This issue is planned by: Kylo (Tw: @kylohanks_eth)
Host of this episode: Jenny Huang (@Jennyhuang727)
This episode’s guest: Frank Lou | Founder of UniPass
“The original intention of UniPass was to create a Web3 account with low threshold and user-friendly features. When you use it to manage assets, it belongs to the wallet track. When you use it for authorization and authentication, it belongs to the DID track. In my opinion, these are the same thing.”
---- Frank
Jenny: Recently, smart contract wallets have become a hot topic in the market. What is the narrative of this round of hot topics? Please explain to us from the development history of wallets, the classification of wallet tracks, the current problems of the wallet track, or the logic you think.
Frank: I think the popularity of smart wallets is a superficial phenomenon. If we dig deeper, we will find that it is actually a shift in the narrative focus. Everyone is aiming at Mass Adoption, which requires a lot of users to come in.
The current scenarios are obviously not attractive enough for new users to enter. The premise for users to enter is that new scenarios are needed, and these new scenarios need new infrastructure support. When your scenario’s wealth-creating effect is not that strong, we need to build some low-threshold infrastructure to attract users. Because the threshold of Crypto is too high, the resistance to user entry is very high, and your attractiveness is insufficient, users will definitely not come in. Smart contract wallets can lower the user entry threshold to a very low level, which is similar to the account system of Web2.
In addition, new scenarios have more diversified demands on infrastructure functions, so user-side facilities need to become more flexible and easy to use. For example, games may have a requirement called Session Key, which allows users to authorize a key that is valid for a specific period of time and can only perform specific operations. The current infrastructure does not have this capability, so new infrastructure such as smart wallets is needed.
As an enabler of Web3, the smart wallet can make some events happen, which is a bit like the relationship between smartphones and mobile Internet. Smartphones are the enablers of mobile Internet.
Without these interactive upgrades provided by smartphones, including operating system upgrades, sensor upgrades, camera upgrades, etc., these common scenarios currently used by mobile phones would not be possible. For example, the popular TikTok, you can see how much infrastructure that is only available on smartphones is used.
Another analogy is that Layer2 expands capacity to reduce costs and improve processing speed, which is actually similar to our Internet speed increase and fee reduction. We can compare it to the 4G network. The cost and speed of 4G can meet the emergence of scenarios like TikTok. The role of Layer2 is similar, and both are preparing the infrastructure for large-scale applications.
This is my summary of why smart wallets have become popular.
Jenny: Okay, the next question is about the classification of wallets, which are MPC wallets, low-threshold wallets, and smart contract wallets. What are the thresholds for developing these wallets? In addition, I heard in the market that the threshold for developing MPC wallets is a bit low. Is this true?
Frank: The difference between high and low thresholds depends on who you are comparing with. The threshold depends on the breadth and depth of your work. Breadth refers to the number of chains supported. For example, when your wallet supports Bitcoin, Bitcoin is much more complicated than Ethereum wallets, because Bitcoin does not have an account model, and there is no way to request how many BTC an address has from the Bitcoin full node. You must have a Cache Server to process all the blocks of Bitcoin, then re-enter the database yourself, and then make it into a queryable data. So whether it is MPC or other wallets, as long as it involves multiple chains, because the architecture of each chain is different, the difficulty is very high. I remember that the Maizi wallet plug-in supports more than 50 chains, which is very broad.
If we only talk about EOA wallets, the current development threshold is indeed not high, because there are pure open source solutions such as Alpha Wallet and MetaMask for reference, and MPC also has ZenGo and Binance for reference. In short, there will be more and more such open source project libraries. If everyone's requirements are not very high and they don't make particularly complex customizations, the overall difficulty is indeed not high. If you need to use a mobile phone or a web page to make a 2-3 signature, it is very reluctant, because it already requires 7 interactions, and the network transmission cannot bear it. So unless it is a special scenario, like making an MPC solution like a multi-signature set or a cross-chain bridge, if it is just a 2-2 or 2-3 solution, it is indeed not particularly difficult.
Our solution actually uses a 2-2 MPC, the simplest MPC as our SDK key solution. We use this because we are not afraid that the 2-2 MPC key will be broken. It is not a single-point risk like MetaMask. 2-2 is a double-point risk, and any point of failure will not work. The reason why it can be used is that users still use smart contracts, and we are just a tool.
We used the ZenGo-X open source library. The reason we chose it was that we needed to use it in a web environment and needed the library to be well compiled into Wasm. After we roughly determined the various limitations and solutions, we spent a month to complete this library, including porting and front-end and back-end debugging. That's about it. Of course, this is just our case.
