Nothing Research
Verified Creator
multi-strategy venture building alongside founders
3 Following
1.5K+ Followers
363 Liked
43 Shared
Posts
See original
Analysis of the Background and Controversy Surrounding the Bitcoin Core Transaction Relay Proposal
Observations and personal opinions from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
The Core group released the latest statement, and the Bitcoin core development circle was in an uproar. I saw that there wasn't much discussion in the Chinese-speaking community, so I came to analyze the background of the story and share my strong opinions.
First, yesterday Bitcoin Core released a statement called (Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy), which was vehemently criticized by opponents as notorious as the (New York Agreement).
So what exactly did this statement say?
Bitcoin Core wants to push a built-in transaction relay.
The Core group released the latest statement, and the Bitcoin core development circle was in an uproar. I saw that there wasn't much discussion in the Chinese-speaking community, so I came to analyze the background of the story and share my strong opinions.
First, yesterday Bitcoin Core released a statement called (Bitcoin Core Development and Transaction Relay Policy), which was vehemently criticized by opponents as notorious as the (New York Agreement).
So what exactly did this statement say?
Bitcoin Core wants to push a built-in transaction relay.
See original
Project Analysis of Sahara AI
Observations and personal views from 0x_Todd of Nothing Research Partner; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
The reason I paid attention to this project is because its investment institutions include Binance Labs, Polychain, and Pantera, among others.
The most straightforward understanding is that Sahara is an all-in-one AI tool, which includes a blockchain (Sahara Chain).
So what does this all-in-one AI include:
A data labeling platform that allows users to collect, refine, and label datasets and receive incentives.
What is data labeling?
The data labeling process is used to identify raw data (images, text files, videos, etc.) and add some information tags as context, for example, you are a human and you look at a picture of a bird, and you write down to tell the AI that this is a lark.
The reason I paid attention to this project is because its investment institutions include Binance Labs, Polychain, and Pantera, among others.
The most straightforward understanding is that Sahara is an all-in-one AI tool, which includes a blockchain (Sahara Chain).
So what does this all-in-one AI include:
A data labeling platform that allows users to collect, refine, and label datasets and receive incentives.
What is data labeling?
The data labeling process is used to identify raw data (images, text files, videos, etc.) and add some information tags as context, for example, you are a human and you look at a picture of a bird, and you write down to tell the AI that this is a lark.
See original
Observations and personal opinions from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd. The following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Today, while researching L2, I found that L2BEAT's standards are quite strict.
Among the top 10 L2s, there are not many that have reached Stage 1, and even those like Base, OP, and Unichain have been tagged; if they do not rectify within 53 days, they will drop back to Stage 0. Of course, they all use OP Stack, so being tagged together is normal.
Among the top 5, only Arbitrum remains strong, considered the backbone of Stage 1 in L2...
Vitalik originally proposed a three-step "auxiliary wheel" roadmap (Stage 0 → Stage 1 → Stage 2), but L2BEAT has transformed Vitalik's ideas into a concrete and measurable checklist (proof of usability, exit window, time lock, security committee design, etc.).
Specifically, what Stage an L2 is in ultimately depends on a core question: who can veto or change the state?
In Stage 0, the core team (or low-threshold multi-signature) can override the proof system.
In Stage 1, only a supermajority security committee (≥ 75% signatures) can overturn it; all others (including the core team) must go through the proof system.
In Stage 2, the proof system itself is the final arbiter; the security committee can only intervene to fix provable on-chain vulnerabilities.
Especially in Stage 1, L2BEAT has quantified the requirements:
≥8 members in the security committee, with at least half being external members
≥7 days of upgrade time lock ("exit window")
≥5 external validators
So I specifically looked into the current situation of Arbitrum's security committee. Besides the foundation members, there are also L2BEAT co-founder Bartek Kiepuszewski, and representatives from security or governance organizations like OpenZeppelin, Immunefi, Gauntlet, etc., totaling 12 members.
Normal upgrades are conducted via a 9/12 multi-signature. Then, the Arb committee divides the members into 6+6, with half being re-elected each year.
After Arb Bold (Bounded Liquidity Delay) officially launched in February this year, the contract now supports anyone staking to participate, submit/challenge assertions, which essentially completes the last task of Stage 1.
This is what makes Arbitrum one of the few true Stage 1 L2s.
Today, while researching L2, I found that L2BEAT's standards are quite strict.
