In the world of cryptocurrency, there is a commonly overlooked truth: "The simpler it is, the more dangerous it becomes." DeFi has developed to the point where it is heading towards "foolproof operations": Don't know how to use contracts? Don't understand blockchain? No problem, various SDKs, aggregators, and wallet plugins have packaged complex on-chain operations into "one-click interactions." For example, the Shogun SDK can compress DeFi operations that originally required multiple steps of signing, authorization, and transfers into a single click, first landing in the Berachain ecosystem.

It sounds perfect: who wouldn't want to complete on-chain operations as easily as scanning a QR code with Alipay? But the problem is that these "no-threshold tools" also hide the complex on-chain risks. Just like someone who goes crazy over their credit card after getting it, it's not the credit card itself that's the problem, but rather that they don't know that overdrafts need to be repaid. In DeFi, once you authorize a contract to manage your assets, it may permanently control your entire wallet balance; for novices lacking awareness, casually clicking "authorize all assets" could become the beginning of "one-click liquidation."

Behind the convenience lies a huge trap:

• Clicking "authorize all assets" is like permanently handing your bank card and password to a stranger;

• Behind high-yield promotions, there may be risks like 100% slippage and hidden dangers in liquidity pools;

• Most users are unaware that certain contract authorizations can allow the other party to control your wallet indefinitely;

  Real case: In 2023, a user lost $180,000 in 2 minutes due to mistakenly clicking a phishing link—the process was as simple as scanning a QR code for payment, but it led to devastating consequences.

Why are all chains pursuing "foolproof interactions"?

The reason is simple: on-chain interactions are incredibly complex and extremely unfriendly to newcomers. You need to download a wallet, manage mnemonic phrases, understand gas fees, learn about cross-chain bridges, understand token conversions, comprehend contract risks, click authorizations, complete signatures… Any mistake in any step could lead to asset loss, and even after completing the operation, you need to pay attention to whether the interaction was successful and whether you need to revoke authorizations and other follow-up actions.

For Web2 users without a technical background, the learning cost is like needing to learn a new language just to make a payment on their phone. To allow them to seamlessly enter the on-chain world, the "technical mountain" must first be flattened. Thus, interaction tools like Shogun SDK have emerged: condensing what originally required 100 steps of on-chain operations into 1 step, reducing the user experience from "expert-level operation" to the simplicity of "scanning a QR code with Alipay."

From a broader ecological perspective, infrastructures like RaaS (Rollup-as-a-Service) and one-click chain deployment are also maturing. In the past, launching a chain required writing underlying code, deploying consensus mechanisms, building browsers, and creating front-end pages, often taking several months of development. Now, with services like Conduit, Caldera, and AltLayer, a usable EVM-compatible chain can be delivered within weeks, even helping you set up governance tokens, economic models, and block explorers, making it as easy as opening a Taobao store. This allows any project team, community, or even individual hacker marathon teams to "start a chain business," truly realizing the "democratization" of on-chain entrepreneurship.

But low technical barriers ≠ easy cold start

Many people mistakenly believe that "chains can be quickly set up" means they will succeed; in fact, the biggest issue with cold starts is not "can it be done," but "is there anyone using it?" Technology is just a stepping stone; the key to whether a chain can survive is whether it can accumulate real, sustainable user behavior.

Subsidies and airdrops can indeed bring a large number of users and TVL in the early stages, just like a milk tea shop can attract people to queue across the street with free activities—but once the subsidies stop, it's like the milk tea returns to its original price; if the product itself is not good and the service is poor, consumers will turn away, and the queue will disappear instantly.

The same is true on-chain: many new chains appear to have very high TVL during the subsidy period, but most of it is just the project party, foundation, or institutional money pledging to each other, creating a false data illusion, with no real increase in user numbers or transaction volume. Once the subsidies and high APY end, liquidity will recede like the tide, and on-chain transaction volume will plummet, evaporating TVL.