Jenny: I know UniPass is very popular in the market. I would like to ask, what was your original intention when you created UniPass? What is the principle of UniPass? Currently, smart contract wallets are not connected to the underlying Ethereum, right? What impact does this have on smart contract wallets?
Frank: There is one point I haven’t finished talking about, which is the difficulty of developing smart wallets. I think it is related to this question. Let me first talk about the development threshold of smart wallets.
The development threshold of contract wallets is actually quite high. For example, Gnosis Safe, we all know that it is a multi-signature wallet. In fact, it is also a smart contract wallet, so the threshold mainly depends on what functions it has. If you just want to make a multi-signature, it is very simple, and the easiest way is to fork Gnosis Safe and use it directly.
If you want to do custodial Seedless, it is also simple, just take a custodial solution and match it with a smart wallet. If you want to do non-custodial Seedless, you have to add social recovery, which is more difficult.
If you want to do Gasless, users can use any token, or even use additional means, such as legal currency to pay for Gas, which will be more difficult. Because you need a Relayer to handle the Gas part, so you need a Relayer, and Gnosis does not need a Relayer. If you do Gasless, you need to add another Relayer.
If you want to make a multi-chain smart contract wallet, you need to make it fully EVM-compatible, such as multi-chain state distribution and Relayer. It is very difficult to estimate the Gas fees on different chains. Don’t think that all EVM-compatible chains are the same, because they are not. The Gas fees estimated for the same operation on different EVM chains are different. If you want to do more research in this area, you can do more research.
Back to the third question, that is our original intention to do this. The UniPass product is quite early. If you have learned about it in early 2021, UniPass was working on UniPass ID at the time, including our current domain name is still https://unipass.id/. This is mainly due to our understanding of the ID thing, that is, the Web3 account thing. We say that we are now working on wallets, but in fact we still think that we are working on Web3 accounts. The original intention of UniPass was to make a low-threshold, user-friendly Web3 account. When you use it to manage assets, it belongs to the wallet track. When you use it for authorization and authentication, it belongs to the DID track. In my opinion, it is the same thing.
Because of its flexibility, the smart wallet can manage permissions within the wallet. The simplest way is to divide it into two permissions, one is execution permission and the other is management permission.
Execution authority refers to the MPC Key that everyone uses normally. We call management authority social recovery based on email. When you use the MPC Key normally, you can use it as you should. If you forget your password, it means that one of the key fragments cannot be decrypted, and the MPC Key is broken. At this time, you can use the email method and then upload the email to the chain. After the email is uploaded to the chain, the contract needs to verify whether the email is authentic. This is a set of protocols called DKIM. After verification, the broken key will be replaced with a new one according to the actions specified in the email. This is the normal process for users to reset their passwords.
People often ask us what is the private key of UniPass and how to export it? In fact, smart wallets do not have private keys, they are contract addresses. Unlike EOA, which has a public key and a corresponding private key, the address of a smart wallet is actually a name, which can be compared to a class name. It corresponds to the permission to manage the account, which can be managed with a key.
For example, when a user says he doesn’t like UniPass and doesn’t want to use our MPC, he can trade directly through normal means. Even if we stop responding, the user can transfer control to a MetaMask through social recovery. At this time, using his original contract wallet is a bit like using a single-signature Gnosis Safe, that is, there is only one key to control Gnosis Safe. The advantage is that the user’s address does not need to be changed.
Just like the example I often give, if you lose your keys, you have to throw away the house, this is EOA, and the smart wallet allows you to just change the lock if you lose your keys. Or you think that the current key may be lost, or you don’t like this key and want to change it to a safer and more favorite lock. I can replace this key through my own management authority. This is the simple principle of UniPass.
Jenny: Will ERC4337, which will be implemented in 2023, have any impact on your future layout?
Frank: 4337 is a proposal to achieve account abstraction without improving the consensus layer. It is a protocol to achieve account abstraction at the upper layer. Its approach is not to connect with the bottom layer. This is one of the reasons why 4337 is so popular compared to many previous account abstraction concepts.
The concept of account abstraction was proposed very early, in 2015. Around 2021, there was a proposal to add a new transaction type called AA Transaction. This was the first time the word AA appeared, but AA Transaction had too much impact on account consensus, which could cause many old contracts to become unusable and even lead to asset losses, so it was difficult to implement.
