Continuing from the last time, let’s look at this issue from the perspective of L2 and the community. If ETH rebounds strongly in the future, the token will also face a dilemma.

In fact, various L2 projects were initially hesitant to issue tokens. In addition to the aforementioned opposition from Ethereum, there are several other reasons: regulatory risks, sufficient funds and no need for additional financing, difficulty in determining the scope of the token’s use, and direct use of ETH will drive TVL and ecological growth more quickly. Issuing your own token may conflict with this goal, and liquidity will never surpass ETH.

Still the same saying, it is human nature, who can resist printing hundreds of billions of dollars out of thin air? Moreover, from the perspective of community members and ecological development, issuing tokens seems necessary. In addition to charging a fixed service fee, it can also provide a treasury that can be cashed out at any time. Who wouldn't like that?

Thus, the market saw a large number of 'air tokens' that do not require PoS staking or PoW mining. These tokens have only one purpose: voting, and each linear release drains the market's liquidity. Over time, these tokens, lacking real driving force, will continue to decline after airdrops, leaving the community and investors dissatisfied.

So, should these tokens be assigned value? This leads to a dilemma. The token situation of the 'Four Kings' of L2 perfectly illustrates these issues.

In contrast, Base, which did not issue tokens, is faring much better than Zks and Starknet, with its sequencer revenue even surpassing that of Superchain's founder OP.

As mentioned before, leveraging social media influence, project operations, and price-raising strategies is a way for MEME tokens and various projects to create wealth effects, which is an indirect method of multiple small airdrops.

This approach is much healthier than directly issuing tokens and then airdropping once. In addition to continuously generating attraction, it also avoids many problems. By allocating a portion of sequencer revenue monthly, Layer 2 projects can maintain activity and build a sustainable ecosystem.

It is worth noting that the points system currently in Web3 is merely a superficial imitation of Pinduoduo's 'cut a slice' model. Coinbase's stable and long-term operational strategy far surpasses that of breakout players like Ironfish.

The trend of homogenization between L1 and L2, and even among different L2 solutions, is becoming increasingly evident. This situation stems from a key issue: in this cycle, very few independent applications can prove the existence of a specific application chain, and a few standout applications have already 'run away'.

Currently, it can be said that all Layer 2 projects are targeting the same user base, even overlapping with Ethereum's main chain. As a result, a phenomenon of intense competition has emerged: Layer 2 solutions are constantly encroaching on Ethereum, and there is vicious competition regarding Total Value Locked (TVL). No one can clearly distinguish these chains; users rely on incentive programs to decide where to store funds or on which platform to trade.

Homogenization, fragmentation, and lack of liquidity—Ethereum is currently the only public chain ecosystem that contains all three problems simultaneously. These issues also stem from Ethereum's inherent open spirit, leading to some drawbacks. Many Layer 2 solutions may soon face natural elimination, and centralized issues could lead to various forms of chaos.

From the ICO boom in 2016 to the P2E bubble in 2022, the blockchain industry has witnessed various Ponzi schemes and new narratives emerge in each era, pushing the industry towards increasingly larger bubbles, limited only by infrastructure. We are now witnessing the collapse of these bubbles—projects with huge funds are self-destructing, and the disconnection between the value of Bitcoin and altcoins is growing larger.

When Ethereum experiences internal exponential growth while external liquidity remains scarce, the pursuit of new narratives cannot fill the block space on Layer 2. As an industry leader, Ethereum should first address the fragmentation and internal decline issues of its Layer 2 ecosystem. It is especially noteworthy regarding the Ethereum Foundation (EF), which I have not mentioned before. Why has the EF, despite investing huge sums, failed to fulfill its responsibilities? In a market where Layer 2 infrastructure is already severely oversupplied, why does the EF continue to prioritize funding infrastructure projects? Even leaders of centralized exchanges are being humble and seeking transformation, while the organization that should accelerate ecosystem growth, the EF, seems to be moving in the opposite direction.

Transitioning from the virtual world to the real world is also the current trend. While Ethereum embraces modularity, some claim that the narrative of 'Ethereum killers' has ended.

However, today, the hottest ecosystems are TON and Solana. Do these chains bring any innovations that can truly change cryptocurrency? Are they more decentralized or safer than Ethereum?

The answer is no. They have not introduced any groundbreaking narratives. What they have done is make those seemingly complex technologies more like real-world applications, integrating Web2 standards with blockchain advantages, and nothing more.
#ethereum #solana生态 #Toncoin