$NEAR 從我們的推薦中上升了47% #Near | 幣安廣場上的 Crypto_Psychic

書籤與點讚

創作者中心

--

$NEAR  從我們的推薦中上升了47%
#Near  

Crypto_Psychic

--

看漲

如果您錯過了$ICP ，請不要錯過$NEAR

免責聲明：包含來自第三方的見解。非財務建議。可能包含贊助內容。請參閱條款。

NEAR

2.394

+0.41%

302

0

探索最新的加密貨幣新聞

⚡️ 參與加密貨幣領域的最新討論

💬 與您喜愛的創作者互動

👍 享受您感興趣的內容

電子郵件 / 電話號碼

相關創作者

@Crypto_Psychic

創作者的更多內容

--

YGG is one of those projects that’s easier to misunderstand if you only look at the earliest headlines from the play-to-earn era. Back then it was mostly framed as a guild that lent NFTs to players, which was accurate in a narrow sense but didn’t capture the actual ambition behind the network. When you go past the surface and look at how YGG positioned itself structurally, it becomes clear that it wasn’t trying to build a short-term gaming collective; it was building a protocol that organizes people around digital economies in a way traditional gaming models never really supported. The real value of YGG shows up when you think about what happens as more games adopt open economies. Traditional games separate players and assets in a closed loop. Web3 games invert that relationship: assets can move, value can move, and participation becomes more flexible. YGG recognized early on that once assets become fluid, communities also become fluid. Players don’t just need access to NFTs; they need infrastructure, reputation systems, discovery tools, training, and a sense of collective structure. This is where YGG differs from a simple “guild.” It functions as a network that maps players to opportunities and lowers the barrier to entry for games that require on-chain assets. The scholarship model — lending assets to players who couldn’t afford entry into early Web3 games — was basically the first visible use case. But it wasn’t the endgame. What grew around YGG was a set of verticals: sub-DAOs, regional communities, skill-based cohorts, and a broader system for distributing resources across multiple games. You can see the pattern: the project was trying to create a scalable structure for on-chain participation, not a one-off tactic tied to a single title like Axie. $YGG #YieldGuildGames @Yield Guild Games

--

Injective is one of those projects that makes more sense the longer you stay in the ecosystem. At first glance people tend to simplify it into the “fast chain for trading” category, but that barely scratches the surface. When you spend enough time looking at how the protocol is structured, you start noticing that Injective wasn’t built as another general-purpose chain trying to be everything to everyone. It was built around one assumption: financial applications need infrastructure that behaves predictably, executes instantly, and avoids the bottlenecks that plague most ecosystems trying to run high-throughput markets. The core idea that caught my attention early on was the way Injective handles its on-chain orderbook. Many chains have attempted this, but most resort to hybridized models or some off-chain component because they can’t maintain performance without sacrificing decentralization. Injective approached it differently. They embedded the orderbook directly at the protocol layer rather than leaving it to smart contracts, and that design choice changes a lot of downstream behavior. Market makers get deterministic execution. Traders get real-time finality. Developers can build derivative, spot, or exotic financial instruments without designing around latency issues. It’s not the sort of architecture you build for short-term hype; it’s something you design when you actually expect institutions or algorithmic systems to show up. Another detail that tends to go unnoticed is how deeply Injective integrates with the Cosmos stack while still maintaining Ethereum interoperability. Because it uses the Cosmos SDK and IBC, the network has this modularity that Ethereum-based chains don’t naturally get. At the same time, Injective’s own bridge and EVM compatibility give it access to liquidity that purely Cosmos-native chains often struggle to capture. It sits in a kind of middle position — connected enough to Ethereum to matter, but flexible enough to support custom modules that would be difficult to implement elsewhere. $INJ #Injective @Injective