We are already compatible with ERC4337. In my opinion, there is not much difference between 4337 and ERC-20, except for the definition of some contract interfaces. 4337 may have some more infrastructure of smart contract wallets, which means that if you are compatible with this interface, you can interoperate. The same is true for ERC-20 tokens. As long as the wallet is compatible with ERC-20, you can import the private key into it, and you can see the balance of the token and send transactions to the token.
4337 is indeed a very good thing. It can promote everyone's recognition of smart wallets and make the entire community unify their cognition in this direction.
It is also very friendly to startup teams that want to build smart wallets. For example, the thresholds I mentioned earlier, such as being a Relayer and doing Gas estimation, are actually designed into the 4337 protocol.
When the infrastructure of 4337 is ready, people will no longer need to do these two parts when making smart wallets. You just need to give it to the P2P network of 4337. Our support method for 4337 is the same as that of Gnosis Safe, which is to make it an extension of UniPass.
There is no need to create a new wallet. You can think of it as a plug-in or a function. This function is to send a transaction to the chain. By changing something, you can hang this logic on it, and it will be compatible with the 4337 system.
If you don’t want it anymore, for example, you think the Entry Point has too much authority, or you think it doesn’t have as many functions as the UniPass Relayer, you can turn it off at any time and let the user make the choice.
Jenny: So 4337 defines an industry standard, and everyone follows this standard, which makes it easier to develop wallets in the future, right?
Frank: Yes, the interaction will actually be simpler. Of course, 4337 does not do interaction. One of the things we want to do next is to propose a standard for interaction, and the market will use this standard together, just like Wallet Connect, which everyone feels comfortable using.
Jenny: Next question, what are the target user groups of UniPass? What special functions do you provide for users? Compared with other smart contract wallets, what are the advantages of UniPass?
Frank: The user group is actually very obvious, which is what we call newbies or Web2 users. We mainly design our functions for them, such as Seedless, Gasless, Self-Custody and batch transactions.
First of all, everyone knows that Seedless or mnemonic-free solution is not a requirement of smart contract wallets. It is a function we made under the smart contract wallet product framework because it is to cooperate with email-based social recovery. As for others, everyone will have Seedless, but each implementation is different. After achieving Seedless, there may be some compromises in some places, but it is feasible in different scenarios.
Secondly, regarding Gasless, it seems that we are the only one using it at present. We pursue Gasless because we are targeting ordinary users, and it is best not to let them know what Gas is. The advantage of account abstraction is that the person who initiates the action and the person who pays the gas fee can become two people. In fact, these functions are like some new public chains, such as Flow, which has a special Payer role. The Gas issue has been completed at the bottom layer, so this is why the EVM ecosystem wants to promote account abstraction, which is already a standard function of other chains.
The principle of Gasless is to find a third party to pay for it. For example, we can allow users to earn a few cents by watching an ad, and advertisers can pay 10 to 20 gas fees for our users on Polygon or Arbitrum. In this process, users don’t even know what Gas is. They only need to know that they need to consume a certain amount of action points to perform operations, which we call Action Points. Then they can use various means to exchange Action Points, such as completing tasks, watching ads, or even buying them with money.
This process is not called deposit, because what I sell to you is not Crypto, what I sell to you is the service of paying for Gas, and it cannot be redeemed, and is only used for targeted consumption, so that Gas can completely disappear on the user side.
Of course, if the scenario has enough business models, it can also use its own business model to cover the user's targeted Gas costs. For example, we are working with Izumi Finance to create a new generation of DEX. You may be able to see it after a while. Targeted contract interactions with Izumi can enjoy Gas fee subsidies, or even Gas-free on-chain transactions. For example, in the future, if a trading pair is listed on DEX, I can waive Gas for a limited time for the volume of the trading pair. We did NFT Free Mint with a certain brand some time ago, which is a very good scenario and has greatly improved the user experience.
Third, regarding Safe Custody, I haven't figured out how to describe it. This is not the common concept of Custody. I mean a smart wallet, which can provide users with custody and non-custody as a function, rather than as a setting. For example, if you apply for a custodial wallet at the beginning, you can still choose to change it to non-custodial with one click in the future. The underlying principle is that the key of the smart wallet can be changed. At the beginning, the custody key must be 100% controlled by the custodian. When I claim, I add my own key and remove his key, and this completes a transfer.
This is something that the EOA wallet cannot do, because once the EOA key is exposed, it is impossible to make it unexposed, and this key and address are strongly bound, and you cannot continue to use this address to exchange for a private key at the same time.
