市场分析

项目动态

监管政策

技术发展

交易策略

The article "From ETH to SOL: Why L1s Will Ultimately Lose to Bitcoin?" argues that Bitcoin (BTC) is increasingly dominating the "cryptomoney" narrative, leaving little room for other Layer-1 (L1) blockchains to compete for monetary premium.

The core of the argument is that approximately 81% of the total crypto market cap is invested in assets viewed as money or potential money, with BTC alone accounting for 55%. While L1s like ETH, XRP, BNB, and SOL represent a significant portion of the remaining value, their valuations are not primarily driven by revenue or real economic activity. Data shows that L1 revenues have been declining annually, yet their price-to-earnings ratios have soared, suggesting their market caps are almost entirely propped up by speculation on future monetary premium, not fundamentals.

The performance of L1s against BTC further supports this. Since December 2022, eight of the top ten L1s have underperformed BTC, with six lagging by over 40%. Solana (SOL) was a notable exception, outperforming BTC by 87%. However, this gain is put into perspective by its ecosystem's explosive growth: a ~3,000% increase in DeFi TVL, fees, and DEX volume. This indicates that an L1 must achieve astronomical, orders-of-magnitude growth to merely eke out a modest performance lead over BTC.

The conclusion is that the trend of BTC consolidating monetary premium at the expense of L1s is irreversible. The narrative that an L1 could become "money" is losing credibility as investors now have a decade of data showing that L1s consistently underperform BTC unless their ecosystems experience extreme, unsustainable growth. Without genuine economic growth, L1s' monetary premium will continue to erode.

