关注度方面，相关话题越来越多出现在全球各地开发者大会，以太坊创始人 Vitalik 也更多地提到 ZK 概念，此外以太坊基金会旗下组织 Privacy and Scaling Exploration（PSE）也在致力于相关研究。

资金方面，不少 ZK 相关在 2022年逆势拿到融资，且数目不小。如 Manta Network 获得币安战略投资，Aztec 获得 1亿美元 B 轮融资等等。

本文将从概念入手，解释 ZK，总结五大 ZK 项目 StarkNet、zkSync、Manta Network、Scroll、Polygon 在 2022年的进展。

什么是 ZK ？

ZK 是对计算本身进行加密。比如，有一场针对加密行业的闭门线下活动，每位走进活动场地的人，面前会自动出现弹窗，要求填写验证码。

假设，有位参会者的验证码，由三位字母组成。第一位字母，是比特币代币缩写的第二个字母，第二位是以太坊代币缩写的第二个字母，第三位是泰达代币缩写的第四个字母。若参会者是行业内部人员，会知道验证码是“TTT”。反之，则不是。

参会者验证通过后，手腕自动生成手环。会场内的安保只要看到手环，就知道该参会者是之前已通过验证。

在实际的 ZK 网络中，有两种参与者，证明者（Prover）与验证者（Verifier）。证明者生成 ZK 证明，验证者验证该证明。在上述例子中，参与会议的人是证明者，证明自己是合格参会者。会场验证系统和安保人员，是验证者，验证参会者是否合格。

由此带来以下特性，首先，ZK 证明不可伪造，这是基于密码学本身产生的。其次，隐私性，验证者除了验证参与者是否合格外，不会获取其他任何信息。第三是简洁性，其他安保人员查看手环即可，无需再重新验证参与者身份。

ZK 能做什么？

扩容与隐私，是目前 ZK 主要应用方向。

扩容利用了 ZK 简洁性。ZK 网络甚至可以只用 1个节点验证交易真实性，生成 ZK 证明，其他节点只需校验 ZK 证明即可，无需再进行复杂计算。如上文所述，安保人员仅需查看手环即可，无需再核实参会者确切身份。

采用 ZK 技术的 Layer2（zk-Rollup），由排序器或者 Layer2 节点生成 ZK 证明，部署在以太坊主网的合约来验证该证明。用户在 Layer2 执行具体交易，交易聚合上传至以太坊主网后，其他节点无需复杂验证，由此完成执行层面扩容和模块化。

同时，由于 ZK 不可伪造，zk-Rollup 可以使用链下的数据可用层。因为可以生成 ZK 证明，并且无法篡改和伪造证明。

攻击者无法证明自己拥有这些资产，所以无法动用链下资产，也无法作恶。所以 StarkNet、zkSync 的 zkPorter 和 Polygon 的 Avail 等 ZK 项目，都搭建了自己的数据可用层。这点是 Optimism Rollup 目前做不到的。

以太坊费用主要由三部分组成：链上执行费用（节点执行、验证交易有效性）、存储 / 状态费用（更新状态）、数据可用性费用（新区块数据是否可用）。其中，数据可用性费用是最主要的花费。

稍微区分下数据可用性与与数据存储。前者强调区块发布的数据是否可用，后者强调存储数据与访问。

在未来理想状态下，zk-Rollup Gas 更低、TPS 更高。所以，Vitalik 认为短期来看，Optimistic Rollup 会因 EVM 兼容性胜出，但长期看，zk-Rollup 会胜出。

ZK 赛道重点项目进展

StarkNet

StarkNet 是用 Cairo 语言编写的、采用 zk-STARK、无许可的以太坊 Layer2。利用 ZK 技术，StarkNet 在自身 Layer2 上执行计算，通过递归将 N 多笔交易打包在一起，生成证明提交到以太坊链上，由链上智能合约校验 ZK 证明。

在必要时，以太坊全节点可通过解密元数据（Metadata）重构 StarkNet 历史状态。StarkNet 也由此获得以太坊级别安全性。

出于最大限度地发挥 STARK 特点，以及对 ZK 生成验证速度的考量，StarkNet 使用对 ZK 更友好的 Cairo 语言，通过 Warp 和 Kakarot 兼容 EVM。这也成为 StarkNet 2022年开发重点之一。

融资情况 2018年1月，宣布 600万美元种子轮融资。

2018年7月，宣布 1200万美元 Grant 轮融资，以太坊基金会参与投资。

2018年10月，宣布 3000万美元 A 轮融资，Polychain、Pantera 等机构及个人参与。

2021年5月，宣布 7500万美元 B 轮融资，Paradigm领投，红杉资本、Founders Fund、Pantera 等参投。

2021年11月，宣布 5000万美元 C 轮融资，红杉资本领投，投资方包括 Paradigm、Alameda Research、Three Arrows Capital 等。

2022年5月，宣布 1亿美元 D 轮融资，Greenoaks Capital 和 Coatue 领投，投资方还包括 Tiger Global 与其他参与者。

2022年主要进展 产品方面，跨链桥 StarkGate Alpha 版上线主网；发布 StarkNet 去中心化治理提案，以及代币设计；宣布 StarkNet 基金会成立，STRK 代币部署至以太坊；Visa 宣布计划使用 StarkNet 和 Argent 实现自托管钱包自动交易。StarkNet v4.5 支持 DA 数据可用性选择方案 Volition

开发方面，Solidty → Cairo 转译器 Warp 2.0 发布；Kakarot zkEvm 实现 100% EVM 操作码完整兼容；StarkNet 上实现 Bulletproofs；发布 StarkNet 状态重置计划，宣布 Cairo 1.0，首个版本即将发布。

Cairo base64 编码代码库发布，未来链上 NFT 发展的第一步，部署 ERC-20 和 ERC-721 代币合约标准，部署标准界面的帐户抽象等基本合约。更新 StarkNet 主网更新，更新 CairoLang；

生态进展方面，据官网（https://www.starknet-ecosystem.com/）显示，StarkNet 生态项目已达122个。

zkSync

zkSync 是以太坊 Layer2，有 1.0 和 2.0 之分。1.0 于 2020年6月上线，只用于实现特定功能，不支持 zkEVM，也无法处理复杂智能合约。zkSync 2.0 是支持 zkEVM 的，更为通用的版本。若无特别说明，后文所提 zkSync 皆指 zkSync 2.0。

zkSync 基于 zk-SNARK 的 PLONK 编写，与 StarkNet 类似，利用 ZK 简洁性及递归证明，将自身链上交易压缩，由以太坊主网智能合约验证。

zkSync 同样面临 EVM 兼容问题，于是通过构建 LLVM 框架，创建编译器前端 Yul 与 Zinc，实现 Solidity、Rust 语言兼容，可用于开发 zkSync 智能合约，实现通用 ZK 电路。

融资情况 2019年9月，宣布 200万美元融资，Placeholder领投。

2021年2月，宣布 600万美元融资，Union Square Ventures 领投。

2021年11月，宣布 5000万美元 B 轮融资，a16z 领投，，Placeholder、Dragonfly、1kx、Blockchain.com、Crypto.com、Consensys 等参投。

2022年11月，宣布 2亿美元 C 轮融资，Blockchain Capital 和 Dragonfly 共同领投，a16z、Variant、Lightspeed Venture Partners 等参投。

2022年主要进展 2022年，zkSync 重点侧重于 zkEVM 网络上线及优化。2月，于公共测试网推出 zkSync 2.0，实现第一个 zkEVM，并用几个月的时间优化，包括架构升级，实现抽象账户，提升对 Solidity 的支持，并完全支持 Vyper，实现证明合并。

10月，zkSync 开发项目注册，参与注册项目可在主网上线。当月，zkSync 2.0 主网上线，引入Alpha zkEVM，初步兼容 EVM。

生态发展方面，据官网（https://ecosystem.zksync.io/）显示，zkSync 生态项目达223个。其中不乏多练部署的成熟项目，包括 Curve、1inch、yEarn、Gitcoin、Chainlink 等等。

Manta Network

Manta Network（以下简称 “Manta”） 是基于 ZK 技术的可编程隐私 Layer1。Manta 利用 ZK 技术，原创出隐私资产类型 zkAssets、隐私地址协议 zkAddress，以及隐私传输协议 MantaPay。

开发者可以基于 Manta，开发链上原生隐私 dApp。

用户可以用跨链桥，将 ERC-20 等同质化代币，和 ERC-721、1155 等非同质化代币桥接到 Manta，将资产和地址从公开状态，变为隐私状态，将资产和地址持有信息隐私化，也可在 Manta 链上原生隐私 dApp 内，实现 DeFi、NFT、游戏等隐私交互。

继而实现隐私化交易信息，防止 MEV 夹心交易，保护 DeFi 交互信息，如借贷资产强平线，zkDID，以及将现有全链游戏或 GameFi 从对称性博弈扩展为非对称性博弈。

技术上，Manta 选择 zk-SNARK Groth16，利用 ZK 简洁性的同时，也利用了隐私性。Manta 重新设计了隐私协议实现细节，使用了对零知识证明更友好的哈希函数—— Poseidon hash 让整个密码学协议更 streamline，在经典的隐私技术如椭圆曲线密码术（FH-ECC）算法等的基础上进行优化和升级。

如同 Kusama 之于 Polkadot，Manta 也拥有自己的先行网 Calamari。Calamari 已上线，主网 Manta 暂未上线。Manta 2022年开发进展，主要集中在于 Calamari 网络部署 ZK 网络，以及 ZK 科研方面的探索。

融资情况 2021年2月，宣布由 Polychain 领投的110万美元融资，参投方包括 Hypersphere 等。

2021年10月，宣布 550万美元融资，机构包括加密领域的对冲基金 CoinFund、ParaFi、LongHash、CMS，Divergence等 30余家机构。

2021年11月，宣布 2880万美元社区轮融资。

2022年2月，币安宣布战略投资 Manta。

2022年主要进展 产品方面，推出 ZK 本地生成工具 Manta Signer，使得 ZK 交互可在2-5秒完成，或许是目前全网最快 ZK 交互体验。MantaPay 测试网 Dolphin，已更新3个版本，当前 Dolphin v3 测试进行中。

Calamari 与 Moonriver（Moonbeam）、Karura（Acala）实现互操作性。将 Calamari 网络原有跟随 Kusama 的 NPoS 共识，迁移至 DPoS 共识，实现用户 KMA 代币质押给 Collator 可分享出块奖励，同时增强网络安全性。

开发方面，Calamari 主要进展几乎全部完成，只差 MantaPay 上线。目前 MantaPay 上线前最后一版测试网 Dolphin v3 已接近测试完成，意味着 MantaPay 即将上线 Calamari。

推出原创隐私资产类型 zkAssets 与隐私地址类型 zkAddress，并与今年年底完成 Web3 迄今为止参与人数最多的可信设置（Trusted Setup）仪式。

ZK 科研方面，Manta 发起并主导了 OpenZL 计划。OpenZL 是一套让 ZK 开发，具有互操作性的通用库、工具和标准，目前已经支持 Plonky2、Groth16、arkGroth16，接下来还将支持 Halo2 等等。

前不久，Manta 主办了 OpenZL 第一次线上聚会，来自以太坊基金会、Protocol labs、Web3 foundation、RiscZero 等机构的密码学家参与分享。