The fourth is batch trading, which is also a feature I particularly like. The EOA transaction we use now is just like when we go to Taobao to buy something, we pay once for each item we buy, and we can only buy the next item after this bill is settled. But in fact, we are more accustomed to the experience of adding to the shopping cart, and the smart wallet can do all your operations at the contract layer, and then post it to the chain with a transaction. There is only one signature here, and only one transaction on Layer1, which is convenient and saves gas.
Everyone thinks that smart wallets consume a lot of gas. This statement may not be correct. In some places, it may be higher, but at least at the level of batch transactions, as long as the batch size exceeds two, it saves gas.
There is also ACL (Access Control List), which is a more niche term, which means permission control. In addition to the Social Recovery that I just mentioned, the capabilities derived from permission control can also be used to make Session Keys. I just briefly mentioned the so-called time-limited and function-limited keys, which can only perform these operations within this period of time.
Here is a good example. If you have a BAYC in your wallet, and you always use this wallet to sign, and accidentally sign the wrong name, the monkey may be taken away by someone. At this time, there can be multiple keys in the smart wallet, some keys can move the BAYC, and some keys cannot move. It only proves your control over the contract, but it has this signature and cannot do anything else.
Another expansion direction is that I can base it on assets, such as BAYC. I require this BAYC to have three keys, one of which is my Ledger. After signing together, this NFT can be transferred out, but I can transfer my own USDT and other assets with any key at will. In this way, I can rest assured that I am not afraid that my BAYC will be stolen by a MetaMask signature. After all, BAYC has a high authority to use. As long as no one asks me to take out my Ledger, this BAYC will not be transferred. These are new functions expanded by authority control.
The last one is a stronger extension. This extension can be signed arbitrarily. This signature can declare that whoever can give me 100 ethers can take my BAYC away. Anyone who uses this signature to call this contract to give you 100 ethers, and at the same time BAYC will go into his wallet. This operation is a bit like a flash loan. It is completed in one transaction and does not rely on a third party. And after you have a signed commitment, you can just post the web page everywhere, post it on WeChat Moments, Xianyu, or anywhere you think someone might be willing to buy it. It is equivalent to using your own contract instead of OpenSea's contract when the transaction is completed.
Jenny: I learned a lot today, and I have to experience it. Our next question is, is there any relationship between smart contract wallets and account abstraction? Just now you mentioned the concept of account abstraction. In other words, can the realization of account abstraction promote the development of smart wallets? Before the full realization of account abstraction, what problems does the development of smart contract wallets face?
Frank: This question seems to be the opposite. It is not about the realization of account abstraction to promote the development of smart wallets, but about using smart wallets to promote the realization of account abstraction. This is indeed a concept that is particularly easy to confuse. I remember that I wrote a mirror article before, called Account Glossary, which talked about the relationship between account abstraction and smart wallets.
https://mirror.xyz/zhixian.eth/dACTTYPzEfRcF6jSE_iwJsnbNmN2Ier_NA_TzkZaOeM
Account abstraction has two meanings. Its original meaning refers to a capability. This capability refers to whether a blockchain's account system can make some internal structures, such as the separation of keys and accounts, such as cryptographic replacement. It describes a criterion for the flexibility of an underlying chain account. In addition, there are many differences in the degree of abstraction, such as the incompletely abstract BTC, the completely non-abstract EVM, the very abstract Flow, and the completely abstract Starknet and CKB. These are all different degrees.
The second meaning is specifically referring to the EVM ecosystem. Because EVM does not have account abstraction, everyone wants EVM to have account abstraction, so this has become a movement. Making EVM realize account abstraction is what we often call account abstraction in our context.
So how to do account abstraction?
There have been various proposals since 2015. In addition to the most famous 4337, there are actually several more important ones, such as EIP-3074, which allows all EOAs to delegate the unlocking rights of their accounts to another contract; EIP-5003 is even more exaggerated, which is to turn all EOAs into smart wallets with one line of code, that is, all become contract wallets. So in fact, you will find that what it says is that I want to achieve account abstraction, and then the standards it defines or what it wants to promote is to make smart wallets easier to use and easier to develop, and even add some optimizations at the bottom layer to make its cost lower.
The concepts are a bit confusing. If we simply answer this question, yes, there is a relationship, but the relationship is the opposite. Smart wallets are a means to achieve account abstraction, not that smart wallets will develop if account abstraction is done well.
Jenny: Can you summarize what account abstraction is in one sentence?
