Paradigm亲自下场开发,Layer2赛道再添新玩家

Odaily星球日报Опубликовано 2024-10-14Обновлено 2024-10-14

Введение

Paradigm宣布向Ithaca投资2000万美元,致力于构建名为Odyssey的Layer2区块链。

原文作者:Frank,PANews

10 月 11 日,Paradigm 宣布已向 Ithaca 投资 2000 万美元,致力于构建名为 Odyssey 的 Layer 2 区块链。与此前简单的财务投资不同,Paradigm 还向 Ithaca 派出了多位高管进行任职,其中 Paradigm 首席技术官兼普通合伙人 Georgios Konstantopoulos 将担任 Ithaca 的首席执行官,Paradigm 联合创始人 Matt Huang 将担任 Ithaca 的董事长。

亲自下场打造来 Layer 2 Odyssey

事实上,Paradigm 内部一直有团队在构建开源项目,据 Ithaca 介绍,过去四年的时间内,Paradigm 已经组织了不到 20 人的工程师团队构建了一些业界常用的开源工具,如 Reth 和 Foundry。从这个角度来看,Ithaca 实际上是 Paradigm 正式将技术项目团队独立出来作为一家新公司。而这个新公司的首个项目,就是以太坊 Layer 2 网络 Odyssey。

Konstantopoulos 在接受媒体采访时将 Odyssey 称为“来自未来的 Layer 2 ”,“Odyssey 的与众不同之处在于,它提供了以太坊未来路线图的多项功能,而这些功能尚未由任何其他团队构建”,Konstantopoulos 解释说,“更强大的智能合约钱包意味着加密货币的无摩擦加入,这是正在解决最重要的问题之一。”

Paradigm亲自下场开发,Layer2赛道再添新玩家目前 Odyssey 的测试网 Chapter 1 已在 Sepolia 上线,由 Reth(OP Stack)构建,并部署在 Conduit 上。PANews 发现 Odyssey 当前推出的钱包功能确实与以往的区块链项目有所不同。在使用过程中,Odyssey 不需要传统的钱包拓展应用来创建账户,而是直接可采用 Google 或 Apple 的秘钥管理工具。

无钱包、不用 Gas 币、不桥接的创新网络

据官方资料介绍,Odyssey 允许用户在不安装钱包、不拥有 Gas 代币、不与桥交互的情况下登录,且无需设置新的 RPC。这可以跨设备和跨应用程序工作,利用操作系统的钥匙串或密码管理器。此外,Odyssey Chapter 1 当中还包含了多个 EIP(Ethereum Improvement Proposals,即以太坊改进提案),如 EIP-7702 (账户抽象)、EOF(EVM 对象格式)、RIP-7212 (secp 256 r 1 椭圆曲线预编译)等新技术方案。尤其据介绍 RIP-7212 可使 gas 成本相比于传统方法降低最多 50 倍。Ithaca 表示已经和 Optimism、Uniswap、Conduit、Flashbots、Succinct 和 Base 等L2网络密切合作,以最大限度地提高 EVM 性能并改善开发人员和用户体验。

Paradigm亲自下场开发,Layer2赛道再添新玩家

截至目前,Odyssey 的可用功能体验还不多,根据其测试网浏览器显示,目前的总地址数约为 2700 个,总交易笔数 13 万笔。据介绍 Odyssey 接下来的两个网络升级称为 Pectra 和 Fusaka。不过,关于用户可能更为关心的,是否有空投计划目前并未有任何消息。

投资项目表现不佳不如自己来做

近期,Layer 2 赛道似乎迎来了一些不一样的选手。前有 Uniswap 宣布推出 Unichain,如今又有 Paradigm 投资方亲自下场打造 Layer 2 。

此前,Paradigm 曾投资多个以太坊L2,如 Optimism、StarkNet、Aztec Network、Blast 等。不过从当前的发展情况来看这些项目的状况并不理想,在几个L2的对比中,PANews 发现,Optimism、StarkNet、Blast 等L2的数据远远低于 Arbitrum 或 Base。以 10 月 10 日数据为例,表现最好的 Optimism 活跃地址数仅为 9.8 万个,Blast 为 3.8 万,而同期的 Base 为 160 万、Arbitrum 为 48 万。

或许是投资的L2未能实现 Paradigm 的预期,才选择如今亲自下场?

除了L2的表现不尽如人意之外,Paradigm 最近投资的其他一些项目也表现不佳。爆火一时的 Friend.tech 自空投之后便一蹶不振, 7 月 9 日,日活用户更是跌至 15 人。截至 9 月 24 日数据显示,Friend.tech 日活用户仅剩 8 人。Paradigm 的声誉也因此连带受损。

Paradigm亲自下场开发,Layer2赛道再添新玩家

难道 Paradigm 受够了不靠谱的合作伙伴,才选择此番举动,我们不得而知。在篇幅不多的官网上, Ithaca 特地将价值观作为一栏(官网总共有 4 栏),其中有一句说到,“致力于推动事情向前发展比你试图保持正确更重要”,或许,这句话便是 Paradigm 行动的注解。