此外，Manta 与 Jump 合作《Accelerating Elliptic Curve Operations and Finite Field Arithmetic (WASM)》（加速椭圆曲线运算和有限域算术WASM）在 ZPrize 获奖，最大限度提高客户端和虚拟机吞吐量/最小化延迟，特别是WebAssembly（WASM）运行时间。目的在于让 ZK 和隐私应用流行，将 ZK Prover 与主流钱包整合，提高 WASM Prover 性能。

Scroll

Scroll 是使用 ZK 开发的以太坊 Layer2，号称最兼容 EVM 的 zk-Rollup。Vitalik 在其解释 zkEVM 类型的文章中，将 Scroll 归为第二类，字节码级别等效，即与 EVM 完全等效。而 StarkNet、zkSync 则归为第四类，开发语言级别等效。

Scroll 当前架构由三部分组成：Scroll 节点、Roller 网络与 Rollup、Bridge 合约。

Scroll 节点由排序器（Sequencer）、协调器（Coordinator）和中继器（Relayer）组成，负责将用户在 Layer2 的交易，构建区块，提交到以太坊，并在 Layer1 和 Layer2 之间传递消息。

Roller 网络负责生成 zkEVM 有效性证明。Rollup 和 Bridge 合约，为 Scroll 提供数据可用性，验证 zkEVM 有效性证明，允许用户在以太坊和 Scroll 之间转移资产。

融资情况 2022年4月，宣布获得 3000万美元 A 轮融资，Polychain Capital 领投，Bain Capital Crypto、Robot Ventures、Geometry DAO 等参投。

2022年主要进展 Scroll 的目标，是计划建立 EVM 等效的 zkEVM，希望实现字节码级兼容，让以太坊现有应用可以几乎无缝迁移过来，并且兼容以太坊所有语言、工具，降低开发难度。

此外，Scroll 还计划建立去中心化验证网络，将 ZK 证明分发给参与者进行计算，将结果汇总形成最终的证明。去中心化的验证网络将向所有人开放，并将设置激励机制与惩罚机制。

2022年，Scroll 最重要进展是于8月，上线 Pre-Alpha 网络，并开放测试。截至1月9日，参与地址达 39.7万。

生态建设方面，Uniswap、Lens Protocol 等协议，在 Scroll  Pre-Alpha 测试网部署，且与 Multichain、Hop Protocol、Orbiter Finance 等跨链桥达成合作。Pre-Alpha 上线之后，Scroll 会将更多精力放在钱包等工具类基础设施建设，以及应用拓展上。

Polygon Hermez

2021年8月，Polygon 以 2.5亿美元，收购以太坊 Layer2 协议 Hermez Network，并进行了合并，成为当前熟知的 Polygon Hermez。Hermez 也有 1.0与 2.0之分，若无特殊说明，本文之后所提 Polygon Hermez，皆为 2.0。

Polygon 团队自比“以太坊扩容瑞士军刀”，除了 Hermez，还有 Polygon PoS、Polygon SDK 解决方案和数据可用层 Polygon Avail。

Polygon Hermez 是基于 ZK 的以太坊 Layer2 zk-Rollup，同时采用 zk-SNARK 和 zk-STARK 开发，与 Scroll 一样，属于字节码级别等效，即与 EVM 完全等效，主要由 PoE（Proof of Efficiency） 共识、zkNode、zkProver 及 Bridge 构成。

zkNode 节点包括同步器（Synchronizer）、排序器（Sequencers）、聚合器（Aggregators）和 RPC。排序器（Sequencers）收集用户在 Layer2 上的交易，聚合器（Aggregators）使用 zkProver 生成有效性证明，并由主网智能合约验证。值得注意的是，Hermez 通过 STARK 生成证明，使用SNARK 验证 STARK 的有效性。因为在以太坊上，使用 SNARK 验证成本更低。

除 Hermez 外，Polygon 曾在介绍 ZK 战略的博文中，提到了另外三个由Polygon主导的 ZK 项目 Miden、Nightfall、Zero。甚至 Polygon 还计划推出 Optimistic Rollup 方案、独立的方案（Stand-Alone Chains）、安全共享链（Shared Security Chains）扩容方案。

融资情况 2019年4月与2022年7月，宣布 Secondary Market 融资，资金及参投方未披露。

2019年4月、8月，2021年5月，宣布种子轮融资，披露金额 45万美元，投资方包括 Coinbase 和 NBA 球队达拉斯独行侠队老板马克库班。

2020年12月，宣布 100万美元 A 轮融资。

2022年2月，通过代币销售，宣布 4.5亿美元 Venture 轮融资，Sequoia Capital India 领投，参投方包括 SoftBank Vision Fund 2、Galaxy Digital、Galaxy Interactive、Tiger Global、Republic Capital 等参投。

2022年7月，Non Equity Assistance，获得 Disney Accelerator 投资。

2022年主要进展 2022年，Polygon 在 ZK 方面最重要的进展，当属上线 zkEVM 测试网，并不断优化改进，包括添加递归，提高测试网性能。

10月，推出 zkEVM 公共测试网，Aave、Uniswap、Lens Protocol 、游戏工作室 Midnight Society 也将成为首批加入测试网的成员。

12月，推出第二个 zkEVM 公共测试网，引入递归证明，以将证明时间从原先的 10 分钟优化至 4 分钟。启动 zkEVM 安全审计，由安全公司 Spearbit 和 Hexens 进行，预计将持续到 2023 年 1 月。

Polygon 联合创始人 Sandeep Nailwal 最近发推表示，“刚从 zkEVM 主网启动高级委员会出来，我们（已经）有主网启动的日期”。

开发方面，Polygon 开源 zkEVM 代码，以及 ZK 开发系统 Plonky2 与 Starky。Plonky2 是 zk-SNARK 分支技术之一，而Starky 或许是目前最快的开源STARK验证器。

开源 pil-stark（PIL）工具包，PIL 是创建代数状态机的工具。用来定义 EVM 计算验证的正确性，也用来生成 STARK 证明，验证任意用户交易的计算。

ZK 研究方面，Polygon ZK 博客于去年发布两篇论文《ZK White Paper: Efficient ZK Proofs for Keccak》《ZK Research: Bignum Arithmetic for Zero-Knowledge Proofs》。

ZK 的未来：DID、跨链桥、预言机、抽象账户、全链游戏、硬件加速

ZK 就像一辆隆隆驶来的火车，多数时间里，我们总是翘首以盼。而它真正来临的那一刻，会疾驰而过，驶向更广阔的大地。

熵减被科学家看作生命的本质。熵是热力学概念，用来描述系统混乱程度。熵增说的是，没有外力的情况下，一切事物都是从有序向无序发展，最终形成熵死。熵减是熵增的逆形势。说的是在外力的作用下系统变得越来越有序。熵减，意味着效率。

人类分工的标准化与专业化是熵减。因为标准化集装箱存在，奠定了跨境物流与全球化分工的基础。TypeC 充电线的普及，也是熵减的过程。区块链也是如此。

信任是人类社会所需要付出的巨大成本之一。你需要不停地与另一个人互动，才能判断此人是否值得信任，但结果有时并不如意。银行征信，抵押或无抵押借贷更是如此。去信任，是熵减。

在 ZK 之前，区块链去信任靠节点共识、治理共识或欺诈证明等等，是在经济学假设基础上建立的共识，即参与者需质押 Token 与项目方利益绑定。这对区块链发展产生了限制。

前文提到过，当前以太坊费用主要由三部分构成：执行费用、存储 / 状态费用、数据可用性费用。

由于 ZK 证明不可伪造和简洁等特性，使得 zk-Rollup 不仅可以在执行层进行链下扩展，也可链下扩展数据可用层。即使节点作恶，由于 ZK 不可伪造，也无法动用用户资产。StarkNet、zkSync 的 zkPorter 和 Polygon 的 Avail 等都搭建了自己的数据可用层。这点是 Optimism Rollup 做不到的。

本质上，ZK 可以将区块链去信任化，从经济学假设，带入到基于密码学假设中，实现链下数据可用性、原生抽象账户钱包等原生功能进一步扩展。可以说，ZK 或许是真正的区块链 2.0。

前不久，ETH 中文发文《盘点 18个以太坊上的社交 ZK 项目》，从身份、治理、消息三个方面，将项目进行分类。ZK 可以使用户在不透露信息和身份的前提下，证明该用户属于某个群体，或满足某个条件。

跨链桥和预言机类似，ZK 发挥的作用类似，传统跨链桥和预言机，需要可信第三方做验证或提供数据，加上 ZK 之后，可以在原有链上，或在原始数据源生成证明，目标链或链上节点验证证明，保证跨链桥资产安全，以及预言机节点不作恶。

ZK 在原生抽象账户、全链游戏、硬件加速等领域的作用，同样值得关注。ZK 可以让链上游戏从现有透明状态变为不透明，将游戏从对称性博弈，变为非对称性博弈。

麻将、纸牌等游戏之所以经久不衰，原因在于这些都是非对称性博弈游戏。游戏结果带有很强不确定性，新手也可以凭借超强运气获胜。游戏所有参与者，无法通过购买超神装备，来增加胜率，只能通过不断重复积累经验。

链上游戏具有可组合性，用户可以参与游戏建设，同时游戏之间也可相互组合，想象空间更大。

2023年，关注 ZK，关注区块链的未来。

1/ 模块化本质是打破“不可能三角”，在不增加节点硬件负担前提下，实现扩容。

2/ Celestia 是数据可用层，与 Optimistic Rollup 类似，默认区块数据有效，利用欺诈证明、纠删码和数据可用性抽样，进行数据校验，同时实现让轻节点参与校验。

3/ Celestia 已初步形成生态，目前生态知名项目有 Fuel、Cevmos 等。

4/ Celestia 如何能把握窗口期，在 Polygon Avail 和 Danksharding 之前形成规模效应，吸引大量流动性，尤其是原生Rollup 的流动性，这点将至关重要。

通常，会将 Layer1 分为四层：

1）共识层

2）结算层

3）数据层

4）执行层

共识层是必需的。模块化是指，将结算、数据、执行其中之一或之二拆出来（严谨点称“解耦”），加上共识组成新一层网络协议，以打破“不可能三角”，在不增加节点硬件负担，造成中心化的前提下，实现扩容。

如以太坊 Rollup，将执行层拆出来，提供共识和执行，由中心化定序器（Sequencer）排序交易，将大量交易打包压缩，提交到以太坊主网，由主网全节点校验交易数据。

Celestia 是数据可用层（Data Availability, DA）项目，基于Cosmos架构，为其他 Layer1、Layer2 提供数据层、共识层，构建模块化区块链，商业模式 toB，面向其他公链收费。

要全面理解 Celestia 与数据可用，先要从“不可能三角”和数据可用性问题讲起。

为什么数据可用性重要？从“不可能三角”到数据可用性问题

不可能三角，又称三元悖论，通常指去中心化（Decentralization）、可扩展性（Scability）、安全性（Security）三者不可同时兼得，最早由以太坊官方提出。