--

It’s interesting how Plasma went from being the center of Ethereum’s scaling discussions to something that now feels more like an internal layer of knowledge that only people who’ve been in the space long enough remember clearly. And yet when you go back to it, not in a nostalgic way but with the mindset of someone trying to understand how Ethereum’s scaling philosophy actually evolved, it becomes obvious that Plasma wasn’t just an experiment — it laid down structural ideas that modern rollups keep borrowing from, even if they don’t reference it directly. The basic Plasma model was simple on paper: keep most activity off-chain, rely on Ethereum only for verification and finality, and let users exit to L1 if anything went wrong. But “simple on paper” often hides how many design choices are buried underneath. For example, the whole concept of exit games sounds abstract until you start thinking about how to prevent a malicious operator from freezing funds. That alone pushed researchers into exploring challenge mechanisms, fraud proofs, and user-driven security in ways that still influence how optimistic systems are designed today. You can see the DNA of Plasma almost everywhere in modern L2 thinking, even in places where the architecture has moved far beyond it. One thing that stands out when you study Plasma closely is how much emphasis it placed on data minimization. Not because it was fashionable, but because it was necessary for the design to function. Operators weren’t expected to publish full transaction data on-chain, which immediately raised questions about data availability and user safety. Those debates eventually shaped the industry’s understanding of why forcing data on-chain—even in compressed form—is sometimes the only way to guarantee permissionless safety. It’s ironic: Plasma’s limitations helped clarify what viable scaling needed to look like. $XPL #Plasma @Plasma

--

It’s difficult to talk about Linea without first acknowledging the specific gap it tries to close in the Ethereum ecosystem. Not the generic “scaling” slogan everyone repeats, but the more practical issue developers have faced for years: the desire for a zkEVM that doesn’t force them to compromise between compatibility, proving efficiency, and actual production readiness. Linea positions itself in that narrow middle ground, and that’s where its relevance becomes obvious once you’ve looked at enough L2s to understand their different trade-offs. The core of Linea’s approach is its type-2 zkEVM design. In practice, this means smart contracts behave almost exactly as they would on Ethereum mainnet, without developers rewriting logic or adapting to unusual quirks in the virtual machine. That single detail may sound minor, but if you’ve ever tried to migrate contracts to a system that claims “EVM compatibility” and then hits you with edge-case inconsistencies, you appreciate why Linea’s design philosophy is valued. It reduces friction in real terms, not just in marketing language. Then there’s the proving architecture. Linea’s team didn’t aim for theoretical perfection; they focused on making zk-proofs fast enough and cheap enough to be practical for day-to-day activity. Their recursive proving pipeline, especially after the recent upgrades, is configured to shrink proof generation times while keeping hardware requirements manageable. You can see the priorities here: predictable costs, no exotic hardware dependency, and throughput that can scale without degrading the developer experience. It’s not the loudest engineering achievement in the ecosystem, but it’s the kind of incremental optimization that builders immediately notice. One thing that stands out — and I don’t think this gets enough attention — is how Linea aligns itself with Ethereum’s longer-term roadmap. Many L2s pursue strategies that may or may not fit neatly with proto-danksharding or future data availability improvements. $LINEA #Linea @Linea.eth

--

實時新聞

布朗大学和埃默里大学持有大量加密货币相关股票

--

3.13万枚SOL转入Bitgo Custody，价值约434万美元

--

Arthur Hayes 出售价值约 250.4 万美元的加密资产

--

比特币去年涨幅122%，今年涨势趋缓为正常回归

--

31279.14 枚 SOL 从 Bitgo Custody 转出至匿名地址

--

熱門文章

$BTC 个人意淫一下。两年没出现过的macd的月线即将死叉，半年前的7.4他也没有出现过的东西，这个信号别说我们散户了

Aster官方触发用户信任危机！这波确实恶心人！我都想减点现货仓了！接下来怎么办？咱们还是要理性分析一下！找到方法来应对

BTC真要復刻歷史？這些數據細思極恐！

目前到底是牛市还是熊市？？？币圈老韭菜都知道比特币的4年周期，早期市场单一由减半主导：BTC供给少了、情绪拉满、资金

$ETH 精准预测即将拉升100点！空头已成“活靶子”，你还在观望？ “现在以太坊刚突破 $3220，虽然涨了点，但市

币圈稳健哥

Cookie 偏好設定

Cookie 偏好設定