Похожее

Six Complaints from an Ethereum Developer

A disgruntled early Ethereum developer and token holder presents six core criticisms of the project's trajectory, contrasting it with Solana's rise. 1. **Premature Complacency**: The Ethereum Foundation shifted from a "building" to an "infrastructure" mindset too soon, adopting a passive, "retired chairman" posture before securing market dominance, reflected in ETH's ~65% decline against BTC post-Merge. 2. **Misguided Messaging**: The Merge was marketed primarily on ESG (99.95% energy reduction) rather than user benefits like speed or yield, appealing to internal ideals instead of market demands. 3. **Delayed Execution**: Proof-of-Stake, on the roadmap since 2015, took seven years to launch, ceding critical narrative and development windows. Competitors like Solana built entire ecosystems in that time. 4. **Poor Native Staking UX**: Years after the Merge, there is still no first-party, user-friendly staking application, forcing reliance on centralized services like Lido and undermining ETH's "sound money" narrative. 5. **Managed Decline**: The rollup-centric roadmap deliberately weakens the base layer's fee capture, outsourcing value and profitability to L2s like Arbitrum and Base, which issue their own tokens and fragment capital. 6. **Ideology Over Product**: Ethereum culture prioritizes philosophical purity ("credible neutrality," "public goods") over competitive product delivery that meets user demands (e.g., financialization), while Solana's ecosystem focuses on coordinated execution. The diagnosis is accumulated execution debt, not a coordination failure. Ethereum possessed a structural advantage in 2021 but spent years in governance debates, while Solana efficiently executed. The current market cap reflects these specific strategic failures, not abstract theory.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Six Complaints from an Ethereum Developer

marsbit1 ч. назад

Six Complaints from an Ethereum Developer

Six Grievances from an Ethereum Developer The author, an early investor and developer still building on Ethereum, expresses deep frustration with its trajectory and declining ETH/BTC price since the merge. The core argument is that Ethereum's current market position stems from concrete failures in execution and strategy, not abstract coordination problems. The first grievance targets a shift in the Ethereum Foundation's mentality from builders to "infrastructure," adopting a premature posture of a retired victor. Second, marketing the Merge around ESG (99.95% energy reduction) is seen as talking to its own conscience rather than the market, which prioritizes user experience and yield. Third, the seven-year delay in delivering Proof-of-Stake (PoS) ceded critical narrative and development time to competitors like Solana. Fourth, three years post-merge, there is still no user-friendly first-party staking application, forcing reliance on centralized services like Lido and undermining ETH's monetary narrative. Fifth, the rollup-centric roadmap has strategically surrendered base-layer fee capture to L2s, fragmenting value within the ecosystem while Solana demonstrates an integrated L1's value accrual. Finally, the author criticizes an institutional culture that prioritizes philosophical ideals (credible neutrality, pluralism) over competitive product delivery focused on what users actually want. The diagnosis is "accumulated execution debt." Ethereum possessed a structural advantage in 2021 but spent years in governance debates, while Solana's ecosystem coordinated efficiently to deliver and capture the next wave of value. The conclusion is that Ethereum's market cap reflects its abandonment of the fight for asset appreciation.

链捕手1 ч. назад

Six Complaints from an Ethereum Developer

链捕手1 ч. назад

Token Budget Wars: Enterprise AI Enters the 'Accounting Era'

Token Budget Wars: Enterprise AI Enters the "Accounting Era" Enterprise AI is shifting from the question of "whether to adopt" to "how to account for it." As AI inference costs evolve from experimental budgets into ongoing operational expenses, CEOs and CFOs are demanding proof of value: what tangible results does each dollar spent on tokens deliver? The core of "Token Budget Wars" is not simply about reducing AI bills, but about intelligently allocating compute resources. It involves determining which business processes warrant more computational power, which tasks can use cheaper models, which can be outsourced or handled manually, and which are merely inefficient consumption. A key insight is that AI usage (token consumption) does not equal value. While SaaS usage indicated software adoption, AI token usage only indicates the "meter is running." The same workflow can cost vastly different amounts due to factors like prompt quality, context, model choice, and retries. The critical metric for scaling is "marginal token utility"—the business value created per additional dollar of inference cost. However, this is difficult to measure due to challenges like the long tail of retries, context inflation (where costs can scale quadratically with context length), and inefficient model routing (defaulting to the most powerful model for all tasks). The competition for token allocation is intensifying because, in the AI era, influence is tied to how much intelligence one can command, not just team size. AI spending is essentially competing with labor costs, whether for replacing external BPOs, internal staff, or generating new revenue. BPO contracts provide a clearer benchmark as they are priced per completed unit. The missing layer is attribution from tokens to business outcomes. Companies need a system that connects inference spending to completed work and results, capturing the agent's decision trajectory—what it saw, retrieved, tried, and why it succeeded or failed. This recorded rationale becomes a valuable asset. Ultimately, those who master token-to-outcome attribution will control the allocation of AI resources within enterprises, deciding which workflows get more compute, which are capped, or which revert to humans. The first phase of enterprise AI proved models could do the work. The next phase will determine how much of that work is worth paying for.

marsbit2 ч. назад

Token Budget Wars: Enterprise AI Enters the 'Accounting Era'

marsbit2 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片