通常，交易提交到链上，首先会进入 Mempool，由矿工“挑选”，打包成区块，将该区块拼接到区块链上。

包含这笔交易的区块，会向网络内全体节点广播。其他全节点将下载这个新区块，执行复杂计算，验证其中每一笔交易，确保交易真实有效。

复杂计算和冗余，是以太坊安全基础，也带来了问题。

1）数据可用性

节点通常有两种：

全节点——下载并验证所有区块信息及交易数据。

轻节点——非完全验证节点，易部署，只验证区块头（数据摘要）。

首先，确保新区块产生时，该区块中的所有数据确实已发布，使得其他节点可校验。若全节点未发布区块中所有数据，则其他节点无法检测，该区块是否隐藏恶意交易。

也就是说，节点需要获取一定时间内的所有交易数据，并验证，不存在已经确认但未验证的交易数据。这便是通常意义上的数据可用性。

若某个全节点隐瞒一些交易数据，其他全节点在校验后，会拒绝跟随此区块，但仅下载区块头信息的轻节点则无法校验，会继续跟随这条分叉区块，影响安全。

尽管通常区块链会罚没该全节点保证金，但这同样会使质押给该节点的用户受到损失。

且当隐瞒数据的收益，超过罚没成本，节点有动机隐瞒，届时实际受损的，只会是质押用户和该链其他使用者。

另一方面，若全节点部署逐渐中心化，节点间存在串通可能，会危及整条链的安全。

这是为什么数据可用很重要。

数据可用越来越受到关注，一方面因为以太坊 PoS 合并，另一方面则是 Rollup 发展。当前 Rollup 会运行中心化定序器（Sequencer）。

用户在 Rollup 上交易，定序器为交易排序、打包、压缩，发布到以太坊主网，由主网全节点通过欺诈证明（Optimistic）或有效性证明（ZK）验证数据。

只要定序器提交的区块所有数据真实可用，以太坊主网才可据此跟踪、校验、重建 Rollup状态，保证数据真实和用户财产安全。

2）状态爆炸与中心化

状态爆炸是指，以太坊全节点积累的历史和状态数据越来越多，运行全节点需要的存储资源越来越大，运行门槛提高，致使网络节点中心化。

因此，需要某种方式，使全节点在同步以及验证区块数据时，无需下载所有数据，只需要下载区块的部分冗余片段即可。

至此，我们明白了数据可用性很重要。那么，如何避免“公地悲剧”产生？即大家都清楚数据可用的重要性，但仍需要一些切实的利益驱动，让大家使用单独数据可用层。

就像每个人都知道保护环境很重要，但看到路边的垃圾，“我”为什么要把它捡起来？为什么不是别人？“我”把垃圾捡起来，能得到什么好处？

轮到 Celestia 登场了。

什么是Celestia ？

Celestia 为其他 Layer1、Layer2 提供可插拔的数据可用层和共识，基于 Cosmos Tendermint 共识及 Cosmos SDK构建。

Celestia 是 Layer1 协议，兼容 EVM 链及 Cosmos 应用链，未来将支持所有类型的 Rollup，这些链可直接使用 Celestia 作为数据可用层，区块数据将通过 Celestia 存储、调用、校验，再回到自有协议清算。

Celestia 也支持原生Rollup，可直接在其上构建 Layer2，但不支持智能合约，所以无法直接构建 dApp。

Celestia 工作原理

Rollup 通过运行Celestia 节点，接入 Celestia。

Celestia 接收 Rollup 交易信息，通过 Tendermint 共识排序交易。之后，Celestia 不会执行交易，也不会质疑交易有效性，只是将交易进行打包排序、广播。

是的，换句话说，隐瞒交易数据的区块，也可以发布到 Celestia 上。那 Celestia 如何识别呢？

校验通过纠删码（Erasure Coding）和数据可用性抽样（Data Availability Sampling，DAS）完成。

具体来说，原始数据为K（若实际数据大小不足K，则会补充无效数据，使大小等于K），对其进行纠删编码，分成 N 多个小枝干（Chunks），并扩展为 2K 行列大小的矩阵。

可以简单理解为，一个长、宽都为 K 的正方形，面积为 K*K，纠删编码后变为长、宽为 2K，面积为 2K*2K。

若原始数据为 1Mb，对其进行纠删编码，分成若干份，并扩展 4Mb 大小，其中 3Mb 为特殊数据。仅需其中一部分KK 大小数据，便可恢复或查看全部 2K2K 数据。

具体的数学计算极其复杂，但得到的结果是，即使恶意出块者隐瞒哪怕 1%交易数据，也会变成隐瞒 50%以上的枝干（Chunks）。

所以，若想使隐瞒生效，就会使数据矩阵发生质的变化，能被轻节点轻易发现。这使得隐瞒数据，有极其大的概率，成为不可能的事件。

全节点可通过欺诈证明，校验数据，跟其他 Layer1 类似。而纠删码关键的作用在于，调动轻节点，参与数据校验。

全节点将区块头发给轻节点，由轻节点进行数据可用性抽样。若数据无隐瞒，则轻节点认可该区块。若数据有缺失，则轻节点会发送给其他全节点。其他全节点会发起欺诈证明。

总结下，

1/ Celestia 使用纠删码，对原始数据编码，将原始数据切成若干小份（Chunks）。（若区块仍有空间，则使用无效数据补足，使得留有空间的区块，便是全节点隐瞒数据的区块）

2/ 将 KK 大小的原始数据，扩展为2K2K。因为 KK 数据已分为若干小份，所以 2K2K 数据的状态，也是如此，呈若干小份。

3/ 由此得到三个好处：

1）因为数据切成若干小份，使得轻节点也可参与校验。（若数据仍是大份，轻节点受制于硬件，无法参与校验）

2）仅需抽样 KK 大小数据，可还原全部 2K2K 数据全貌。轻节点们轮番抽样，直到抽样大小为 K*K，则可通过数据全貌对比，选择是否认可当前区块。

3）使恶意出块者隐瞒哪怕 1%交易数据，也会变成隐瞒 50%以上的枝干（Chunks）。

4/ 全节点可直接通过欺诈证明校验区块数据，与以太坊等其他 Layer1 类似。

5/ 轻节点则可通过数据可用性抽样校验，多个轻节点随意抽样，直到抽取数据面积大小为 K*K。这是 Celestia 的创新之处。

6/ 对于轻节点抽样来说，抽样模型是亚线性的（Sub-linear）。他们仅需下载所需抽样数据量的平方根数量即可。即，若有 10,000个小份Chunks数据需要抽样，仅需要下载并检查其中100个。

因为 100的平方是10,000。

7/ 若轻节点校验的区块数据有隐瞒，可提交给其他全节点，通过欺诈证明，罚没作弊节点保证金。

Celestia 扩容

纠删码和数据可用性抽样，使 Celestia 与其他 Layer1 现有数据可用相比，实现了进一步扩容，提升网络效率。

1/ 采用欺诈证明，默认区块数据可用，保证正常情况下，网络高效运行。

2/ 轻节点越多，网络效率越高。

因为原始数据大小为 KK，若只有一个轻节点，则需要做 KK 次抽样。反之，若有 K*K 个轻节点，仅需1次抽样。

3/ 亚线性抽样，使 Celestia可使用大区块。

此外，纠删码的特性，使得万一 Celestia 全节点发生大规模故障，轻节点们手中的若干枝干数据，可恢复交易数据，确保数据仍可访问。

Quantum Gravity Bridge

Quantum Gravity Bridge 是 Celestia 与 以太坊 Layer2 的中继桥，搭建在以太坊上，Layer2 可以通过 Quantum Gravity Bridge 将交易数据发布到Celestia，使用数据可用服务，通过智能合约，校验 Celestia 上的数据。

Celestium

Celestium 是以太坊 Layer2，使用Celestia 作为数据可用层，用以太坊作为结算和共识层。

目前处于开发阶段。

为什么要用 Celestia ？

还记得我们之前提到的“公地悲剧”吗？即 Rollup 为什么要使用 Celestia 作为数据层？

1/ 使用 Celestia 成本低

以太坊 Rollup 现有成本由两部分构成：

1）Rollup 自身Gas成本。即用户交互，定序器进行排序，状态转换时收费的费用。

2）Rollup 将区块提交到以太坊，花费的Gas。

Rollup 定序器打包、压缩后，会在以太坊上创建一个区块。目前存储为 Calldata形式，成本为每字节 16 Gas。

以太坊和 Rollup 各自根据拥堵情况不同，收取的 Gas也不同。定序器在批量处理用户交互内容前，会尽力预测以太坊 Gas 费用，并向用户收取。

也就是说，Rollup 上的 Gas 之所以便宜，是因为将用户若干笔交互打包到一起，相当于大家均摊了 Gas。

当市场处于冷淡期，以太坊上交互较少，大家需要均摊的 Gas 也会减少，Rollup 只会在正常 Gas 上收取很小的利润。一旦，以太坊上 Gas 飙升，Rollup 上的Gas 也会上涨。

所以，Rollup 本质上还是在跟以太坊主网的 dApp 和其他 Rollup 抢夺区块空间。

另一方面，Rollup 自身交互火爆，也会拉高 Gas。比如前不久的 Aribitrum Odyssey。

总的来说，Rollup 当前成本模式为线性，成本会随以太坊交互需求情况，上升会下降。

而 Celestia 的成本则是亚线性，成本最终会趋近于一个值，一个远低于以太坊现有成本的值。

在 EIP-4844 升级部署后，Rollup数据存储会从 Calldata 变为 Blob，费用降低，但仍旧比 Celestia 贵。

2/ 主权 Rollup（Self Sovereignty）

主权 Rollup，实质是给了 Rollup自主分叉的权力。Celestia 原生 Rollup 是拥有自有主权的链，治理及分叉升级不受Celestia 限制。

分叉为什么重要？

通常区块链需要通过硬分叉升级，而分叉会影响削弱安全性。原因是，若有人想要更改或升级区块链代码，需要其他参与者同意且更改。

如果想对整条链进行升级，需要分叉整个共识层，就像以太坊 PoS 合并不得不采用算力炸弹，迫使节点从PoW 迁移到 PoS一样。所有节点都参与升级，才不会丢失任何安全性。

Celestia 则会为 Rollup提供分叉能力，因为所有分叉使用相同的数据可用层。

此外，主权 Rollup 也会带来更多灵活性。以太坊 Rollup 受限于以太主网处理欺诈证明或有效性证明的能力。

主权 Rollup 则不依赖特定的虚拟机，如 EVM。所以，主权 Rollup 有更多的选择性，比如成为 Solana VM 等等。不过，采用不同 VM 虚拟机，互操作性会受限。

另一方面，目前 Rollup 对成为主权 Rollup 的需求可能并不大，

1.  A.  受中心化资产限制。比如 USDC、USDT 官方不支持新分叉链。

2.  B.  受 dApp 迁移限制。如，Uniswap 等 dApp仍留在之前的链上，且用户不肯放弃原有习惯，未迁移到新分叉链上。

3/ 信任最小化桥（trust minimized bridges）与共享安全

Celestia 官方文章，将跨链大致分为两类：

1.   A.  可信跨链桥，需要信任第三方，比如中继链节点。其可靠性建立在第三方节点共识之上，即节点多数是诚实的。

2.   B.  信任最小化跨链桥，类似以太坊和 Rollup 的关系，靠欺诈证明（Optimistic）和有效性证明（ZK），校验 Rollup 交易数据有效性。

Celestia 提出一个概念——集群（Clusters），即一组相互通信的链，通过信任最小化桥跨链，每条链都可以验证其他链的状态。

通常，集群会遇到两个限制因素，

1.   A.  集群内所有链需要了解彼此的执行环境。但这很难，如 ZK Rollup之间需要了解彼此的 ZK 系统。但 zk-SNARK 和zk-STARK 是不同的 ZK 系统。所以，ZK Rollup 之间相对独立。

2.   B.  为保持集群内所有链，使用信任最小化状态验证，每条链必须以信任最小化方式，验证该集群内，其他链区块数据可用性。

而使用 Celestia 作为数据可用层集群中的所有链，都可以检查彼此的块是否包含在 Celestia链中。

不过，略微尴尬的是，Celestia 集群概念中，Optimistic Rollup 和 ZK Rollup 属于两个集群。

也就是 Optimistic Rollup 间，如 Optimism、Aribitrum 同属一个集群，他俩与 zkSync 则不是。

且由于 ZK Rollup 方案差异，zkSync和 StarkNet 甚至也不属于同一集群。所以，Celestia仍不能解决 Rollup 间相对独立，缺乏原子级别互操作性问题。