<html><head></head><body>Original Title:Can L1s Compete Against BTC as Cryptomoney?Original Author: AvgJoesCrypto, MessariOriginal Compilation: Dingdang, Odaily Planet Daily Editor's Note: Recently, Haseeb Qureshi, a well-known partner at Dragonfly, published a lengthy article rejecting cynicism and embracing exponential thinking, unexpectedly bringing the community discussion back to the core issue: How much value do L1s really have left? The following content is excerpted from the upcoming "The Crypto Theses 2026" by @MessariCrypto, compiled by Odaily Planet Daily.<h3>Cryptocurrency Drives the Entire Industry</h3>It is crucial to refocus the discussion on "cryptocurrency" itself, as most capital in the crypto industry is ultimately seeking exposure to "monetized assets." The total market capitalization of the crypto market is currently $3.26 trillion, with BTC accounting for $1.80 trillion, or 55%. Of the remaining $1.45 trillion, approximately $0.83 trillion is concentrated in various L1 public chains. This means that about $2.63 trillion, or roughly 81% of the entire market's capital, is invested in assets that the market already views as money or believes may gain a monetary premium in the future.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/208a8390f2ea45f2abcf0f2169b1a628.jpg" alt=""></div>In this context, whether you are a trader, investor, capital manager, or developer, understanding how the market assigns or withdraws monetary premiums is essential. In the crypto industry, nothing drives valuation changes more than the market's willingness to view an asset as "money." Therefore, predicting which assets will gain monetary premiums in the future is arguably the most critical variable when building an investment portfolio.So far, we have focused primarily on BTC, but it is also necessary to discuss those L1 assets among the remaining $0.83 trillion that "may or may not be money." As mentioned earlier, we expect BTC to continue capturing market share from gold and other non-sovereign stores of value in the coming years. But this raises a question: How much room is left for L1s? When the tide rises, will all boats (assets) rise (benefit)? Or will BTC, in its pursuit of gold, also absorb some of the monetary premium from L1 public chains?<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/f03285af5bbc407cb06d71eb9d7fbc8b.jpg" alt=""></div>To answer these questions, we first need to look at the current valuation landscape of L1s. The top four L1s by market cap—ETH ($361.15 billion), XRP ($130.11 billion), BNB ($120.64 billion), and SOL ($74.68 billion)—have a combined market cap of $686.58 billion, accounting for 83% of the entire L1 sector. After these top four, there is a significant gap in market cap (e.g., TRX at $26.67 billion), but the tail end still holds considerable value. The total market cap of L1s outside the top 15 is still $18.06 billion, representing 2% of the total L1 market cap.More importantly, L1 market cap is not equivalent to pure "monetary premium." There are three main valuation frameworks for L1s:(i) Monetary Premium(ii) Real Economic Value (REV)(iii) Economic Security DemandTherefore, a project's market cap is not solely determined by the market viewing it as money.<h3>What Drives L1 Valuations Is Monetary Premium, Not Revenue</h3>Despite the existence of multiple valuation frameworks, the market is increasingly inclined to evaluate L1s from the perspective of "monetary premium" rather than a "revenue-driven" angle. Over the past few years, the overall price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio for all L1s with a market cap exceeding $1 billion has generally remained between 150x and 200x. However, this aggregate data is misleading because it includes TRON and Hyperliquid. Over the past 30 days, TRX and HYPE contributed 70% of the revenue in this group but accounted for only 4% of the total market cap.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/cdeb04f575234856b94e793f1b7a3e04.jpg" alt=""></div>After removing these two outliers, the real story emerges. Despite continuously declining revenue, L1 valuations are rising. The adjusted P/E ratio shows a clear upward trend:· November 30, 2021: 40x· November 30, 2022: 212x· November 30, 2023: 137x· November 30, 2024: 205x· November 30, 2025: 536xIf interpreted from an REV perspective, one might argue that the market is pricing in future revenue growth. However, this explanation does not hold, as revenue for the same group (still excluding TRON and Hyperliquid) has declined almost every year:· 2021: $12.33 billion· 2022: $4.89 billion (YoY -60%)· 2023: $2.72 billion (YoY -44%)· 2024: $3.55 billion (YoY +31%)· 2025: Annualized $1.70 billion (YoY -52%)In our view, the simplest and most straightforward explanation is: These valuations are primarily driven by monetary premium, not current or future revenue.