Yesterday's article shared a batch of old projects that pinned their last survival hopes on migrating ecosystems.

The target ecosystems for these projects' migrations are almost concentrated on two Ethereum Layer 2 expansions: BASE and Arbitrum.

In the past few years of the great boom in Layer 2 expansion "infrastructure," a large number of Layer 2 expansions emerged. But to this day, the vast majority of these layers have long become "ghost towns."

Looking at the TVL (Total Value Locked) that has crystallized in the system, according to defillama data, the first and second are BASE and Arbitrum, while even the third-ranked OP Mainnet has a TVL that is only a fraction of Arbitrum's.

Other Layer 2 expansions can almost be neglected.

It can be said that the only ones likely to survive from that previous wave of Layer 2 infrastructure are probably these two, or optimistically no more than five.

In that wave of infrastructure, there was a very obvious characteristic in the construction of Layer 2 expansions:

It was to first "build the nest" and then "attract the phoenix."

As for what kind of "phoenix" can be attracted after building the "nest" and whether it can attract the expected "phoenix," no one knows. Therefore, when teams were constructing their respective Layer 2 expansions, which characteristics to build on Layer 2, whether to prioritize performance, security, or usability, largely depended on the teams' own "subjective" judgments.

Thus, we have seen Layer 2 expansions based on zero-knowledge proofs (such as StarkNet, zkSync), Layer 2 expansions based on Fault Tolerant technology (such as OP Mainnet, Arbitrum), and Layer 2 expansions primarily focused on transaction performance (Scroll, MegaETH).

Can these "nests" built on "subjective judgment" attract a "phoenix"?

After years of market testing, it can be said that the vast majority have failed.

The main reason for this, in my opinion, is not that the technology is not advanced enough, but that there has been a loss of real understanding of market and user needs.

In such a scenario, no matter how advanced the technology is, it is of no use.

Among those several Layer 2 expansions, the one that is technically easiest to implement is the one based on Fault Tolerant technology, and ironically, the currently most prosperous BASE and Arbitrum are both built on this simplest technology.

Why did the teams at that time lose their real understanding of market and user needs?

I believe it is a regret of the times, rather than the teams themselves deliberately ignoring this point.

Because at that time, the most prosperous part of the entire cryptocurrency ecosystem was DeFi, and when we think of DeFi, we must think of fund security and transaction speed. Once we think of fund security and transaction speed, we inevitably think of using the most secure and highest performance technology to build Layer 2 expansions.

Where did this idea go wrong?

In the historical context of that time, I believe it was not wrong, but two situations that could not be foreseen occurred:

First, no one could have imagined that the Ethereum mainnet would later undergo large-scale expansions.

This expansion greatly reduced Layer 2 transaction fees and significantly improved the system's performance. It makes the current Layer 2 expansions, even if their performance is still not ideal, sufficient to handle current transaction scenarios. Therefore, the performance differences brought about by technology between Layer 2 expansions are hard to showcase as advantages.

Second, the previously envisioned scenario where a massive amount of high-frequency off-chain transactions would quickly go on-chain has not occurred as rapidly as expected, so even handling current transaction scenarios with the simplest technology is adequate.

In this situation, which ecosystem can attract more traffic and generate more vibrant activity is far more important than how high the performance of a Layer 2 expansion is.

Moreover, according to Vitalik's planning, Ethereum will continue expanding and will introduce ZK technology into the mainnet. This further weakens the potential differences that Layer 2 expansions could generate purely in terms of transaction performance.

We may even see such a scenario:

In the future, if ordinary transactions are conducted, whether on the mainnet or Layer 2 expansions, even if there are differences in transaction fees or speeds, those differences will not be severe enough to be unbearable.

I would like to highlight a case: MegaETH.

I remember this Ethereum Layer 2 expansion well because I had carefully read its white paper at the time. It specifically emphasized its ability to achieve million-level TPS------once this technology is implemented, it could really recreate a stock exchange on the chain with performance close to that of centralized systems.

Now it has been built, and as claimed by its officials, its performance is also quite outstanding.

But awkwardly, there are hardly any such exchanges running on it. Moreover, in the past few days, AAVE has withdrawn funds from its ecosystem, which directly knocked down its TVL by 60%.

This so-called performance-excellent Layer 2 expansion is also quickly becoming a "ghost town."

In contrast:

The traditional centralized exchange Robinhood chose a Layer 2 expansion built on a relatively simple technology stack (Fault Tolerant), which achieved remarkable results in popularity, activity, and trading volume within just a few days of launch.

Why?

Because of its user base, marketing strategies, and market positioning.

Although whether this achievement can be sustained still requires observation, I believe that even if it cannot be maintained in the future, the reason will not be stuck on technology and performance.

In other words, its technology cannot compare to MegaETH, and its performance cannot either, but these two points are likely not to hinder its future expansion and construction of its ecosystem.

Therefore, the construction thinking of Layer 2 expansions has completely changed.

In the future, if new Layer 2 expansions are to be built, the primary focus should definitely be on business scenarios and user activity. Technology is not unimportant, but it may take a relatively secondary position---as long as it is sufficient or slightly redundant, it will be fine.

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。