Optimint（Optimistic Tendermint）

Optimint 是 Tendermint共识替代品，允许开发者构建基于 Cosmos 的 Rollup，同时使用Celestia 作为共识和数据可用层。

目标是，让基于 Cosmos 的 Rollup形成集群。

Celestia 现有生态项目

Fuel

Fuel 是建立在 Celestia 的模块化执行层，是以太坊Optimistic Rollup Layer2。

Fuel 构建了 FuelVM，一个为智能合约专门构建的定制虚拟机，可处理并行交易，使用UTXO 账户。

Cevmos

Cevmos 是 Cosmos EVM应用链和 Celestia 共同开发的 Rollup

Cevmos 使用 Optimint 构建，由于Evmos 本身就是一个 Rollup，所以 Cevmos 实际是 Rollup 中的 Rollup（递归 Rollup）。

以太坊上已有的 Rollup 合约与应用，可以重新在 Cevmos 上部署，使用其为结算层，使用 Celestia 作为数据层。

每个构建Rollup 都会有与 Cevmos Rollup 双向信任最小化的桥，形成集群。

dYmension

dYmension 是基于 Cosmos构建的主权 Rollup，dYmension Hub 提供结算，且提供开发套件RDK、链间通讯 IRC，方便专注 Rollup 的应用 rollApp 开发。

Eclipse

Eclipse 是基于 Cosmos 的主权Rollup，使用 Solana VM 作为结算和执行层，Celestia 作为数据层。

项目进展

目前测试网已上线。奖励版测试网将于2023年第一季度发布。现在可以去官方Discord 领取水龙头测试币。主网预计2023年第二季度发布。

融资情况

2021年3月，完成150万美元种子轮融资，参与者包括 Binance Labs、Interchain Foundation、Maven 11、KR1 等等。

2021年12月，完成273万美元融资，参投信息未公开。

2022年10月，完成5500万美元融资，参与者包括Bain Capital、Polychain Capital、Placeholder、Galaxy、Delphi Digital、Blockchain Capital、Spartan Group、FTX Ventures、Jump Crypto 等等。

团队情况

CEO Mustafa Al-Bassam，UCL 区块链扩容领域博士，Chainspace（被Facebook收购）联合创始人

CTO Ismail Khoffi，前 Tendermint 和 Interchain 基金会的高级工程师

CRO John Adler，Optimistic Rollups创建者，前 ConsenSys 可扩展性研究员

COO Nick White，Harmony联合创始人，斯坦福大学学士和硕士。

顾问团队：

Zaki Manian —— IBC 共同创建者和早期 Cosmos贡献者

Ethan Buchman —— Tendermint 联合创始人和 Cosmos 联合创始人

Morgan Beller —— NFX 普通合伙人，Diem≋（又名Libra） 联合创始人

Nick White —— Harmony 联合创始人

James Prestwich —— Summa（被Celo收购） 创始人

George Danezis —— 伦敦大学学院的安全和隐私工程教授

代币经济模型

从已公布的信息来看，Celestia 原生代币将作为 Gas，协议收入来源是 Rollup 交易费用。且代币包含类似 EIP-1559 的销毁机制。

目前，Celestia 一级市场估值 10亿美元。

竞品

Polygon Avail

Avail 是 Polygon 推出的数据可用性方案。实现思路与Celestia 相同，不同点在于，Celestia 使用纠删码+ 欺诈证明，Avail 使用纠删码 + KZG 多项式承诺（KZG Polynomial Commitment）。

Celestia 是将K*K 数据扩展成2K*2K 正方形，Avail 是按行扩展，将 n 行 m 列矩阵，扩展成 2n 行，并为每行计算KZG 多项式承诺。

轻节点使用数据可用性抽样 DAS，用密码学方式核对 KZG 多项式和证明就可以，不需要下载原始数据。

相比之下，Avail 实现难度更大，在完全实现的情况下，结果也相对更可靠。不过目前，两个项目都在开发中，很难判断竞争情况。

以太坊 Danksharding

Danksharding 是以太坊官方计划推出的独立数据可用层。与 Avail 类似，Danksharding 使用纠删码 + KZG多项式承诺，数据格式则会使用 Blob 替代现有的 calldata。

在 Danksharding 部署前，有两个提案作为过渡。

EIP-4488 直接硬性将 calldata gas 从每字节 16减少到 3，还规定了 calldata 占用上限 1.4Mb。

EIP-4844 引入 Blob（blob-carrying transactions，blob: binary large objects）代替 calldata。Blob 是一种新交易类型，包含额外的存储空间，成本比 calldata 低得多。

Blob 存储在以太坊信标链上，与之后的分片兼容，使用 KZG 承诺哈希值，用于校验数据，Rollup 无需访问数据，校验 KZG 承诺即可。

KZG 承诺是绑定的，计算完成后无法更改。所以，本质上，Avail 和 Danksharding 基于密码学的 KZG 多项式承诺校验数据，而 Celestia 则基于经济学的欺诈证明方式。

理论上，KZG 多项式承诺安全性要优于欺诈证明，同时，要求带宽更小，抽样所需计算量更小。未来，以太坊也考虑引入抗量子攻击的验证方式，如zk-SRARK。

风险

1）中心化

尽管纠删码让轻节点也可参与数据校验，但 Celestia 数据存储仍旧需要搭建存储全节点。

要求内存 8GB，CPU 4核，剩余存储空间至少250GB，上行带宽大于 100Mb/s，下行带宽大于 1Gb/s。配置要求很高，需要搭建在云服务器上。

2）以太坊 Danksharding 的竞争

3）“脏账本”问题

该问题是斯坦福研究小组提出的。Celestia 采用欺诈证明，默认区块数据可用，保证正常情况下，网络高效运行，所以是“脏”账本，因为数据有问题的区块，仍会被Celestia 接受，等待欺诈证明的挑战。

假设，某挑战者想证明交易 Tc 是一笔双花，并提交证据说明，该钱已用于交易Tb。但如果存在交易 Ta 能证明 Tb是无效的呢？

若 Tb 无效，则 Tc 双花可能有效。

在某些情况下，“脏账本”无法获知交易真实状态，除非重放 Celestia 历史每一笔交易，直到创世区块。

这意味着，挑战者和被挑战者，都必须是全存储节点。该问题发布在 Celestia 官方Youtube 账号上，目前团队在解决该问题，比如引入弱主观性假设。

弱主观性假设是解决问题的条件。比如，如何买好吃的柚子？这个问题中的主观性，是按主观感觉挑选。客观性是按照柚子重力与体积之比，判断柚子水份情况。

弱主观性则是，双手分别捧起体积差不多的柚子，比较重量。比较几个之后，选择最重的。

回到 Celestia “脏账本”问题，可以要求要求挑战者和被挑战者者保留 3 周数据，但这对节点来说，同样是负担。

“脏账本”问题，其实是基于经济学模型保障安全的欺诈证明，面对的本质问题。但欺诈证明的部署难度，小于 KZG 多项式承诺，理论上 Celestia 开发进度比 Polygon Avail 和以太坊 Danksharding 更快。

所以，Celestia 如何能把握窗口期，在 Polygon Avail 和 Danksharding 之前形成规模效应，吸引大量流动性，尤其是原生Rollup 的流动性，这点将至关重要。

https://twitter.com/GodotSancho，推特@GodotSancho

1/ 下个周期的主叙事。以太坊基金会、V神等等都在关注 ZK 技术的应用和发展。

2 / 市值高，若有空投，可分享的额度多。

其中以下六个项目可重点关注。

Scroll

简介：采用零知识证明构建的以太坊zk-Rollup Layer2，并试图建立与 EVM 等效的 zkEVM。

投资机构：PolyChain、Bain Capital 以及来自以太坊基金会的个人投资者。

官网：

推特：

参与方式：

https://prealpha.scroll.io/

1/ Scroll 现已开放水龙头领取，无需再填表申请。

2/ 先点竖排红框，添加 Scroll 网络。再点顶部红框，分别领取 Faucet 水龙头，完成 Bridge 跨链和 Swap 交易。

3/ 需注意 Scroll 测试添加了两个网络，Scroll L1 和 L2，水龙头领取的币在 L1 上，要跨链到 L2 上，在 L2 上完成 Swap 交易。

Manta Network

简介：可编程的零知识证明应用链，提供可插拔隐私服务。支持用户将 ERC20、ERC721、ERC1155 转入 Manta，变为隐私资产。也支持开发者基于 Manta 链直接创建零知识证明原生 dApp 及 Token。

投资机构：币安、Alameda、PolyChain、CoinFund、Spartan、ParaFi、Hypersphere、CMS、Defiance、Zonff Partners等等。

官网：

Manta Network | The Largest Modular L2

Manta Network is the largest modular L2, bringing the highest throughput and lowest fees to enable scalable adoption for over 200 decentralized applications. Secured by Celestia and OP Stack.

https://manta.network

推特：

中文推：

参与方式：

1/ 成为节点 Collator。最好的方式还是成为节点，因为有门槛。除了预期奖励外，成为节点还可直接参与 KMA 挖矿。

https://docs.manta.network/cn/docs/calamari/Staking/Collation/Overview

2/ 先行网 Calamari Staking质押

https://app.manta.network/#/calamari/stake

（注意，最小质押 5000 枚KMA，不到 20U，钱包里需要留少 1枚KMA，可以从MEXC、Gate、Kucoin、Huobi 购买 KMA，提币参与）

https://mirror.xyz/godotsancho.eth/zU6t4p3rnEFU84-YThCXsRMoUfDbYwO0kBAzRU-tWR4

3/ 参与可信设置 Trust Setup

https://mirror.xyz/godotsancho.eth/hagW8F-HsP6k_JkozbQPXL54KbhyFARdNqvXDdprr-4

zkSync

简介：采用零知识证明构建的以太坊zk-Rollup Layer2，并试图建立与 EVM 等效的 zkEVM。 StarkNet

投资机构：A16z、Dragonfly、1KX、Consensys、ByBit、OKEx等等。

官网：

ZKsync: The Elastic Network

ZKsync helps banks and companies future-proof finance and expand into global digital assets with privacy and compliance.

https://www.zksync.io

推特：

参与方式：

测试网：

ZKsync Bridge | Transfer funds between ZKsync and Ethereum

With the ZKsync Bridge you can easily deposit tokens to ZKsync. Enjoy faster, cheaper and more efficient transactions with the future proof zkEVM scaling Ethereum's security and values.

https://portal.zksync.io

主网：

ZKsync: The Elastic Network

ZKsync helps banks and companies future-proof finance and expand into global digital assets with privacy and compliance.

https://www.zksync.io

1/ zkSync 计划与10月28日发布主网，所以不确定刷测试网还有没有用，且官方前一天刚刚重置了测试网。

2/ 测试网交互相对简单。点击 Faucet，自动跳转推特获得测试 ETH。 再去 Wallet 里，Transfer 转账到其他地址。

但连接推特，相当于变相KYC。可使用

Blockchain Validator | bitszn.com

Staking provider, blockchain validator. Web3 developemnet. Hight uptime. Slash protection. Low fees.