Among the top 10 L2s, there are not many that have reached Stage 1, and even those like Base, OP, and Unichain have been tagged; if they do not rectify within 53 days, they will drop back to Stage 0. Of course, they all use OP Stack, so being tagged together is normal.
Among the top 5, only Arbitrum remains strong, considered the backbone of Stage 1 in L2...
Vitalik originally proposed a three-step "auxiliary wheel" roadmap (Stage 0 → Stage 1 → Stage 2), but L2BEAT has transformed Vitalik's ideas into a concrete and measurable checklist (proof of usability, exit window, time lock, security committee design, etc.).
Specifically, what Stage an L2 is in ultimately depends on a core question: who can veto or change the state?
In Stage 0, the core team (or low-threshold multi-signature) can override the proof system.
In Stage 1, only a supermajority security committee (≥ 75% signatures) can overturn it; all others (including the core team) must go through the proof system.
In Stage 2, the proof system itself is the final arbiter; the security committee can only intervene to fix provable on-chain vulnerabilities.
Especially in Stage 1, L2BEAT has quantified the requirements:
≥8 members in the security committee, with at least half being external members
≥7 days of upgrade time lock ("exit window")
≥5 external validators
So I specifically looked into the current situation of Arbitrum's security committee. Besides the foundation members, there are also L2BEAT co-founder Bartek Kiepuszewski, and representatives from security or governance organizations like OpenZeppelin, Immunefi, Gauntlet, etc., totaling 12 members.
Normal upgrades are conducted via a 9/12 multi-signature. Then, the Arb committee divides the members into 6+6, with half being re-elected each year.
After Arb Bold (Bounded Liquidity Delay) officially launched in February this year, the contract now supports anyone staking to participate, submit/challenge assertions, which essentially completes the last task of Stage 1.
This is what makes Arbitrum one of the few true Stage 1 L2s.
See original
Circle's IPO: The real Beta may actually be Coinbase
Insights and personal views from BonnaZhu of Nothing Research Partner; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
The latest news is that Circle has raised its valuation to $7.2 billion, selling 32 million shares, priced at $27-28 each. With an annual income of $1.676 billion and a net profit of $155 million, this corresponds to a static P/E of 46 times. Considering that Circle's stablecoin expansion in Q1 2025 is particularly rapid and growth expectations are good, this pricing does not seem outrageous and continues to attract various funds.
However, if you read the prospectus carefully and see that Circle has to pay Coinbase 907.9 million yuan annually, accounting for more than 50% of Circle's revenue, you will most likely frown and lament its difficult position in the middle.
The latest news is that Circle has raised its valuation to $7.2 billion, selling 32 million shares, priced at $27-28 each. With an annual income of $1.676 billion and a net profit of $155 million, this corresponds to a static P/E of 46 times. Considering that Circle's stablecoin expansion in Q1 2025 is particularly rapid and growth expectations are good, this pricing does not seem outrageous and continues to attract various funds.
However, if you read the prospectus carefully and see that Circle has to pay Coinbase 907.9 million yuan annually, accounting for more than 50% of Circle's revenue, you will most likely frown and lament its difficult position in the middle.
See original
What is the core competitiveness of Launchpads?
Observation and personal views from BonnaZhu of Nothing Research Partner, the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
I heard that pump.fun is really going to launch a token this time, and with $PUMP as a benchmark, the launch platform will undergo a revaluation. However, as mentioned in this article, the launch platforms have diverged into two paths:
One type is the permissionless Fair Launch represented by Pumpfun, and the other is the Coordinated Launch empowered project through organized issuance. Rather than saying they are in competition, it is more accurate to say their tracks have completely diverged.
1) Fair Launch: First comes the price, then the story
I heard that pump.fun is really going to launch a token this time, and with $PUMP as a benchmark, the launch platform will undergo a revaluation. However, as mentioned in this article, the launch platforms have diverged into two paths:
One type is the permissionless Fair Launch represented by Pumpfun, and the other is the Coordinated Launch empowered project through organized issuance. Rather than saying they are in competition, it is more accurate to say their tracks have completely diverged.
1) Fair Launch: First comes the price, then the story
See original
A Detailed Discussion on ETH Raising the GAS Limit to 60 Million
This is an observation and personal opinion from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd. The following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Many people still have the impression that ETH's TPS (transactions per second) is 15, but in fact, ETH's peak TPS has now increased by 4x to 60 transactions per second.
Although it is related to years of continuous optimization, the most direct reason can be attributed to the simple and straightforward increase of the GAS Limit from the previous cap of 15 million to 36 million.
