1. How much impact do Circle and Stripe building L1 have on Ethereum stablecoins at this ChatGPT moment?

I estimate that the trend of projects (especially those that consider themselves strong and well-funded) building their own L1 will continue. Recently, even Google is planning to build its own L1.

The reasons they give for building their own L1 are always the same: "Ethereum cannot meet my XXX needs, so we need our own L1 for XXX."

In the short term, this will definitely siphon off some traffic from Ethereum, but in the long run, the impact can be completely ignored.

My reasoning on this matter is very straightforward:

If the chain these projects want to build is meant for the whole world, is to cross races, cross borders, cross ideologies, and is as secure as possible, then the optimal solution is to settle on Ethereum, rely on Ethereum's security, and then build their own layer two expansion on Ethereum, where they can implement the features they expect that Ethereum cannot provide.

Of course, if they do not have such ambitions, then building one L1 or even multiple L1s is fine.

In fact, I suspect that if these projects had more money, they would claim that the existing internet cannot meet their needs and that they want to rebuild the internet.

2. Speaking of Ethereum, without large funds and the manipulation of old money in the crypto space, it wouldn't be like this. As for its technology, how does it feel compared to the now-rebranded and hyped Yuzu? Not strong at all, right?

In this cycle, if Ethereum did not have large funds and the manipulation of old money in the crypto space, it indeed would not be like this. In fact, it's not just Ethereum; even Bitcoin is in the same situation. Without the influx of companies led by MicroStrategy, it could not be where it is today. Moreover, the future rise of Bitcoin and Ethereum will rely even more on the influx of these large funds.

I think what’s more important in looking at these issues is to see which is the cause and which is the effect.

There are two types of logic:

One is "because of the influx of large funds, they have risen to heights that were once unimaginable";

The other is "because they have a solid underlying logic, their future will definitely be bright, which will inevitably lead to a day when large funds will flood into them."

Being able to distinguish between these two types of logic and understanding which one your thinking aligns with is crucial for an investor.

If it’s the first type, then over 80% of the followers in this market are just trend followers. For such investors, avoiding becoming a bag holder and being able to ride the so-called "trend" to gain some benefits is quite good, but it’s hard to achieve substantial returns. Because such investors are always following behind large funds; without the actions of large funds, they will not take the initiative to position themselves.

If it’s the second type, then they can seize the opportunity and leave 80% of the market (including many so-called large institutions and big capital) behind.

Regarding Bitcoin and Ethereum, I have always believed in the second type of logic, which is why I started sharing my investment experiences since 2019.

Additionally, I mentioned in previous articles an early prophetic investor in this field, Mai Gang—he could see as early as 2013 that Bitcoin would definitely attract institutional and national involvement. This is also a reason I greatly admire him.

Now, let’s talk about Ethereum's technology.

In terms of technology, almost all layer one public chains that have appeared after Ethereum should, in theory, be more advanced than Ethereum.

Ethereum's code is open source, and its lessons are laid out for all to see.

Any subsequent project that can optimize its code, improve its consensus, avoid the mistakes it once made, and not repeat the detours it took… if it can achieve any of these "can dos," it has technically surpassed Ethereum.

From this perspective, there are indeed many existing layer one blockchains that exceed Ethereum in certain technical details.

However, technology is just one of many factors for a project's success. I believe a more important point is:

Many layer one public chain projects that are still competing today have missed out not on technology, but on the essence of what matters most.

Here, Duan Yongping's saying is particularly relevant: do the right thing, and do things right.

For a layer one public chain, what is "doing the right thing"?

I believe that many layer one public chains still do not understand this key point. Of course, it’s also possible that they actually understand it but realize it’s too late to act or that they can’t catch up, so they remain silent and only compete on trivial details.

"Doing the right thing" is a directional issue. If you get the direction wrong, no matter how hard you try or how good the technology is, the result can only be counterproductive.

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。