https://bitszn.com

直接填以太坊地址获得 Goerli测试网的ETH。按红框位置操作，在小狐狸钱包里，将 Goerli 测试网显示出来。

在点击 Bridge，将 Goerli 里的 ETH，通过跨链，转账至 zkSync 测试网。

2/ 先说主网交互。点击 Open Wallet，可以连接钱，完成 Transfer 转账。可以Mint NFT。

ZKsync: The Elastic Network

ZKsync helps banks and companies future-proof finance and expand into global digital assets with privacy and compliance.

https://www.zksync.io

点击

Pinata

The internet's file API

https://app.pinata.cloud

注册账号时，注意密码要包含特殊符号，建议使用%。

上传 File 文件，可以传张图，会获得 CID。

Mint NFT时，把 CID 填进红框内即可。

最近 zkSync 交互地址激增，Discord中文区管理员出面表示，未考虑空投。到发币时会不会有空投，还请大家自行判断。本文仅作为交互教程。

Aztec

简介：采用零知识证明构建的隐私 Layer2。

投资机构：Paradigm、IOSGVentures、Variant Fund、Nascent、Vitalik Buterin、ConsenSys等。

官网：

The Privacy-First L2 on Ethereum - Aztec

Blockchain is transforming the internet and users expect privacy. Learn more about Aztec and how we preserve privacy on-chain.

https://aztec.network

推特：

参与方式：

点击 Shield Now，将主网 ETH 转入 zk.money。需注意，使用过 zk.money 地址，提现到FTX ，可能会冻结，需提交工单解释。

Aleo

简介：采用零知识证明建立的可编程隐私协议。

投资机构：A16z、Placeholder VC、Galaxy Digital、Variant Fund、Coinbase Ventures、Ethereal Ventures、 Polychain Capital等等 。

官网：

Aleo | Zero-knowledge by design

Aleo is the ultimate solution for fully private applications. Discover the ultimate toolkit to write, run, and host private applications today.

https://aleo.org

推特：

**参与方式：**搭建节点

https://mirror.xyz/jackmusk.eth/h0ox5LLwDj2Vchl-qyoZ21S2PACWr60slqXy3xco-AE

StarkWare

简介：采用零知识证明 zk-STARK 方案，通过 zk-Rollups 和 Validium 模式组成 Volition 来生成和验证计算完整性的证明。主要产品有： StarkNet、StarkEx、Cairo。

投资机构：Pantera、Polychain、Paradigm、英特尔创投、ConsenSys、Coinbase Ventures、Multicoin Capital、Alameda Research、Vitalik Buterin等等。。

官网：

Homepage

StarkWare is using STARK proofs to bringing scalability, security and privacy to a blockchain near you

https://starkware.co

推特：

参与方式： 1/ 下载 ArgentX 钱包： Chrome应用商店，下载 Argent X，注意，一定要有认证标志。

Ready Wallet (Formerly Argent) - Chrome Web Store

7 out of 10 users choose Ready Wallet as their Starknet wallet.

https://chromewebstore.google.com

2/ 跨链

官方跨链桥：

Bridge Crypto Assets Seamlessly Between Ethereum, Starknet, Bitcoin, and Solana

StarkGate is the official crypto bridge for transferring tokens between Starknet and multiple chains, including Ethereum, Bitcoin, and Solana.

https://starkgate.starknet.io

跨链桥：

Orbiter Finance - Bridge & Swap

Bridge and swap crypto assets quickly, affordably, and securely across Arbitrum, Base, Optimism, Solana, BNB Chain, Polygon, Ethereum, and more blockchain ecosystems with Orbiter.

https://www.orbiter.finance

连接 ArgentX 和 Metamask，将主网 ETH 跨链到 StarkNet上。

3/水龙头

https://faucet.goerli.starknet.io/#

Paradigm MultiFaucet | Bootstrap your testnet wallet

MultiFaucet funds a wallet with ETH, wETH, DAI, and NFTs across 8 testnet networks, at once.

https://faucet.paradigm.xyz

领取 TST 测试币，二选一即可：

https://braavos.app/faucet/

3/ 可交互的生态项目，有些可用测试代币交互，有些需要用真实资产。

StarkNet 生态项目一览：

Starknet Ecosystem

Explore projects, teams, jobs, metrics and everything around Starknet Ecosystem

https://www.starknet-ecosystem.com

1）

与正常 DEX 交互一样，体验很差。报错的时候，可以等一下，等报错消失，交易经常失败，需要多试几次，且等待时间较长。

2）

https://mintsquare.io/starknet

建议 Mint NFT，就是自己上传，不建议买卖，流动性比较差，买完几乎卖不出去。

3）

https://testnet.aspect.co/

交互方式同上。

4） https://briq.construction/，交互方式同上。 5）

https://www.starkswap.co/app/swap

Swap 交易和添加池子，Faucet 那里同样可以领测试币，领 LAN 和 BAR。

6）

https://www.ironfleet.xyz/

将上一步领的 LAN，Deposit 质押，填表进官方 Discord。

7）

https://www.myswap.xyz/#/

交易，添加流动性。

8）

https://testnet-app.xbank.finance/

借贷。

9）

https://app.testnet.jediswap.xyz/#/swap

交易，添加流动性，使用 ZAP 交易。

可关注的生态项目：

1）

https://zkx.fi/

2）

https://alpharoad.fi/

3）

再分享一个视频教程：

欢迎关注推特 @GodotSancho

1/ 需全程开启 VPN。 2/ 本文以苹果笔记本 MacBook 为例。 3/ 留 KMA 地址，之后可获得官方 NFT 奖励。

教程包含两部分内容： 1/ 正常步骤 2/ 正常步骤出现问题，如何处理？

简中互联网因受官方防火墙不可抗力影响，在输出指令时，可能会出现如下图所示，接口连接被拒的问题。下文将提供解决该问题的办法。

一、正常步骤

1/ 在“应用程序”——“实用工具”里，打开“终端”。也可在右上角搜索框内直接搜索“终端”或“Terminal”。

2/ 打开 https://docs.manta.network/docs/guides/TrustedSetup ，可直接点击红框位置，复制代码，粘贴进“终端”内，按下回车键。

若在末尾显示“DONE”，则可继续正常步骤。

若在末尾显示“Connection refused”，则受到了官方防火墙不可抗力影响。需查看第二部分教程。

3/ 依次复制第二、第三段代码，粘贴进“终端”，按下回车键。

4/ 之后按照要求输入推特账号、邮箱。（不会要求连接推特或邮箱，不会泄露信息，仅作为之后识别身份，分发奖励用。  注意：推特账号是个人资料里 @后面的内容，不是推特昵称，如下图所示）

按下回车键，会得到邮箱、公钥、签名和私钥。私钥千万保存好，不要随意泄露。

5/ 打开登记表格 https://mantanetwork.typeform.com/TrustedSetup ， 第一个问题：昵称 第二个问题：邮箱 第三个问题：签名 （如上图所示，终端内复制） 第四个问题：公钥 （如上图所示，终端内复制） 第五个问题：Discord ID （官方Discord链接：https://discord.com/invite/PRDBTChSsF，也可在官网https://www.manta.network/ 底部找到） 第六个问题：推特账号 第七个问题：隐私对你来说为什么重要？ （随意发挥） 第八个问题：你的KMA地址 （用来接 NFT 空投奖励）

6/ 关于如何拥有 KMA 地址，你可以查看该文（https://mirror.xyz/godotsancho.eth/zU6t4p3rnEFU84-YThCXsRMoUfDbYwO0kBAzRU-tWR4）

需注意的是，你的钱包地址内，需保留至少1枚 KMA，否则根据 Kusama 网络规则，钱包或可能被删除。

目前，KMA 已上线 huobi、Kucoin、Gate、MEXC，可从交易平台购买并提到链上。

7/ 可信设置登记，已完成。之后等待官方第二阶段开启。

二、Connection refused 报错处理

1/ 同样打开“终端”，复制代码：

/bin/bash -c "$(curl -fsSL https://gitee.com/wejectchan/brew/raw/master/install.sh)"

粘贴进去，按回车键。然后会要求你输入电脑密码 [Password]。直接输入，按回车。（输入密码过程中，密码本身不会在输入框内显示）

2/ 遇到“RETURN/ENTER”，按下回车键。还需要输入一次密码，之后安装XCODE。安装完成后按下任意键。之后可输入代码

brew -v

若显示 Homebrew 3.6.5，则表示安装成功。

3/ 输入代码

按下回车键，安装 rust 环境。

4/ rust 环境安装完成后，可输入

检查 rust 是否安装成功

5/ 输入代码

cd manta-rs

选择安装文件夹为“manta-rs”，再输入

cargo run --release --package manta-trusted-setup --all-features --bin groth16_phase2_client register

会出现输入推特账号的指令。

6/ 之后按照要求输入推特账号、邮箱。（不会要求连接推特或邮箱，不会泄露信息，仅作为之后识别身份，分发奖励用。  注意：推特账号是个人资料里 @后面的内容，不是推特昵称，如下图所示）

按下回车键，会得到邮箱、公钥、签名和私钥。私钥千万保存好，不要随意泄露。

7/ 打开登记表格 https://mantanetwork.typeform.com/TrustedSetup ， 第一个问题：昵称 第二个问题：邮箱 第三个问题：签名 （如上图所示，终端内复制） 第四个问题：公钥 （如上图所示，终端内复制） 第五个问题：Discord ID （官方Discord链接：https://discord.com/invite/PRDBTChSsF，也可在官网https://www.manta.network/ 底部找到） 第六个问题：推特账号 第七个问题：隐私对你来说为什么重要？ （随意发挥） 第八个问题：你的KMA地址 （用来接 NFT 空投奖励）

8/ 关于如何拥有 KMA 地址，你可以查看该文（https://mirror.xyz/godotsancho.eth/zU6t4p3rnEFU84-YThCXsRMoUfDbYwO0kBAzRU-tWR4）

需注意的是，你的钱包地址内，需保留至少1枚 KMA，否则根据 Kusama 网络规则，钱包或可能被删除。

目前，KMA 已上线 huobi、Kucoin、Gate、MEXC，可从交易平台购买并提到链上。

9/ 可信设置登记，已完成。之后等待官方第二阶段开启。

KMA 已上线火币、Gate、Kucoin、MEXC，可直接在交易所购买，提币到链上参与 Staking。也可直接在 Solarbeam DEX内购买。

Staking 链接：https://app.manta.network/#/calamari/stake

注意： 1/ 一定要选择 Status 状态为 “Active”的节点。若节点状态为“Inactive”，则收不到奖励。 2/ 奖励周期 6小时一轮。两轮（12小时）后，每 6小时发放到钱包地址内，需手动复投。 3/ 解除质押需 7天等待期。 4/ 单个节点最大委托（Delegation）数量为 100。若超过 100，则按质押地址的 KMA 数量排名，前 100名可获得奖励。 5/ 最小质押数量 5000 KMA 6/ APY 会随着质押者增加而减小。但每个新节点刚部署的时候，质押给该节点，可获得的 APY 会很大，可能会超过 1000%，可随时留意有无新节点部署。