Recently, ETH is about to raise the GAS Limit to a cap of 60 million again.
Many people still have the impression that ETH's TPS (transactions per second) is 15, but in fact, ETH's peak TPS has now increased by 4x to 60 transactions per second.
Although it is related to years of continuous optimization, the most direct reason can be attributed to the simple and straightforward increase of the GAS Limit from the previous cap of 15 million to 36 million.
Recently, ETH is about to raise the GAS Limit to a cap of 60 million again.
See original
Follow-up on the SUI Theft Incident — What kind of code did SUI update to retrieve assets?
The core idea of this hard fork can be summarized in one sentence: completely ban the 'hacker address', and temporarily declare a 'substitute signer' in the protocol, allowing only 1-2 specific 'redemption transactions' to pass verification and transfer the money.
1. How is the substitute transaction implemented?
Specifically, it can be broken down into two steps:
The first step is to add a new parameter.
SUI has added a parameter called aliased_addresses to the signature verification layer verify_sender_signed_data_message_signatures, which does a replacement.
Simply put, aliased means substitute address.
The second step is to open a loophole in the deny check.
1. How is the substitute transaction implemented?
Specifically, it can be broken down into two steps:
The first step is to add a new parameter.
SUI has added a parameter called aliased_addresses to the signature verification layer verify_sender_signed_data_message_signatures, which does a replacement.
Simply put, aliased means substitute address.
The second step is to open a loophole in the deny check.
See original
On the Chaos of RWA
Observations and personal opinions from BonnaZhu of Nothing Research Partner; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Chaos is inevitable.
However, using a heavy-handed approach to eliminate RWA is clearly overkill. Just because one track and narrative hasn't succeeded in the past doesn't mean it will never succeed. The key is who steps in to do it and the timing.
Times have changed; the GENIUS Act, the SEC's tokenization framework expectations, and the deregulation in the U.S. clearly indicate that the coming years will be an era of great integration between off-chain and on-chain, TradFi and DeFi.
Chaos is inevitable.
However, using a heavy-handed approach to eliminate RWA is clearly overkill. Just because one track and narrative hasn't succeeded in the past doesn't mean it will never succeed. The key is who steps in to do it and the timing.
Times have changed; the GENIUS Act, the SEC's tokenization framework expectations, and the deregulation in the U.S. clearly indicate that the coming years will be an era of great integration between off-chain and on-chain, TradFi and DeFi.
See original
The cross-chain trading platform Fly Trade on Sonic is about to launch TGE
A few days ago, the token was still included in the listing roadmap of Kraken Exchange. However, under the trend of chain abstraction, narratives such as liquidity aggregation and trading routing are gradually becoming outdated, and it is also difficult to escape the valuation suppression of pioneers like 1inch. But aside from the narrative, the team's improvements in the ve(3,3) model do show some cleverness in its incentive model:
1) Traditional ve(3,3), whether it's Velodrome, Aerodrome, or Shadow Exchange, essentially revolves around LP incentives. The vetoken holders vote to decide which pools' LPs receive token emissions, and LPs earn these rewards by providing liquidity, while also giving up their share of transaction fees that should belong to them to the vetoken voters.
1) Traditional ve(3,3), whether it's Velodrome, Aerodrome, or Shadow Exchange, essentially revolves around LP incentives. The vetoken holders vote to decide which pools' LPs receive token emissions, and LPs earn these rewards by providing liquidity, while also giving up their share of transaction fees that should belong to them to the vetoken voters.
See original
The attention economy is not limited to memes; it can also be IPOs.
Observations and personal views from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd. The following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Earning points through Yap and then redeeming those points for new project quotas instantly brings people back to the ICO boom of 2017 and 2018—writing articles and producing videos for projects, then using the results to negotiate whitelist spots with project teams.
1. An alternative mining approach of 'Contribution = Reward'
Unlike potentially facing closed doors in the past, Virtuals Protocol standardizes the 'Contribution = Reward' mechanism through Kaito AI, ensuring that the efforts of community users are recognized:
Earning points through Yap and then redeeming those points for new project quotas instantly brings people back to the ICO boom of 2017 and 2018—writing articles and producing videos for projects, then using the results to negotiate whitelist spots with project teams.
1. An alternative mining approach of 'Contribution = Reward'
Unlike potentially facing closed doors in the past, Virtuals Protocol standardizes the 'Contribution = Reward' mechanism through Kaito AI, ensuring that the efforts of community users are recognized:
See original
Regarding SUI's Freezing Operation
Regarding the operation of freezing hacker addresses by SUI, we have briefly sorted out its blacklist and whitelist mechanism.