<h3>L1s Have Consistently Underperformed Bitcoin</h3>If L1 valuations are primarily driven by the market's expectation of their monetary premium, the next question is: What shapes this expectation? A simple method is to compare their price performance with BTC's. If changes in monetary premium mainly reflect BTC's movements, these assets should perform similarly to BTC's "beta coefficient"; if the monetary premium comes from each L1's unique factors, their correlation with BTC should be weaker, and their performance should be more idiosyncratic.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/f53285edc32a4b45adb030e18bd523e9.jpg" alt=""></div>As representatives of L1s, we selected the top ten L1 tokens by market cap (excluding HYPE) and measured their performance relative to BTC since December 1, 2022. These ten assets represent about 94% of the L1 market cap, making them highly representative. During this period, eight assets underperformed BTC in absolute returns, with six lagging by more than 40%. Only two assets outperformed BTC: XRP and SOL. However, XRP's excess return was only 3%, and given its history of being driven by retail capital, we will not overinterpret this. The only asset with significant excess returns was SOL, which beat BTC by 87%.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/d74e6fe0e9404026b756d99147dc2012.jpg" alt=""></div>But upon closer examination, SOL's "outperformance" may not be as strong as it appears. During the same period that SOL outperformed BTC by 87%, Solana's fundamentals experienced exponential growth: DeFi TVL increased by 2,988%, fees grew by 1,983%, and DEX trading volume surged by 3,301%. By any reasonable measure, the Solana ecosystem expanded by 20 to 30 times since the end of 2022, yet SOL's price only outperformed BTC by 87%.Please read that sentence again.To achieve truly significant excess returns against BTC, an L1 doesn't need ecosystem growth of 200% or 300%—it needs growth of 2,000%-3,000% just to barely gain a few dozen percentage points of outperformance.Combining the above, our judgment is: Although the market still prices L1s based on the expectation that they "may gain monetary premium in the future," confidence in these expectations is quietly waning. Meanwhile, the market's monetary premium for BTC as "cryptomoney" remains unshaken, and one could even argue that BTC's lead over various L1s is continuously widening.Although cryptocurrency itself does not require fees or revenue to support its valuation, these metrics are crucial for L1s. Unlike BTC, the narrative for L1s depends on building an ecosystem (applications, users, throughput, economic activity, etc.) to support their token value. However, if an L1's ecosystem is showing annual declines (partly reflected in decreasing revenue and fees), it loses its only competitive advantage relative to BTC. Without real economic growth, its "cryptomoney" story becomes increasingly difficult for the market to accept.<h3>Looking Ahead</h3>Looking ahead, we do not believe this trend will reverse in 2026 or beyond. With few possible exceptions, we expect the L1 sector to continue losing market share, further squeezed by BTC. Since their valuations primarily rely on expectations of future monetary premium, as the market gradually concludes that BTC has the strongest claim to the "cryptomoney" narrative, L1 valuations will continue to contract. Although BTC will also face challenges in the coming years, these issues remain too distant and variable to provide effective support for the monetary premium of competing L1s.For L1s, the bar for proving their value has been raised. Their narratives are no longer sufficiently attractive compared to BTC's, nor can they rely on market euphoria to support their valuations long-term. The era when the story of "we might become money in the future" could support trillion-dollar market caps is closing. Investors now have a decade of data proving that an L1's monetary premium can only be sustained when the ecosystem experiences extreme growth. Once growth stalls, L1s will consistently underperform BTC, and the monetary premium will dissipate.</body></html>