一、准备波卡链上钱包（若已有，可直接跳过）

1. 下载波卡js钱包

打开 https://polkadot.js.org/extension/

点击蓝框，添加波卡js钱包到谷歌浏览器

跳转到谷歌网页应用商店后，点击“添加到Chrome”。

点击波卡js钱包图标，创建钱包

把助记词记好，对勾打上。

默认是允许所有波卡系公链，这里不用更改。下面是钱包的名字，然后是输入密码。输入第一次密码后，会自动弹出重复密码框。

波卡钱包就创建好了。

进入 Calamari Staking质押网站：https://app.manta.network/#/calamari/stake，点击右上角连接钱包，再点击一下，黄框内可以复制地址。

二、交易所提币

先购买KMA，在资产里，币种选择KMA，网络选择KMA，填地址，申请提币。

三、开始质押 Staking

提币完成后，刷新 https://app.manta.network/#/calamari/stake 页面，Available Balance 里面显示的是“可用于质押的余额”。

选择状态为“Active”的节点，点击右侧“Stake”，输入质押数量，点击确认，即可开始质押。

12小时后，奖励将直接发送到钱包地址内，此后每 6小时发放一次。

番外：成为 Collator 节点

用户可选择成为 Collator 节点，获取更多奖励。

$KMA 新增质押奖励，初始流通总量9%，将在3年内分配给 Collator节点。同时，从国库中销毁同比例代币，抵消通胀。

$KMA 奖励来源于通胀，非Gas。若前期 Collator数量少，单个 Collator奖励的 KMA 数量占比更高。  

成为 Collator，需质押 400万枚 KMA，作为保证金，同时还对硬件有一定要求。以当前 0.002256美元单价算，400万枚 KMA需要 9024 美元。

更多详情，可见： https://docs.manta.network/cn/docs/calamari/Staking/Collation/Overview

可私信 Manta中文推特，了解更多详情：https://twitter.com/manta_china         @manta_china

注：本文仅作为教程使用，不构成任何理财或投资建议。

** **

1/ Manta Network supports both private and public transactions, privacy is one of the options. 2/ Manta Network privacy transactions, compatible with ERC20 Token, ERC721, ERC1155 and other NFTs and soulbound tokens（SBT）. 3/ Manta Network creates privacy asset type zkAssets based on Zero-knowledge Proofs, supports user-directed disclosures and custom KYC permissions for asset issuers. 4/ Manta Network supports smart contracts and dApp building. 5/ Manta Network investors include Binance Labs, Alameda, Polychain, Multicoin, ParaFi, CoinFund, Hypersphere, CMS, Spartan, DeFiance and more, as well as the official Boca Web3 Foundation sponsorship.

Project Description

Manta Network ($MANTA) is a privacy-layer smart contract protocol built on Zero-knowledge Proof(abbreviated as ZKP in the later text) and developed using the Polkadot Substrate framework.

1/ Developers can use Manta Network to build decentralized privacy applications, such as the DeFi protocol to prevent MEV attacks, on-chain games based on ZKP (currently DarkForest), and more.

2/ Users can transfer existing ERC20 tokens, ERC721, ERC1155 and other NFTs to Manta Network to convert tokens to privacy tokens for privacy transactions, privacy DeFi interactions, privacy LP mining, privacy NFT buying and selling, privacy GameFi and other operations.

zkAssets: A New Privacy Asset Type

Based on ZKP, Manta Network has created a new asset type, zkAssets, which supports fungible tokens such as ERC20, Non-fungible tokens such as ERC721 and ERC1155, soulbound tokens（SBT）, and privacy transactions between Polkadot Parallel Chain assets.

Existing tokens, NFTs, can be converted to privacy assets for operation via Manta. zkAssets also has the following features.

Privacy by Default:* zkAssets are private by default (a.k.a. zero-knowledge) on chain, which means that the asset holder’s address, the nomination of the assets of each holder, as well as the type of the assets are encrypted on chain.*

Disclosing at Will:* zkAssets support disclosing provable assets information with the assets holders permission. More specifically, the asset holders can disclose the asset transaction history to auditors without having to disclose the spending secret key.*

The asset holders are also able to selectively disclose the assets information that can be verified using ZKP.

Configurable Asset Policy:* zkAssets issuer can customize the access control policies of a zkAssets (see the figure), for example, KYC rules, access control policy like to have or not have the ability to blacklist the hacked assets (Note: espresso systems also have a proposal for CAP, however, manta’s cap is a multi-circuits implementation compared with expresso’s monolithic circuit implementation).*

zkAddress: Privacy Addresses

Manta Network has also created a privacy address type for transfers between zkAssets.

In zkAddress, the secret is generated randomly (e.g., using the BIP39 helper) and derives two additional keys, zkAddress and a read-only key. To transfer zkAssets, a Spending Secret is needed to generate a zero-knowledge proof.

The Viewing Key, which only supports viewing transaction history, cannot be used to spend balances.

Based on the zkAssets and zkAddress, Manta Network will also provide MantaPay, smart contracts, and DEX (MantaSwap) which are basic components and functionalities.

Manta Network base components: MantaPay, Privacy Smart Contracts and MantaSwap

MantaPay is the transport layer for transferring zkAssets to zkAddress. currently, MantaPay is in code audit phase and will be live on the first network Calamari soon. more information about MantaPay will be announced in the quarter.

Manta Network privacy smart contracts, which provide scalability to the network, support more complex smart contract deployments and interactions.

MantaSwap, a DEX built on top of the privacy smart contract layer.

Technical solutions

1/ Zcash was the first to introduce ZKP to the blockchain to enable privacy transactions. Because Zcash was created too early, the issue of extensibility was still in the early stages of discussion.

Zcash only supports privacy transactions between native tokens ZEC, and it is difficult to support tokens such as ERC20.

When using it, users could only buy ZEC on the CEX, mention them on the Zcash chain, and trade them with ZEC for the purpose of privacy transactions.

2/ Since then, ZKP have been developed significantly. Various protocols have also introduced their own zero-knowledge proof schemes depending on their objectives, such as Aztec's PLONK, Aleo's ZEXE, etc. Some are novel and need to be improved.

Some are novel and need to be improved, some are more mature and practical, some tend to prove generation efficiency, some tend to be composable, etc.

3/ Currently, the most used zero-knowledge proof protocol is TornadoCash.

TornadoCash is architected on Ethereum and supports ERC20 to mix. Benefiting from Ethereum liquidity, TornadoCash is growing rapidly, but there are still problems.

Functionally, TornadoCash only offers mixer services. When users deposit tokens and turn them into privacy tokens, they cannot perform more transactions such as DeFi lending and LPs mining based within TornadoCash.

In terms of compliance, TornadoCash uses a mixed coin and privacy is a must rather than an option. Second, TornadoCash refuses to communicate with regulation.

4/ Manta Network uses Zcash's proven Groth16 zero-knowledge proof scheme + UTXO payment model with built-in zero-knowledge proof circuitry.

It also creates zkAssets, a privacy asset type compatible with ERC20 tokens and NFT, adds a privacy payment channel MantaPay, uses the privacy asset pool concept, directly supports AMM transactions of privacy assets, LPs mining, on-chain GameFi, and other features.

Compared with TornadoCash, Manta Network can choose both public and private transactions, and privacy transactions support information disclosure and permission setting.

In Manta Network, after converting tokens to privacy tokens, users can directly use the privacy tokens for AMM, DeFi lending, LPs mining, and on-chain game operations, which is scalable.

Calamari Network (On Kusama)

Manta Network has been on Kusama s Calamari Network and launched Dolphin, a privacy test network.

Dolphin v1 was launched in December 2021 with over 6,000 independent wallet addresses participating in the test.

Dolphin v2 is now live and participants are rewarded with KMA tokens. The test address and reward form are as follows.

Dolphin test address:

https://app.dolphin.manta.network/#/transact

Reward form:

https://gleam.io/ye0bg/dolphin-testnet-v2-airdrop

Summary

Currently, Manta Network privacy trading can be experienced on the test network Dolphin.

In fact, the Manta Network defines two types of assets: Public Assets and Private Assets (zkAssets).

Similarly, users will also have a Public Address and a Private Address in Manta Network.

The public assets transaction experience is no different from that of Uniswap, for example.

When a user transfers assets into Manta Network, the asset type is Public Assets. Users can turn Public Assets into Private Assets (zkAssets, generated with ZKP) and then transfer Private Assets between Private Addresses.

Currently, in the Dolphin test network, public assets can only be transferred within public addresses and private assets can only be transferred within private addresses.

However, users do not have to worry about transferring to the wrong address, as incorrect transfers are not supported in the Manta Network.

Test address:

https://app.dolphin.manta.network/#/transact

Funding

On February 2, 2021, closed a $1.1 million funding round led by Polychain with participation from Multicoin, Alameda, Hypersphere, Defiance, BTC12, Genblock, Rarestone, AU21 and others.

On October 19, 2021, $5.5 million in funding was closed with over 30 institutions including CoinFund, ParaFi, LongHash, CMS, Spartan and other hedge funds in the crypto space.

On November 18, 2021, closed a $28.8 million community round of funding.

On February 15, 2022, Binance Labs announced a strategic investment in Manta Network for an undisclosed amount.

Tokenomics

Manta Network had announced some details of the tokenomics when it participated in the Polkadot Slot auction.

https://crowdloanstrategy.manta.network/about-manta-network/the-manta-token

Native token MANTA, total issue 1 billion, deflationary model. Usage scenarios are as follows. 1/ Network fees 2/ Minting public assets into private assets minting fees 3/ Fee for converting private assets back to public assets 4/ Pledge Stake

Among them, the handling fee (Redeem Value) incurred when the user changes the privacy asset into a public asset will be directly destroyed.

Therefore, the value of MANTA will be directly linked to the user's use of privacy features.

Project Analysis

1/ How big is the market where Manta Network is located? What is the current market situation?

ZKP is the foundation of Manta Network, and the core function and future development of Manta Network are brought by the attribute of ZKP.

Therefore, the track where Manta Network is located should be ZKP first, actually for privacy.

At present, the main directions and representative projects of ZKP.

A. Ethereum Layer2 scaling: StarkWare, zkSync, Scroll, Loopring, Polygon, etc.

B. Privacy: Manta Network, Aleo, Aztec, etc.

(1) The overall financing amount and valuation of the ZKP track is large, with the current highest valuation being $8 billion for StarkWare. the reason for the large financing and valuation of StarkWare is that, as an Ethereum Layer2 execution layer, it shares the pressure of the Ethereum traffic while also capturing part of the value of the Ethereum mainnet.

Secondly, Vitalik has said that it is more bullish on ZK-Rollup based scaling in the medium to long term. Compared with Optimistic, ZK-Rollup can redeem assets without waiting for the appeal period, which is a better experience.

Optimistic Rollup vs. ZK Rollup?

Optimistic and ZK are reconciliation methods, while Rollup is the way transactions are processed.

Optimistic Rollup assumes that all transaction information is true. By eliminating the need for transaction validation, Optimistic Rollup also increases the efficiency of transaction processing. This is the reason why Aribitrum and Optimism are fast enough.

What if someone provides false transaction information? If you've used Aribitrum or Optimism, you've noticed that when crossing tokens back to other networks, it takes a few days. This is the "waiting period".

During the "waiting period", any node can submit and prove that a transaction is fraudulent, and if the challenge is successful, the other node's deposit will be forfeited.

ZK Rollup

ZK Rollup generates a zero-knowledge proof, after a transaction has been executed.

The contract responsible for the proof only needs to check the proof, not the specific details of the proof.

This is the reason why ZK Rollup is also faster, but not as fast as Optimistic Rollup - it takes time to produce the proof.

Since the proof file is small and the validation time is certain, the proof itself does not get larger as the number of transactions increases.

