剩下两种发展方向:
一、以 Rollup 为中心的未来
在以 Rollup 为中心的环境里,一个协议只需要在底层 L1 上部署一次资产,就可以和该 L1 链上的其他 Rollup 实现「天然」的互操作性。
即使是链下 Rollups 同样允许资产退出到 L1 上,而不是像跨链那样被困在在目标链上。原生的 Rollups 还消除了从 L1 到 L2 的桥接风险。
此外,Rollups 独具的 DA 灵活性还可以使其根据需要在链上或链下存储数据,既可以适应小众的应用链,也可以满足执行层对扩展性的巨大需求。最重要的是,Rollups 极大地降低了安全预算。
二、多链未来
在一个没有互操作性的多链未来,协议需要在每条链上分别部署本地资产,这会使每条链都有不同的安全假设。
另外,链与链之间需要通过中心化交易平台来帮助它们实现资产的转移,或者需要通过相互协作以打造新的交易机制。
在科技发展史上,具备便捷性、可组合性和低成本的技术总是能够取胜。
即使多链发展的未来仍由 EVM(高速、低成本)主导,各具独立共识机制的公链也不太可能从以 Rollup 为中心的以太坊手中抢占太多的市场份额。
我预计,其他公链将会发展出自己的独特优势,但随着时间的推移,大多数链(尤其是 EVM 链)最终还是会迁移成为一条以太坊 Rollup。

Letture associate

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's Latest Warning: Betting Entirely on a Single AI Model Hands Over a Company's Lifeblood

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella warns that companies relying solely on a single AI model could jeopardize their survival. He argues that over-dependence leads to "vendor lock-in," where businesses risk ceding control over their core data, memory, contextual history, and AI usage patterns. This dependence essentially outsources a company's critical thinking and operational know-how to an external provider. The deeper a company integrates with one AI system—feeding it prompts, internal data, and workflows—the more it reveals its unique business methods and competitive edge. This accumulated knowledge could become accessible to the AI supplier. Furthermore, switching providers becomes extremely costly and complex, as companies would need to rebuild their entire AI-augmented workflow, memory, and tool integrations from scratch. Nadella's solution is "decoupling." Companies should separate their proprietary data, memory, and control layer (or "harness") from the underlying AI models. By retaining metadata from every AI interaction, businesses can preserve their operational "brain" or institutional knowledge. This allows them to flexibly use different AI models (e.g., from OpenAI, Anthropic, Microsoft) for specific tasks without losing their accumulated expertise. The core idea: companies can rent the smartest models available, but they must keep their own "brain" and operational control firmly in-house.

marsbit34 min fa

Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella's Latest Warning: Betting Entirely on a Single AI Model Hands Over a Company's Lifeblood

marsbit34 min fa

Miners Advised Not to Buy GPUs for AI and to Focus on Infrastructure

A founder at an energy investment forum advises bitcoin miners not to purchase GPUs for AI themselves, but to instead focus on infrastructure like power and data center space. Mike Alfred of Alpine Fox stated that while AI infrastructure demand is a long-term, 20-30 year trend, it presents a key choice for miners. The first, riskier model involves owning and operating GPUs, which requires financing expensive hardware that quickly becomes obsolete. The second, more conservative model is akin to real estate: providing colocation services where clients bring their own servers, and the miner sells space, power, cooling, and water. Alfred noted this model is easier to finance. Most existing bitcoin mining sites are difficult and expensive to convert for AI, as AI data centers require far higher construction costs, redundant fiber connections, backup power, complex cooling, and near 100% uptime. A hybrid model, where mining acts as a flexible load to use excess power during AI data center construction or from generation facilities, was discussed. However, participants concluded this is only viable with very cheap power; otherwise, developers are better off focusing solely on AI. Miners are increasingly being evaluated for their available power capacity and project portfolios rather than just bitcoin output. Panelists also warned of risks in the AI sector, predicting at least one major default or contract breach among AI tenants, lenders, or landlords before bitcoin's next halving in 2028.

cryptonews.ru44 min fa

Miners Advised Not to Buy GPUs for AI and to Focus on Infrastructure

cryptonews.ru44 min fa

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

"Millisecond 'Paid Queue-Jumping': How Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Became a Multi-Million Dollar Annual Business" In traditional finance, high-frequency trading firms spend millions on infrastructure for millisecond advantages. Hyperliquid has translated this race onto the blockchain with its "Priority Fee" system, creating an open economic game for speed. This system auctions two types of priority: **Gossip Priority** for faster data feeds (via a Dutch auction every 3 minutes), and **Order Priority** for front-of-queue trade execution (users bid a fee for lower latency). This converts a hardware race into a transparent, market-priced mechanism. Since launch, this feature has generated over $5M in protocol revenue. Projected annualized buybacks from this income exceed $30M, accounting for ~7% of total protocol revenue. The demand stems from large traders and market makers on Hyperliquid, for whom milliseconds can mean the difference between profit/loss or avoiding liquidation. Market makers pay these fees as "protection" to ensure their orders execute first, which in turn improves liquidity for all users. Crucially, Hyperliquid internalizes Maximum Extractable Value (MEV) that typically leaks to external validators or searchers, creating a new revenue stream beyond trading fees. The mechanism also strengthens HYPE's tokenomics. While 97% of trading fees fund secondary market buybacks (via the Assistance Fund), Priority Fees are **directly burned**, adding a second deflationary engine. Furthermore, fees for order priority are deducted from users' undelegated HYPE balances, encouraging large traders to hold and lock up tokens, reducing circulating supply. However, a key challenge remains: balancing the speed needs of institutional players with fair market access for retail users, as those who cannot pay high fees may suffer worse slippage during volatility. In summary, Hyperliquid's Priority Fee is a novel model that monetizes latency, captures MEV for the protocol, and enhances its native token's value through burning and lock-ups.

marsbit49 min fa

Millisecond 'Pay-to-Cut': How Did Hyperliquid's Priority Fee Turn into a Multi-Million Dollar Business?

marsbit49 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片