Frank: Account abstraction, if we don’t talk about Ethereum EVM, it refers to the flexibility of blockchain accounts.
Jenny: OK, I understand. Then we will talk about the most important core function of the wallet, which is security. As we all know, there have been some problems with wallets recently. Can smart contract wallets reduce the risk of wallet theft in terms of security?
Frank: Security is a big topic, and we will discuss it from two perspectives: interactive security and key security. Key security is easy to understand, which is how to protect my private key from being stolen; interactive security is also very common, such as approve, the key is in your hands, and the hacker deceives you into signing an authorization and then transfers your assets away.
The security models of contract wallets and key wallets are different. In theory, contract wallets are very secure, even at the ceiling level, but they rely on a premise that your contract itself has no loopholes. The security of the contract itself requires time and the accumulation of events to verify. We all know that Compound had security issues with its contracts at the beginning, and it has gradually improved over time. Now it has stored more than a billion US dollars and has not had any problems. Gnosis Safe's contract has stored more than 1.7 million ETH and has not had any problems.
The EOA wallet involves cryptographic security. If the key is not stolen, but the assets are transferred away, there must be a problem with the chain where the assets are located, or a problem with the consensus layer.
Discussing the security model under the premise of contract security, the advantage of smart wallets is that they can provide flexible and complex permission setting functions. In a wider range of usage scenarios, for more general users, it can provide this most moderate relative security, because it is very dangerous for ordinary users to save their own private keys and mnemonics.
So for Seedless, multi-signature, and the asset-based permission control or key security mentioned earlier, the user does not touch the private key, so the possibility of losing the private key is much lower. In addition, MPC divides the private key into several pieces, and the risk of the user losing one piece is much lower, so I think it will be better to combine these two.
Smart wallets are very meaningful in protecting interaction security, just like the multi-signature or asset-based permission control I just mentioned. If I am only asked to sign one name, I may sign it accidentally. But if I have this kind of asset-based permission control and you suddenly ask me to sign two names, there will be a problem. Or the hacker does not know that you have to sign two names to move assets, so his transfer behavior will fail. These can improve the interaction security of users.
The most important point is that I think the smart wallet is actually a growing product. Its security model can move forward with the users at different stages. At the beginning, a novice user has no assets and no knowledge, so the user experience is the main focus. Later, he will use a hardware wallet and transfer the management rights of the contract to a hardware wallet. He may even add a few more keys to turn it into a multi-signature. As his own assets increase, including the increase of his DID accumulation and as he has been in this industry for a long time, he can configure his wallet to this level of security.
It’s a bit like when we play games, the protagonist has nothing at the beginning, and as his level increases, his equipment also continues to improve. So in my opinion, smart wallets are a more practical and sufficiently secure solution, and a more realistic approach than pursuing an absolutely secure solution.
Jenny: OK, so back to the customer level, let's look at the entire wallet category. The market generally believes that wallets are the entrance to Web3 traffic. Do you agree with this narrative? Is the wallet a tool or a traffic entrance?
Because at the beginning we thought that the wallet was just a tool component, and the Dapp itself should be the one that really attracts traffic?
Frank: Yes, I agree very much. It is the explosion of scenarios. Scenario innovation is definitely the engine of the next bull market. What we do is the supporting role. We just make it more convenient and safer for everyone to come in. Traffic will not come in just because of a more convenient wallet.
As for whether a wallet is an entry or a tool, I think it depends on the situation. First of all, pure key wallets such as EOA are still within the scope of EVM. In my opinion, EOA wallets are more tool-oriented, whether it is MetaMask or MPC wallet, because it is mainly a key management tool, it has little to do with the actual on-chain scenario and the chain itself. Users can easily export the private key to another wallet, and the migration cost is approximately 0. They can even use the key to generate addresses of other chains, which has nothing to do with Ethereum, so it is more of a tool.
However, the smart wallet is a product plus service. The contract used by users is closely related to the chain, and this contract does not have a corresponding private key, so it cannot be migrated in that way. It can change service providers, and this service provider refers to its own service, which can be done by MetaMask, or it can add a third party, such as OpenBlock. OpenBlock can also be used as a solution for UniPass keys, because we cooperate with MetaMask in this way, and we have a two-layer relationship with EOA. No matter how he changes service providers, he still uses this contract, and the longer he uses the contract, the more he will accumulate in these interactions, and the greater its value will be.
Whether it is UniPass itself, or whether everyone is willing to build some APP extensions based on the UniPass ecosystem in the future, everyone is focusing on such an infrastructure service. I still like to compare it to a smartphone. Do you think the smartphone is an entry point or a tool?
