观点:「链抽象」会成为「模块化」之后的大热门

深潮Publicado em 2024-08-05Última atualização em 2024-08-05

「链抽象」短期内也会有 infra application 的叙事为主阶段。

撰文:Haotian

@ParticleNtwrk 获得 Binance labs 投资的消息引发了市场热议。有人说这是 $PARTI 提前锁定币安的市场信号,我反倒想再次强化输出下观点:「链抽象」会成为「模块化」之后的大热门,VC、交易所热捧之外,整个赛道上下游配套已经耕耘许久了。

1)虽然链抽象和模块化同宗同脉,但模块化目标提高开发组合效率,能促进市场基建面的繁荣,链抽象的目标则是增强用户体验为快速扩大增量用户进场铺路。因此,二者本质上都是向 Crypto 注入生产力效能,「链抽象」更接地气一些,是「模块化」的下一站。

2)「链抽象」乍一看也是空泛的叙事,但链抽象走向前台说明市场开发资源已经很充分,竞争环境已然很严峻了。道理很简单,模块化只需选中 DA 层、Execution 层、interoperability 层等任意一个层,打一个差异化的点就可以勾勒出一番宏大盛景,链抽象显然不能够了。

「链抽象」需要在市场运营面、资源触达面、资金累积面、用户体验口碑面等都要出彩才行。Particle Network 就是其中一个佼佼者。

3)「链抽象」背后有很强的 web2「成熟」产品力输入。都在诟病过往 web3 世界的钱包、链、协议等还是「草台班子」,但随着 web 主流资本、人才的卷入,web2 的产品、运营、商业体系也都逐步向 web3 渗透。很长一段时间,这类产品以默默耕耘为主,不过「链抽象」叙事走向焦点叙事舞台,会给它们更多浮出水面的机会。

4)除了 Particle 之外,我随便再例举上下游几个项目:

1)@ProjectZKM 基于 ZK 技术做统一流动性聚合调动中心,抽象了 EVM 和 BTC 等 Non-EVM 的链的流动性;

2)@dappOS_com 推出了 Solver 执行网络,从应用服务端切入带动 intent 交易范式的转移;

3)@ApertureFinance 集成 intent 定制化交易体验,通过应用在 B 端机构和 C 端用户方向已经累积了庞大用户基础;

4)@cyclenetwork_GO 主打 Bridgeless 的全链流动性统一服务协议,也有币安孵化支持;

此外,还有很多诸如 @NEARProtocol ,@bentobatch ,@khalani_network 等做前端体验优化甚至集成 AI Agent 的应用和服务平台等等。

从 ERC4337 等标准上游到做统一流动性调度层的服务协议,再到已经直面消费市场在 B 端和 C 端都有用户受众累积的应用,整个链抽象赛道相较之下偏成熟一些,有更切实际的应用场景和完善的商业预期想象空间。(二级市场的估值标准也会有所不同。

整体而言,「链抽象」短期内也会有 infra > application 的叙事为主阶段,很多担心有 Fomo 出一堆协议和链来,重走模块化的老路,但链抽象需要综合实力的比拼,洗牌和竞争会更快,关键其背后反衬出来的行业演化方向和成熟产品力的推动进步意义不容小觑,值得长期关注挖宝。

Leituras Relacionadas

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

**Title: Why Isn't DeFi Insurance Being Bought?** DeFi insurance, which promised automated, unbiased payouts via smart contracts, has failed to gain traction. The core issue is economic: high premiums severely erode the yields that attract users to DeFi in the first place. For example, insuring a USDC deposit on Aave V3 could cost 1.5–2.5% of the annual yield, leaving a net return barely above a savings account. For riskier platforms like Maple Finance or Ethena, premiums can even turn net yields negative. Consequently, users often forgo insurance, as it nullifies their profit motive. The market also suffers from structural flaws. First, DeFi risks are highly correlated (e.g., an oracle failure can impact multiple protocols simultaneously), unlike the independent risks in traditional insurance. This makes large-scale events potentially catastrophic for insurers. Second, the total capital in DeFi insurance pools (e.g., Nexus Mutual's ~$81.5M) is minuscule compared to the hundreds of billions in total value locked (TVL), creating a massive capacity gap. A single major hack could drain the entire industry's reserves. Furthermore, the governance model where tokenholders vote on claims creates a conflict of interest, incentivizing them to deny payouts to protect their own funds. As a result, the sector is shrinking. While pioneers like Nexus Mutual are pivoting to preventative measures (bug bounties) and seeking external capital via reinsurance, the fundamental problems remain. DeFi insurance represents a public good—its stability benefits the entire ecosystem—but without a mechanism to share costs, a "tragedy of the commons" ensues where no one is willing to pay, leaving the system vulnerable.

marsbitHá 7m

Why Does No One Buy DeFi Insurance?

marsbitHá 7m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片