1. How is freezing implemented?
First of all, the SUI chain has always had a feature called Deny List (blacklist for denial of service). Any address that enters the blacklist will not be able to execute related transactions on the nodes.
It is precisely because this feature has long existed in the client that this emergency freeze of hacker addresses was possible. Otherwise, although SUI has only 113 nodes, even if Cetus called each one, it would still be too late.
SUI has not suddenly become a centralized chain since yesterday; it has always been one, at least since the blacklist feature was added.
1. How is freezing implemented?
First of all, the SUI chain has always had a feature called Deny List (blacklist for denial of service). Any address that enters the blacklist will not be able to execute related transactions on the nodes.
It is precisely because this feature has long existed in the client that this emergency freeze of hacker addresses was possible. Otherwise, although SUI has only 113 nodes, even if Cetus called each one, it would still be too late.
SUI has not suddenly become a centralized chain since yesterday; it has always been one, at least since the blacklist feature was added.
See original
Bitcoin has three major holidays:
Creation Day October 31st
On October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published the white paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System."
Holiday Custom: Re-read the white paper 🔖
Genesis Day January 3rd
On January 3, 2009, the first block of the Bitcoin blockchain was mined, officially launching the Bitcoin network.
Holiday Custom: Mock that former British Prime Minister 🤦
Pizza Day May 22nd
A user on the BBT forum, Laszlo, used 10,000 bitcoins to buy two pizzas, marking the first documented use of Bitcoin as a real-world payment medium.
Holiday Custom: Eat two slices of pizza! 🍕
Creation Day October 31st
On October 31, 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published the white paper "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System."
Holiday Custom: Re-read the white paper 🔖
Genesis Day January 3rd
On January 3, 2009, the first block of the Bitcoin blockchain was mined, officially launching the Bitcoin network.
Holiday Custom: Mock that former British Prime Minister 🤦
Pizza Day May 22nd
A user on the BBT forum, Laszlo, used 10,000 bitcoins to buy two pizzas, marking the first documented use of Bitcoin as a real-world payment medium.
Holiday Custom: Eat two slices of pizza! 🍕
See original
Never underestimate the significance of the U.S. Stablecoin Genius Act
Observations and personal views from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
If the US stablecoin bill (GENIUS Act) passes smoothly, its significance will be tremendous; I even think it could enter the top five in Crypto history.
Although abbreviated as the GENIUS Act, which translates directly to the Genius Act, it actually stands for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, which translates to 'Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins.'
The proposal is lengthy, let me summarize a few highlights for everyone:
If the US stablecoin bill (GENIUS Act) passes smoothly, its significance will be tremendous; I even think it could enter the top five in Crypto history.
Although abbreviated as the GENIUS Act, which translates directly to the Genius Act, it actually stands for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, which translates to 'Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins.'
The proposal is lengthy, let me summarize a few highlights for everyone:
See original
About the BIP-177 Proposal
Observations and personal opinions from Nothing Research Partner 0x_Todd, the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Looking closely, the proposal for BIP-177 is as follows:
The BTC symbol remains unchanged, still representing 100 million Satoshis.
However, the Sat (Satoshi) symbol changes to → bitcoin.
The ₿ symbol is designated for the new bitcoin.
In other words, if the proposal takes effect in the future,
1 BTC = 100,000,000 bitcoins.
As a loyal supporter of Bitcoin,
I think splitting it a bit is fine; counting zeros each time is quite a headache.
Especially when paying miner fees.
Now 1 BTC = 100,000 USD.
Looking closely, the proposal for BIP-177 is as follows:
The BTC symbol remains unchanged, still representing 100 million Satoshis.
However, the Sat (Satoshi) symbol changes to → bitcoin.
The ₿ symbol is designated for the new bitcoin.
In other words, if the proposal takes effect in the future,
1 BTC = 100,000,000 bitcoins.
As a loyal supporter of Bitcoin,
I think splitting it a bit is fine; counting zeros each time is quite a headache.
Especially when paying miner fees.
Now 1 BTC = 100,000 USD.