Jenny: It is both an entrance and a tool, and it can have dual attributes in one product.
Frank: Yes, WeChat is the same. It is an instant messaging tool, but as people use it more, it becomes an entry point. Mobile phones can have WeChat, Douyin, Taobao, and Pinduoduo. It is closer to users than these apps. It is the closest infrastructure to users. Therefore, the model behind smart wallets is also to build an ecosystem together, that is, you develop various apps on your mobile phone to become an entry point. This is what we hope to see more.
Jenny: So this is what UniPass really wants to do in the future. Then let me ask a question that I am more concerned about, which is what is the profit model of the wallet? There are general rumors in the market that except for a few leading wallets in the market, the others are basically burning money and not profitable. Is this the case? What are the profit models of wallets?
Frank: Before MetaMask made money, nothing would work. I entered the industry in 2017. Along the way, wallet products had their own ways to make money at each stage. In 2017, we did ICO, at the end of 2018, we did Dapp rebates, and later we did Swap deposits and withdrawals, financial management, etc. The essence of this problem is that you made a tool, and this tool has a lot of traffic. How do you monetize the traffic?
To monetize traffic, we need to look at the user's tags. I am familiar with this because we used to be in the traffic business. Different types of traffic have different monetization methods.
The term profit model is defined for wallets. I think wallets are very similar to banks in this respect, whether it is financial management, transactions, or even custody. Banks also provide custody services and financial management services, including stock trading and charging transaction fees. I can even make an enterprise version of the wallet solution for internal use within the company. MetaMask is such a business.
These are all ways for current wallets to make money, and we can do all of them, but we still position ourselves more as accounts, and we are still talking about what Web3 will do as an account in the future. For example, I provide advanced account services, like Meituan membership, why are you willing to buy Meituan membership? It can give you vouchers and member red envelopes, and I can also give you a monthly free gas quota, and we can provide some additional quick responses and other things.
It is equivalent to that I am providing services to users based on this infrastructure. When you need advanced services, even advanced Guardian with multiple signatures, we have to use this server to make a Guardian for you, which will cost us money. Even when restoring email and social networking, we have to provide ZK for users. In the future, these can be packaged into a membership subscription profit model.
In addition, when using the Gasless smart wallet, the service fees of advertisers or other service providers who pay Gas on your behalf are also a source of profit.
Then there are automated services. You need some Session Keys and then automate at a certain point in time. For example, the automatic transaction function of grabbing Ethereum Tiandi orders, or even automatically grabbing NFTs, the smart wallet can open a Session Key that only allows it to interact with the NFT contract. It can't do anything except help you mint NFTs. We can provide this kind of service. EOA wallets cannot achieve this because the key cannot be handed over to the service provider.
The other long-term vision is that when our user base reaches a certain level, everyone is willing to add a plug-in directly from the UniPass user base, a bit like using WeChat technology to directly make a small program instead of making an app. In this way, we can control which logic can be added to the user's extended list. It's a bit like the mobile phone App Store can control which applications can be put on the shelf. We are really making a smart wallet according to the logic of smart phones.
If we take the issue of traffic to a higher level, the so-called user attention and user mental space are always valuable, whether on the Web or even when there is no Web, whether it is paper media, magazines, television, or radio, anything that can capture user attention and user minds is valuable.
I think that in a sunrise industry, you must do to C. Doing to B is a bit limited, because I know that once the to C business grows, it will have great potential.
——End——
Supplementary reading:
https://mirror.xyz/zhixian.eth/dACTTYPzEfRcF6jSE_iwJsnbNmN2Ier_NA_TzkZaOeM
https://docs.wallet.unipass.id/docs/category/introduction
https://eips.ethereum.org/erc
https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4337
about Us
BinaryDAO (Tw: @binary_dao) is a semi-closed DAO organization focusing on project research. It originated from the joint investment research of several WEB3 investment institutions. It is mainly aimed at VCs and researchers, and takes research projects as the starting point. In a bear market, it focuses on depth and focuses on the leaders of secondary structural tracks; in a bull market, it focuses on breadth and tends to be primary trend hotspots.
So far, we have conducted research and discussions on nearly 100 projects in multiple sectors including DEFI2.0, derivatives, ZK, NFTFi, SocialFi, etc. We plan to conduct relatively in-depth research on 200 representative projects in each sector in this bear market. Researchers and VC friends who are interested in completing these 200 projects with us are welcome to join us.