More importantly, ZK Rollup has no waiting period.

(2) Aleo, which is the same privacy layer smart contract protocol as Manta Network, is currently valued at $1.45 billion.

With a community round price of $0.3 and FDV of $300 million, Manta Network has nearly 5x the space compared to Aleo's valuation.

(3) Among the prominent institutions, Paradigm, A16z, PolyChain, Coinbase, and Alameda are active in the track's placement.

Among them, Coinbase invested only in Manta Network in the ZK privacy track, while it invested in Zecrey in the scaling area.

2/ How to support the high valuation,ZKP application analysis

First, let's explain what Zero-Knowledge Proof is. Using a simple example: What is ZKP ?

How do you prove that you can drive? Show your driver's license.

This is the basic property of ZKP 1/Produce proofs. 2/Privacy. You only need to show your driver's license, no more information is revealed. 3/ Efficiency. Just show your license, no need to spend time to show your driving skills.

In the ZKP, there are two participants, one is the transaction initiator and the other is the transaction verifier. The transaction initiator, through a protocol, can generate a ZKP, and the verifier is responsible for verifying the authenticity of the proof.

In this process, the initiator only presents the proof and does not need to disclose other information. In the verification process, only one node needs to judge the proof to be true, and the proof can be true without redundant computation.

In addition to scaling and privacy, the current application areas of ZKP, and representative projects include.

(1) On-chain games, representative project DarkForest

Usually, on-chain game props have to be made into NFT on the chain, which makes the game props and other settings transparent and not very playable. This is also the reason why the current on-chain game are mostly card games and nurturing games.

ZKP that it can help on-chain games generate "fog of war" and hidden props and so on. The project can generate ZKP for hidden maps or props to prove that they really exist, but they will not be disclosed yet.

The strategy game on the chain, DarkForest, uses this feature to generate the "fog of war" for players to decrypt the map.

(2) Digital identity(DID) or personal sovereign identity(SSI), representing the project Humannode, Polygon ID

DID or SSI is an individual-owned, independent, trusted and verifiable information on the chain. It can be applied to meta-universe identity, or on-chain credit to enable scenarios such as non-full collateralized lending.

About metaverse identity. You don't need to show the NFTs you hold in your wallet all the time, like a BAYC.

But you can prove that you are indeed a BAYC holder by holding "a proof" to join the "yacht club".

About on-chain credit. Similarly, you don't need to show your assets, you only need to show the "proof" to prove your assets.

In addition, ZKP can also be derived from other scenarios, such as private key security.

When a user interacts with an protocol and needs to provide a signature, can the user submit a "proof" for signature instead of providing the signature itself?

Even if the protocol is fraudulent and runs away, the user's assets will not be affected.

Because only the "proof" is presented, and the proof cannot transfer the wallet assets.

More importantly, in my opinion, "privacy" is an "addiction", and once you have it, you can't go back.

There are two easy criteria to judge whether a project or technology will become a new paradigm, or whether it will bring change.

1. Once the "thing" is used, can it return to the original state？

2. Will or not change the original multi-party game situation？

For example, after using credit cards, can you still get used to carrying cash around? Credit cards are safer and more convenient.

On the other hand, merchants that support credit card payments have gained momentum and the gaming situation has changed.

Therefore, the mobile Internet, which is spawned by the development of cellular communication, WiFi and other IoT technologies, is a new paradigm and a new change.

And the same is true for the development of ZKP for Web 3.0.

Currently, it is widely believed that privacy only applies to "giant whale" accounts to conceal their whereabouts. But the truth is, people don't realize the importance of privacy.

Just like people don't understand the importance of theft until they have lost their phone once.

Currently on the chain, it is easy to find out someone's NFT position based on ENS or address.

What if someone poses as an artist and announces an airdrop for a project, such as BAYC, which appears to be a beautifully crafted artwork, but is actually a scam to steal the wallet's private key?

The "dark forest law" has always worked, and the reason it hasn't shown its power at this point is because the industry is relatively niche.

Similarly, ZKP can help users to prove that they hold the NFT and are entitled to it, but at the same time not be exposed.

What's more, when interacting with the protocol and signing, the "proof" is used instead of the private key itself, so even if they encounter fraud, they are not afraid. Can users go back to the previous state? Will the gaming situation change?

3/ Future growth rate of the future track with ZKP in the eyes of capital? Using Aleo valuation to extrapolate Manta Network's potential growth rate

As mentioned above, the fees generated from the conversion of private assets to public assets will be directly destroyed. Therefore, we can use TornadoCash data as a reference.

The above chart shows the monthly token Withdraw of TornadoCash. 37,756 ETH were redeemed in 12 months from December 2019 to November 2020, accounting for 20.52% of the total redemption volume of the agreement.

In the second year, 134,282 ETH were redeemed, representing 72.99% of the total redemption volume, with a growth rate of 255.66%.

TornadoCash has generated a total of $18,701,979 in fee revenue to date. Assuming the same Gas fee per interaction and a simple dichotomy between pledging Deposit and redeeming Withdraw, the total revenue generated from redemptions is $9,350,989.

The redemption fee is $1,918,823 in the first year and $6,825,287 in the second year.

From this, we have the following known conditions.

A. The first year's income is $1,918,823.

B. The current valuation is $1.4 billion.

C. Assume that DeFi can normally achieve a 10% risk-free return, so the discount rate is taken as 10%.

Then the following calculation is available.

Annual Revenue = 1,918,823 * (1 + Growth Rate) ⁿ , where n is the year.

The discounted cash flow is how much it would be worth now if these revenues were generated in a future year.

Discounted cash flow = annual income / (1 + discount rate) ⁿ

The following results can be obtained.

To reach a $1.4 billion valuation, first, first-year revenue would have to be at least at TornadoCash's current level. The next day, the growth rate would have to be equal to TornadoCash, with more than 2x growth.

After that, revenue would double in 4 consecutive years over a period of 3-6 years. And a steady growth rate of 20% per year since then.

This is perhaps the growth rate that Manta Network and Aleo represent as the ZKP privacy track for the next 10 years in the eyes of capital.

4/ What is the core competence of the project? Does it create a barrier?

Manta Network's core competency lies in the technical advantages provided by ZKP, the potential for growth, and the deployment of smart contracts to support more dApps to land on the Manta Network chain.

It is still early in the project, so it is hard to say that barriers have been created.

5/ What is the future direction of the project? How scalable is the business? Can the business expansion expand the market value?

In terms of future business expansion of Manta Network, in terms of privacy dApps

The dApp developed based on Manta Network can also effectively expand Manta Network's business and thus increase the value of MANTA tokens.

6/ Team

Kenny Co-Founder MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) MBA, during his study, he studied under Gary Gensler, the current chairman of SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission), and took blockchain courses, and had founded a cloud computing company.

Victor Co-Founder M.A. in Economics from Harvard University, investor.

Shumo Co-Founder Mainly responsible for technical direction, PhD in Computer Science and Engineering from University of Washington, expert in cryptography. According to Github, Shumo has written the Algorand smart contract platform PyTeal almost independently and contributed more than half of the Algorand project code. He has published 10+ papers in SIGMOD, VLDB, PLDI.

His personal website is

\His personal website is https://shumochu.com/.\

7/ What about social media?

Twitter @MantaNetwork          70,335 followers

Telegram 21,147 followers

(currently, Telegram is read-only, you can communicate in the official Discord group)

Discord 37,765 followers

Discord - Group Chat That's All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

https://discord.com

Manta Network Chinese community

Twitter @manta_china

Manta Network中文官方群

Manta Network 专为 ZK 应用设计的以太坊模块化 Layer2，更多资料、交互攻略：https://mantanetwork.notion.site/Manta-Network-f511510f6913492f8fa488737eed9941?pvs=4

https://t.me

8 /What are the people and drivers for token selling and buying respectively? Will the demand for token purchases be sustainable? Can it offset token selling? Can business expansion increase demand for tokens?

MANTA value, built on protocol usage, especially user demand for privacy. The fee for turning privacy tokens into public tokens will be used to destroy Manta Network.

MANTA buying comes from functional buying, generated by the demand for privacy. Combined with the introduction of pledge mining Stake, the secondary market MANTA liquidity decreases, which, combined with deflation, generates price increases that further trigger demand for Stake, creating a positive cycle.

It can also create a negative cycle anyway. The key indicator is the use of the agreement and its destruction.

9 / Risks?

(1) Substitutability risk. ZKP proves that the technology as a whole is being replaced. (2) Security risk. Protocol network security.

Twitter @godotsancho

1/ Manta Network 是隐私层协议，基于零知识证明技术构建。

币安、SBF 的 Alameda 参与投资，还包括 PolyChain、Multicoin、ParaFI、CoinFund、Hypersphere 等著名机构。

计划提供代币和NFT隐私交易，兼容 ERC20、ERC721、ERC1155、以及灵魂绑定代币。

用户可以把代币和NFT，转进 Manta 网络，变成隐私资产，进行交易，不会被追踪。目前，主网未上线，未发币。

另外，Manta 网络支持智能合约部署，且官方会开发 Swap，相当于公链。

项目可长期关注。之后我也会出一篇 Manta 项目分析。

Manta中文推特：https://twitter.com/manta_china

Manta中文公众号：

2/ 代币 $MANTA 公募轮价格 0.3 美元，计划发行总量 10 亿枚，FDV 目前 3 亿美元。

TORN 最高 FDV 40亿美元。当前熊市，再加上被制裁，FDV 还能维持在 1 亿美元上方。

另一个基于零知识证明构建的 Layer2 StarkWare，还未发币，估值 80 亿美元。其他基于零知识证明构建的 Layer2 Aztec、Scroll 等等也都是资本的宠儿。

事实上，关于 ZK 概念扩容链或隐私链，都受到资本追捧。资本有点广撒网的意思，某个项目一旦跑出来，市值应该能接近现有的 EVM 链。

所以，目前 $MANTA FDV 比较低，且资金和机构关注该赛道。

尽管目前 Manta 是波卡生态项目，但波卡生态从来跟以太坊关系紧密，比如 Moonbeam 本身也是以太坊 EVM 链，Acala 也支持 EVM 等等。不排除之后 Manta 会与以太坊有密切的联系。

3/ Manta 先行网 Calamari 已经赢得 Kusama 插槽拍卖，并上线了测试网 Dolphin。目前，Dolphin 测试网官方交互奖励是先行网代币 KMA。

二、教程

钱包准备

1.下载波卡js钱包

点击蓝框，添加波卡 js 钱包，到谷歌浏览器。

跳转到谷歌网页应用商店后，点击“添加到 Chrome”。

右上角把波卡 js 钱包固定一下，方便后续操作。

点击波卡 js 钱包图标，创建钱包

把助记词记好，对勾打上。

默认是允许所有波卡系公链，这里不用更改。下面是钱包的名字，然后是输入密码。

输入第一次密码后，会自动弹出重复密码框。

波卡钱包就创建好了。

2. Dolphin v2测试网

进入 Dolphin 测试网

https://app.dolphin.manta.network/#/transact

进去的时候，会提示下载一个 Manta Signer，点击下载。由于网络备案关系，某些杀毒软件会提示风险，提示可疑操作，忽略就行。

Manta 基于零知识证明创立，而目前以太坊环境，包括小狐狸钱包，是不太支持零知识证明生成的，每次交互需要耗费几分钟时间。

所以，Manta 创建了 Signer 辅助工具，帮助快速生成零知识证明。

后期，Manta 会改善这一体验，省去下载 Signer 步骤。但目前，还是需要下载的。

下载完，安装，运行。

初次登录，可能要稍微等一会。

下图页面是创建密码，直接输入自己想创建的密码即可，点击“ Creativity Account ”。记好助记词。

登录之后。Dolphin 测试网页面就可以进入了。链接波卡 js 钱包，挂好 Manta Signer，然后去拿水龙头测试币。

3.获取测试币水龙头

Discord - Group Chat That's All Fun & Games

Discord is great for playing games and chilling with friends, or even building a worldwide community. Customize your own space to talk, play, and hang out.