From ETH to SOL: Why Will L1s Ultimately Lose to Bitcoin?

coinvoice

Jupiter Lend and Kamino, the two leading lending protocols on Solana, are embroiled in a public dispute over Jupiter’s “risk isolation” claims. The conflict began when Jupiter promoted its lending product as having isolated risk between pools, but critics—led by Kamino—argue Jupiter’s design actually allows cross-contamination through rehypothecation (reusing collateral across pools).  

Kamino’s co-founder publicly accused Jupiter of misleading users, prompting community backlash. Jupiter later deleted earlier promotional content and acknowledged the description was inaccurate. The debate centers on differing interpretations of “risk isolation,” with Jupiter defending its model as a balance between safety and capital efficiency.  

Multicoin Capital, a Kamino investor, escalated the situation by accusing Jupiter of incompetence or intentional deception. In response, the Solana Foundation urged both sides to collaborate rather than compete internally, highlighting the larger opportunity in expanding the DeFi lending market overall.  

The clash reflects growing tension as Jupiter Lend rapidly gains market share in a shrinking TVL environment, turning former allies into rivals in Solana’s competitive lending landscape.

<html><head></head><body>Original | Odaily Planet Daily (@OdailyChina)Author | Azuma (@azuma_eth)<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/02b4a861aa3649168edeeae85393a191.png" alt=""></div>This past weekend, the two leading lending protocols on Solana, Jupiter Lend and Kamino, got into a public spat.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/99b23d4c8f6f4b8fafa448b7fc8c2ca5.png" alt=""></div><ul><li>Odaily Note: Defillama data shows that Jupiter and Kamino are currently the two protocols with the highest TVL in the Solana ecosystem.</li></ul><h2>Origin of the Incident: The Tweet Jupiter Quietly Deleted</h2>The origin of the incident can be traced back to August of this year. At that time, during the pre-launch promotion of its lending product Jupiter Lend, Jupiter's official account repeatedly emphasized that the lending product had a "risk isolation" feature (related posts have been deleted), meaning there would be no cross-contamination of risks between different lending pools.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/32572b98bb2f4c8d866c323c021d8031.png" alt=""></div>However, the actual design of Jupiter Lend upon launch did not align with the market's common understanding of a risk isolation model. In the general market perception, a DeFi lending pool that can be called risk-isolated is a structure that, through design mechanisms, separates the risks of different assets or markets from each other, preventing a single asset default or a market crash from affecting the entire protocol. The main features of this structure include:<ul><li>Pool Segregation: Different asset types (such as stablecoins, volatile assets, NFT collateral, etc.) are allocated to independent lending pools, each with its own liquidity, debt, and risk parameters.</li><li>Collateral Isolation: Users can only use assets within the same pool as collateral to borrow other assets, cutting off cross-pool risk transmission.</li></ul>But in fact, Jupiter Lend's design supports rehypothecation (reusing deposited collateral elsewhere in the protocol) to improve capital efficiency, meaning the collateral deposited into the vaults is not completely isolated from each other. Jupiter co-founder Samyak Jain's explanation for this was that Jupiter Lend's lending pools are isolated "in a sense" because each pool has its own configuration, caps, liquidation thresholds, liquidation penalties, etc., and the rehypothecation mechanism is merely to better optimize capital utilization efficiency.Although Jupiter's product documentation for Jupiter Lend provides more detailed explanations than the promotional content, objectively speaking, the "risk isolation" mentioned in its early promotions did have a certain deviation from the market's common understanding, creating a suspicion of misleading users.<h2>Escalation: Kamino Launches an Attack</h2>On December 6th, Kamino co-founder Marius Ciubotariu seized this opportunity to publish a post criticizing Jupiter Lend and blocked Kamino migration tools to Jupiter Lend.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/20eb1416bb514d2a9584ae6088a26bb1.png" alt=""></div>Marius stated: "Jupiter Lend repeatedly claims there is no cross-contamination between assets, which is complete nonsense. In reality, in Jupiter Lend, if you deposit SOL and borrow USDC, your SOL will be lent out to other users engaging in recursive farming using JupSOL, INF, etc. You will bear all the risks of these recursive farms collapsing or the assets crashing. There is no isolation here; there is complete cross-contamination, contrary to what was advertised and what people were told... In both traditional finance (TradFi) and decentralized finance (DeFi), information about whether collateral is rehypothecated and whether there is contagion risk is material information that must be clearly disclosed, and no one should offer vague explanations for it."After Kamino's offensive, discussions surrounding Jupiter Lend's product design quickly ignited the community. Some agreed that Jupiter was涉嫌虚假宣传 (suspected of false advertising) — for example, Penis Ventures CEO 8bitpenis.sol angrily accused Jupiter of blatantly lying from the start and deceiving users; others believed that Jupiter Lend's design model balanced safety and efficiency, and that Kamino's attack was merely for market competition with impure motives — for example, overseas KOL letsgetonchain stated: "Jupiter Lend's design achieves the capital efficiency of a pooled model while incorporating some risk management capabilities of modular lending protocols... Kamino cannot stop people from migrating to better technology."Under pressure, the Jupiter team quietly deleted the early posts, but this triggered even larger-scale FUD. Subsequently, Jupiter Chief Operating Officer Kash Dhanda also came forward to admit that the team's previous social media claims of "zero contagion risk" for Jupiter Lend were inaccurate and apologized, stating that a correction should have been issued simultaneously with the deletion of the posts.