See original
Analysis of Frax's Transformation Route: From Algorithmic Stablecoins to U.S. Payment-Level Infrastructure
Observations and personal views from BonnaZhu of Nothing Research Partner; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Direct beneficiaries of the U.S. stablecoin bill: Frax Finance
I estimate that many people may still associate Frax with its algorithmic stablecoin phase, but in reality, it has quietly transformed into a fiat-collateralized stablecoin. Founder Sam has also been deeply involved in drafting the U.S. GENIUS stablecoin bill.
Even though Frax has been paying for the bubble of its algorithmic stablecoin in recent years, the team has attempted directions like LST and L2 but has not been able to escape the low market value, instead giving the market the impression of 'doing everything, but not doing anything well'. However, Sam has never given up. This time, he chose to refocus Frax on the stablecoin track and go all in on the U.S. market:
Direct beneficiaries of the U.S. stablecoin bill: Frax Finance
I estimate that many people may still associate Frax with its algorithmic stablecoin phase, but in reality, it has quietly transformed into a fiat-collateralized stablecoin. Founder Sam has also been deeply involved in drafting the U.S. GENIUS stablecoin bill.
Even though Frax has been paying for the bubble of its algorithmic stablecoin in recent years, the team has attempted directions like LST and L2 but has not been able to escape the low market value, instead giving the market the impression of 'doing everything, but not doing anything well'. However, Sam has never given up. This time, he chose to refocus Frax on the stablecoin track and go all in on the U.S. market:
See original
The upgrade of EOF for ETH, starting from the Shanghai upgrade, is soon going to the Pectra upgrade. Unfortunately, it still won't be implemented this time, and we have to rely on subsequent upgrades.
The birth of this major patch for EOF is essentially to pay off ETH's past "technical debt".
After all, it's a protocol from 2015, and the EVM is not perfect:
For example, as Siyuan mentioned, the limit on code length is too small, which leads to constant combinations;
Another issue that greatly affects development is that the bytecode structure of the current EVM is not very clear, making it difficult for many development tools to be used, and thus formal verification and static analysis are also very challenging.
An illustration is as follows:
You can see that the latter (EOF) is much clearer.
Using an inappropriate analogy, launching EOF is equivalent to a new EVM.
So, this is a significant project.
Blockchain is different from traditional software; the obsession with forward compatibility in blockchain is much deeper.
We can't just say that when ETH updates, all old DeFi NFTs should stop and be redeveloped, right?
So if EOF is implemented, those contracts based on the old EVM must still be able to function normally.
Of course, users won't perceive all of this because it is the vast ETH nodes that are carrying the burden. In the future, the workload of the execution layer clients for nodes will double, and they must be able to:
Handle both old version EVM contracts
And handle new version EOF contracts
Many in the community oppose EOF, but short pain is better than long pain. At worst, it will still allow everyone to develop old EVM contracts in the future while encouraging the development of new EOF, allowing the market to freely choose and eliminate.
After all, nodes are running both sets simultaneously, so there's not much difference.
The birth of this major patch for EOF is essentially to pay off ETH's past "technical debt".
After all, it's a protocol from 2015, and the EVM is not perfect:
For example, as Siyuan mentioned, the limit on code length is too small, which leads to constant combinations;
Another issue that greatly affects development is that the bytecode structure of the current EVM is not very clear, making it difficult for many development tools to be used, and thus formal verification and static analysis are also very challenging.
An illustration is as follows:
You can see that the latter (EOF) is much clearer.
Using an inappropriate analogy, launching EOF is equivalent to a new EVM.
So, this is a significant project.
Blockchain is different from traditional software; the obsession with forward compatibility in blockchain is much deeper.
We can't just say that when ETH updates, all old DeFi NFTs should stop and be redeveloped, right?
So if EOF is implemented, those contracts based on the old EVM must still be able to function normally.
Of course, users won't perceive all of this because it is the vast ETH nodes that are carrying the burden. In the future, the workload of the execution layer clients for nodes will double, and they must be able to:
Handle both old version EVM contracts
And handle new version EOF contracts
Many in the community oppose EOF, but short pain is better than long pain. At worst, it will still allow everyone to develop old EVM contracts in the future while encouraging the development of new EOF, allowing the market to freely choose and eliminate.
After all, nodes are running both sets simultaneously, so there's not much difference.
See original
How does Penpie make a profit? Three sources of income and distribution mechanisms
Observations and personal views from Nothing Research Partner BonnaZhu, the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
So how does Penpie make a profit?
How is this portion of profit distributed?