Worse still, if there is a lack of real trading demand on-chain, subsidy-driven funds will only form a short-term arbitrage cycle—users' goal is to "take the benefits and leave," rather than using applications on-chain and forming an ecological closed loop. The higher the subsidies, the more speculative funds there are; once the subsidies stop, the retreat is faster. What truly determines whether a chain can successfully cold start is not the scale of airdrops or subsidies, but whether there are projects that can attract users to continue consuming, trading, and participating in the community on-chain—this is the starting point for a public chain to enter a virtuous cycle.

Taking PoL as an example: How chains incentivize the real economy

Among many new chains, Berachain has made an interesting exploration. It pioneered the PoL (Proof of Liquidity) mechanism—unlike traditional PoS, which distributes rewards to nodes, PoL directly distributes the chain's inflation rewards to users providing liquidity, using incentives to drive real economic behavior on-chain.

To give a relatable example: traditional PoS public chains are like rewarding company shares to data centers (nodes) for server maintenance; whereas Berachain directly distributes shares to you—as long as you provide liquidity to protocols like DEX, lending, and LST on Berachain, you can continuously receive rewards.

Even more interesting is Berachain's three-token system design:

BERA: The native token of the mainnet, used for gas fee payments and as the main carrier of PoL rewards;

HONEY: A stablecoin within the ecosystem, used for trading, lending, etc.;

BGT: A governance token that can be locked for voting or to earn additional rewards.

The three tokens interact to form a "earn-use-govern" flywheel, promoting funds to stay on-chain while enhancing governance participation.

From the data, in just 5 months since the launch of the Berachain mainnet, the TVL has approached $600 million, with over 150 active native projects. Compared to popular L1s like Solana, Sui, and Avalanche, its MC/TVL ratio is only 0.3x (the industry average is usually above 1), indicating that the current market value has not yet reflected its on-chain economic value.

This data has sparked a divide in community sentiment:

• Pessimists (FUD): Believe that PoL incentives easily lead to "mine, withdraw, and sell," worrying about long-term price pressure on tokens;
• Optimists (Bull): Believe that real transactions and ecological landing driven by PoL will cause prices to rise with ecological development.

The key lies in whether real trading demand can form within the ecosystem; otherwise, high APY subsidies may evolve into a "fund cycle."

Fortunately, projects that can generate real trading income have already emerged in this ecosystem:

• PuffPaw: Uses "Vape-to-Earn" to incentivize users to quit smoking, combining healthy behavior with token rewards, and has partnered with over 50 medical institutions in 17 countries;
• Projects like Kodiak, Dolomite, and Infrared are promoting real asset trading, continuously growing TVL.

The activity and revenue-generating ability of such projects are key to solving the "unsustainable liquidity from subsidies" problem.

Other chains' cold start explorations

As deploying public chains becomes as easy as opening an online store, the core of competition shifts to whether real trading demand and fees can be continuously generated, rather than relying on subsidies to maintain TVL.

Different chains are seeking breakthroughs through different narratives:

• Pharos Network: Focuses on RWA (real-world assets), bringing physical assets on-chain;
• Initia: Finds a new path for cold starts through sub-chains and ecological fission;
• New ecosystems like HyperEVM attract projects to supplement their own trading volume through multi-chain deployment.

These explorations all point to the same issue: chains without real transactions will eventually run out of subsidies; only when there are users, payments, and funds willing to stay on-chain can the chain truly start its flywheel.

Final thoughts

The simplification of DeFi operations and the lowering of barriers are indeed essential for more people to participate in blockchain. However, this path cannot rely solely on "one-click interactions"; it must also be accompanied by user education, transparent risk control, and sustainable economic models driven by real demand within the ecosystem.

Otherwise, the convenience of "allowing everyone to interact with one click" may only turn into a disaster of "one-click loss."

Just like those who open online stores know that giving out red envelopes can attract new customers, but what truly sustains the business is retaining old customers who are willing to repurchase. The construction of chains is similar: to make users feel safe, able to use, and understand, and to continuously generate transactions is the true beginning of a public chain's cold start.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。