<h2>Core Contradiction: The Definition of "Risk Isolation"</h2>Summarizing the current opposing attitudes, the fundamental divergence seems to lie in the different definitions different groups have for the term "risk isolation."From the perspective of Jupiter and its supporters, "risk isolation" is not a completely static concept; there can be some design flexibility within it. Although Jupiter Lend is not the commonly understood risk isolation model, it is also not a completely open pooled model. While it shares a common liquidity layer that allows rehypothecation, each lending pool can be configured independently with its own asset caps, liquidation thresholds, and liquidation penalties.From the perspective of Kamino and its supporters, any allowance of rehypothecation is a complete negation of "risk isolation," and as a project, one should not use vague disclosures and false advertising to deceive users.<h2>Higher-Level Sentiment: Some Fuel the Fire, Others Mediate</h2>Aside from the dispute between the two parties and the community, another noteworthy point in this风波 (controversy) is the attitude of various higher-level entities within the Solana ecosystem.First is Multicoin Capital, the venture capital fund with arguably the most influence (perhaps without the 'arguably') in the Solana ecosystem. As an investor in Kamino, Multicoin partner Tushar Jain directly posted questioning whether Jupiter was "incompetent or malicious, but neither possibility is forgivable" — objectively speaking, his remarks significantly exacerbated the controversy.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/cb2df69f2829407eb8f7d6ca38675387.png" alt=""></div>Tushar stated: "There are two possible explanations for the controversy around Jupiter Lend. One is that the Jupiter team genuinely does not understand the meaning of isolated collateral. Collateral treatment is the most important risk parameter in a lending protocol. If they don't understand this core principle of lending markets, what else haven't they figured out? Is their expertise sufficient to reassure people to deposit funds? For a lending protocol, not understanding the meaning of isolated collateral is completely unforgivable. The other possibility is that the Jupiter team is not incompetent but actively misrepresented a core part of their protocol to mislead users and attract deposits."Clearly, Tushar's motivation was very clear: to seize this opportunity to help Kamino打击竞争对手 (strike a blow against its competitor).Another important higher-level statement came from the Solana Foundation. As the parent ecosystem, Solana obviously does not want to see its two leading contenders become overly antagonistic, leading to overall ecosystem infighting and inefficiency.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/be0c11a79c554c16aa3981da58aa2002.png" alt=""></div>Yesterday afternoon, Solana Foundation President Lily Liu posted on X addressing both projects and mediating: "Love you both. Overall, our lending market size is currently around $5 billion, while the Ethereum ecosystem's size is about 10 times larger. As for the traditional finance collateral market, that's countless times larger than this number. We can choose to attack each other, or we can choose to set our sights further — first work together to capture share from the entire crypto market, and then jointly advance into the vast space of traditional finance.Simple summary — Stop fighting, or Ethereum will benefit!<h2>Underlying Logic: The Battle for Solana's Lending Leadership</h2>Looking at the data development of Jupiter Lend and Kamino and the market environment, this controversy, though sudden, seems like an inevitable collision that was only a matter of time.On one hand, Kamino (red in the chart below) long held the top position as the lending leader in the Solana ecosystem, but Jupiter Lend (blue in the chart below) has captured a significant market share since its launch, becoming the only entity currently capable of challenging the former within the Solana ecosystem.<div><img style="max-width:100%;overflow:hidden;" src="https://d1x7dwosqaosdj.cloudfront.net/images/2025-12/c6c7a57a5ffb496bb5b34986c87baf5a.png" alt=""></div>On the other hand, since the major bloodbath on October 11th, market liquidity has tightened significantly, and the overall TVL of the Solana ecosystem has continued to decline; additionally, the subsequent collapse of multiple projects has made the DeFi market extremely sensitive to "security."When the market environment was better and incremental funds were sufficient, Jupiter Lend and Kamino were relatively harmonious, as both were profitable and seemed poised to become even more so... But when the market shifted to a存量博弈 (stock game/competition for existing market share), the competitive relationship between the two became more tense and confrontational, and security issues正好又是 (happened to be) the most effective point of attack at the moment — even though Jupiter Lend has not had any security incidents historically, mere design suspicions were enough to trigger user alertness.Perhaps from Kamino's perspective, the present was the perfect opportunity to deal a heavy blow to its opponent.</body></html>

# Ecosystem的所有文章

From ETH to SOL: Why Will L1s Ultimately Lose to Bitcoin?

Solana's Two Leading Lending Protocols Clash, Foundation Steps In to Mediate

熱門分類

熱門標籤

Trading Strategies