Mainly from three parts:
LP earnings siphoning
Penpie is similar to Convex, taking a portion of the Pendle rewards given to LP Boost as protocol income. Specifically, the Pendle rewards from Boost,
- 5% goes to Penpie as platform operating fees
- 12% goes to mPENDLE holders
- 5% goes to locked PNP users (vlPNP)
Note: Many people ask me about the difference between doing LP and buying PT. Essentially, doing LP and buying PT are somewhat similar, both being financial behaviors under the premise of capital preservation, rather than speculative trading like buying YT. However, the sources of earnings are different:
So how does Penpie make a profit?
How is this portion of profit distributed?
Mainly from three parts:
LP earnings siphoning
Penpie is similar to Convex, taking a portion of the Pendle rewards given to LP Boost as protocol income. Specifically, the Pendle rewards from Boost,
- 5% goes to Penpie as platform operating fees
- 12% goes to mPENDLE holders
- 5% goes to locked PNP users (vlPNP)
Note: Many people ask me about the difference between doing LP and buying PT. Essentially, doing LP and buying PT are somewhat similar, both being financial behaviors under the premise of capital preservation, rather than speculative trading like buying YT. However, the sources of earnings are different:
See original
Penpie Model Analysis: Yield Enhancement and Governance Outsourcing in the Pendle War
This observation and personal opinion come from BonnaZhu of Nothing Research Partner; the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
Recently, DWF Labs' stablecoin USDf has been launched on Pendle, providing LPs with high incentives, much higher than buying PT. However, since I don't have vePENDLE for yield enhancement, the direct LP returns are a bit of a loss.
So I started looking for third-party yield platforms, tried Penpie, and finally achieved nearly 40% APY, which is basically close to the 50% max APY limit.
The background of Penpie is also similar to that of Convex:
Under the vePENDLE model, the locking period is long, and liquidity is poor.
Recently, DWF Labs' stablecoin USDf has been launched on Pendle, providing LPs with high incentives, much higher than buying PT. However, since I don't have vePENDLE for yield enhancement, the direct LP returns are a bit of a loss.
So I started looking for third-party yield platforms, tried Penpie, and finally achieved nearly 40% APY, which is basically close to the 50% max APY limit.
The background of Penpie is also similar to that of Convex:
Under the vePENDLE model, the locking period is long, and liquidity is poor.
See original
The Last Mile of Liquidity: From UniversalX to the Platform Evolution of Particle
Observations and personal views from Nothing Research Partner BonnaZhu, the following content does not constitute any investment advice.
I am not a P player, nor a heavy trader. But every time the market starts, when I want to organize my small positions across chains, I still find UniversalX the most practical, helping save a lot of cross-chain operations and waiting time. This also makes me recognize the value of Particle Network, more in its liquidity scheduling capability rather than trading.
✨ The Last Mile of Liquidity
My bias is:
- The fragmentation of crypto liquidity is a fact
I am not a P player, nor a heavy trader. But every time the market starts, when I want to organize my small positions across chains, I still find UniversalX the most practical, helping save a lot of cross-chain operations and waiting time. This also makes me recognize the value of Particle Network, more in its liquidity scheduling capability rather than trading.
✨ The Last Mile of Liquidity
My bias is:
- The fragmentation of crypto liquidity is a fact
See original
Differences in speculative economy and narrative economy from PumpFun and Virtuals
TLDR:
One relies on traffic distribution, the other on continuous building.
One is born from abundance, while the other is trapped in scarcity.
Speculative platforms have stronger tidal attributes, and growth is more direct.
It is precisely because speculative platforms are easier to operate that the adherence to value is commendable.
Main text:
Recently, with the return of enthusiasm on the chain, the leading pump.fun has seen a continuous recovery in token creation and revenue. Although it has not yet returned to January's peak, it is gradually approaching last October's level. On the other hand, the Agent launch platform led by Virtuals Protocol has yet to show significant signs of data recovery.
https://dune.com/adam_tehc/pumpfun…
One relies on traffic distribution, the other on continuous building.
One is born from abundance, while the other is trapped in scarcity.
Speculative platforms have stronger tidal attributes, and growth is more direct.
It is precisely because speculative platforms are easier to operate that the adherence to value is commendable.
Main text:
Recently, with the return of enthusiasm on the chain, the leading pump.fun has seen a continuous recovery in token creation and revenue. Although it has not yet returned to January's peak, it is gradually approaching last October's level. On the other hand, the Agent launch platform led by Virtuals Protocol has yet to show significant signs of data recovery.
https://dune.com/adam_tehc/pumpfun…
Login to explore more contents