https://discord.com

进入 Manta 官方 Discord 群

在“ rules ”频道里点对号，可以把其他频道点亮。

下拉找到 dolphin-faucet，也就是水龙头频道。输入“/”，选择 gimme-DOL 或者 gimme-aUSD 都可以，这一步是选择获取什么币种。

在 address 后面的框内，输入自己的 Dolphin 地址。地址可在 Dolphin 页面，红框位置，直接复制。

很快，钱包里就会收到测试币。点击“ To Private ”把代币从 Pubic 公共地址，转到 Private 隐私地址内。

4.填写奖励表单

点击“ AirDrop ”或直接复制表单地址

https://gleam.io/ye0bg/dolphin-testnet-v2-airdrop

如果遇到下图的问题，可以更改代理模式，或者换个代理，或者先关掉代理，等需要连接的时候再开启。

建议可以临时用一下蓝灯https://getlantern.org/zh_CN/，免费而且一般不会遇到这个问题。

进入表单页面，按要求关注推特，填写波卡 js 地址等等，然后点击 Claim。会出现另一个表单。

表单第一个是要求填地址。

第二个是与2LTk1QjGptbMdHUVKYD6RzRuWv5hefTd1SrcZsS9o1ZEmvvppZmMfE36ChcEve7azJHXvrx5qptmBzDykaenTmTG 地址转账。 我们一个一个来。

首先进入 https://polkadot.js.org/apps/#/explorer 波卡 js 钱包

点黄框位置。

在 Kusama 平行链下面找到 Calamari，点转换。

点击添加账户，记好助记词。

创建账户后，点击账户名称的位置，右上角复制。

地址填进谷歌表单，然后复制第二个问题里的地址。

点击“ Public ”进入隐私地址。然后把复制的地址，填进去。

如果发现隐私地址里没有余额，则要切换回“ Public ”公共地址，把代币 To Private，转换成隐私代币，再来操作。

点击“ Private Transfer ”，也就是隐私交易。

点击 Manta Signer 授权。

右上角，点击链接，找转账哈希值。

复制哈希值。

哈希值填到表单第二栏，提交即可。

5.如何将 KMA 奖励卖出？

进入 Solarbeam，在跨链桥里把资产转过来。

Solarbeam App

Solarbeam - The AMM on Moonriver.

https://app.solarbeam.io

然后去兑换里把币卖掉。

Manta这个项目，以及零知识证明zk这个赛道，可长期关注。

Manta中文推特：https://twitter.com/manta_china

Manta中文公众号：

What happens when you combine two leading cross-chain projects, built on LayerZeo and participating in the Polkadot slot auction? This is what OmniBTC will experiment with.

What is OmniBTC?

OmniBTC, formerly SOSwap, is an omni-chain DeFi platform built by the ChainX team based on the LayerZero protocol, offering Token omni trading and omni lending of BTC.

Core functions include. 1/ All-chain trading. Based on LayerZero chain-wide interoperability and MMC (Maker Margin Contract) contract, users can trade Tokens from any chain.

When users trade, OmniBTC will calculate the best slippage and Gas scheme across DEX according to the algorithm, and divide the transaction amount into several parts to ensure that users complete the transaction in the best way.

2/BTC all-chain lending. Combining ChainX with LayerZero, users can lend out BTC to any stable coin on any chain. For this feature, you need to cross-chain BTC to ChainX Bitcoin Taproot multi-signature address first to get XBTC. Then complete lending by ChainX and LayerZero.

The benefit of going through XBTC and then all-chain lending is that you don't have to wait for BTC's often 10-minute long block confirmation time when cross-chaining with BTC, shortening the waiting time. This is especially crucial for margin calls in extreme market conditions.

Currently, OmniBTC is deployed to the Arbitrum and BSC networks and is participating in the current round of Polkadot slot auctions.

Users who vote DOT for OmniBTC will receive 0.3 SO Token per vote.

0.33 SO Token per vote if voted via ComingChat.

OmniBTC will establish a parallel chain of WASM + EVM, and LayerZero protocol will also be deployed in the parallel chain EVM, bringing omni transactions into Polkadot ecology, while users can use BTC to borrow stable coins USDT, aUSD, etc. within Polkadot ecology.

Summary OmniBTC is an omni-chain trading platform, as well as a BTC omni-chain lending platform, built on LayerZero and Polkadot.

Using LayerZero omni-chain properties, it builds an entrance between Polkadot and omni-chain , helping aUSD and other Polkadot ecological native Tokens to increase liquidity and collateral categories.

Tokenomics

OmniBTC native Token SO, total supply of 210,000.

Output 0.05 SOs per minute, 72 per day, halved every 2.1 million minutes.

SO is allocated to users according to LP pool weight and LP ratio. PCX, USB, KSX, MINI trading pool weight is 5, SO with these four Token trading pool weight is 10, the rest is 1.

Current operation of the project

Currently, OmniBTC official website (https://omnibtc.finance/) shows that the application is not yet live (coming soon). SOSwap, current TVL $1.83 million, current TVL is the historical peak. 24-hour trading volume $1570, peak trading volume is $178,420.

SOSwap was launched in March 2022 and is currently live for trading, cross-chain bridges, liquidity mining, and supports SherpaX EVM , ChainX EVM and Polkadot mainnet.

However, currently, certain features are not available when switching to ChainX and Polkadot chains. The main TVL and transactions are concentrated on the SherpaX chain.

In addition, OmniBTC will be integrated into ComingChat, another web3 social finance application in the ChainX ecosystem, which allows the 8 million ComingChat users worldwide to easily use OmniBTC on their cell phones.

Project Analysis

1/ Is there a demand for it? How big is the market where it is located? What is the current market situation?

In this paper, we choose ThorChain and Stargate Finance as the benchmark; ThorChain is an independent public chain and Stargate is an application built on LayerZero.

OmniBTC is also built on LayerZero, and it participates in Polkadot slot auction and plans to become a parallel chain, so ThorChain with public chain and Stargate with application are selected for comparison.

(1) Stargate mainly provides cross-chain function for EVM chain stablecoin and ETH.

While ThorChain provides many non-EVM chain cross-chain functions, even PoW and PoS cross-chain, such as Dogecoin.

(2) Both of these all-chain protocols have over 100 million TVLs. According to DeFiLlama, Stargate TVL is ranked 25th among all included dApps, and ThorChain is ranked 10th among included public chains, second only to Arbitrum and higher than Optimism.

(3) ThorChain stipulates that when providing liquidity, users need to provide RUNE with other Tokens in a 1:1 ratio, which means that RUNE actually acts as a oracle and is priced by the RUNE Token in relation to other Token exchange. Therefore, ThorChain TVL is more closely related to RUNE.

(4) From the current point of view, OmniBTC native Token economic model, more like STG, the relationship between market value and TVL, and the relationship between FDV and TVL, perhaps similar to Stargate. At that time, the TVL and ratio can be used to invert the SO market cap and FDV.

(5) In the current bear market, the Stargate protocol still has a 24-hour trading volume of $2.8 million, while ThorSwap, the main DEX protocol of the ThorChain ecosystem, has a 24-hour trading volume of over $30 million.

(6) According to ThorChain and ThorSwap data, BTC, bUSD, ETH, BNB, USDC cross-chain is the main demand in terms of historical trading volume and current day trading volume.

In summary, OmniBTC is in the all-chain trading market, and the demand exists. Both ThorChain, an independent public chain, and Stargate, also built on LayerZero, have a TVL of over $400 million and a 24-hour transaction volume of over a million dollars in a bear market.

2/ What are the core competencies of the project? Does it create a barrier? Competitive pairing situation?

At the full chain trading level. OmniBTC competitiveness is that (1) ChainX team has been steeped in BTC research for many years, and has certain advantages in securing assets and other technical aspects. (2) The support of Polka ecology.

Within the polka ecology. OmniBTC advantage is that there is no similar project at the moment. It has a first-mover advantage.

In fact, OmniBTC can be said to have certain advantages, but it is difficult to say whether it has built a barrier. The competitors are as shown in ThorChain and Stargate.

In the future, to observe whether OmniBTC has built a barrier, we can focus on the following indicators. (1) XBTC balance on ChainX chain. https://scan.chainx.org/crossBlock (2) The adoption of XBTC by other DeFi projects in the Polkadot ecosystem, and the XBTC pool liquidity.

Additional Bitcoin Taproot related knowledge. ChainX CEO Guo Guanghua has introduced the advantages of using Taproot in the AMA.

What is Taproot?

Taproot contains two important components: the MAST contract (MAST contract) and the Schnorr signature (Schnorr signature).

The MAST contract is a Merkle-tree-style data structure. Schnorr signature is an asymmetric cryptographic algorithm that allows linear addition to the signature.

What are the benefits of Taproot?

Taproot improves data privacy prior to, and during, bitcoin transactions. Also, multiple signatures can be added linearly within one, saving storage space and verification procedures, and improving performance. Breaking the original 15 multi-signature limit of Bitcoin, it is more decentralized.

In addition, the MAST contract incorporates scripting programming for greater programmability.

ChainX and Taproot

We quote here from the official ChainX Blog (https://chainx-org.medium.com/610-million-stolen-from-ronin-bridge-how-does-chainx-keep-user-assets-safe-) d84a545e5936).

ChainX’s custodians use the ComingChat threshold wallet with Taproot technology for multi-signature. Each trust keeps its own private key fragments, and these private key fragments are aggregated off-chain to form aggregated private keys and aggregated public keys.

In the traditional multi-signature scheme, people can know the address (public key) of each trust from the chain.

Based on these addresses, hackers then use further methods to steal the private keys corresponding to these addresses. Taproot fundamentally solves this problem.

The Schnorr algorithm can realize the off-chain aggregation of private key fragments, so the outside world can only see a new address aggregated from the addresses of the 10 trustees on the chain, and people cannot even know whether it is an ordinary single signature or Multi-signature.

f it is impossible to know the respective addresses of each trust, it is naturally impossible to know the respective private keys of each trust. This ensures the absolute security of user assets.

3/ What are the current shortcomings of the project?

(1) OmniBTC is currently under-publicized and under-attended. There are 2,112 Twitter followers. (2) The balance of XBTC on ChainX chain is 19.6536 pieces in total. At the funding level, it does not help OmniBTC much.

(3) Currently there are not many trading pairs available in OmniBTC DEX, the Token variety is not rich enough, and it is concentrated on the EVM chain SherpaX. A large number of Swap Pools are underfunded and cannot be traded.

4/ Future direction of the project? How expandable is the business? Can business expansion expand market capitalization?

(1) The launch of the non-custodial model, in improving BTC cross-chain security, with liquidity mining incentives, and the adoption of XBTC by other projects in Polkadot ecology. It may be able to gain more market share.

(2) OmniBTC is still in the early stage, there is still a lot of work to do in terms of liquidity building, and the BTC omni-chain lending pool is not yet online.

(3) OmniBTC BTC omni-chain lending is planned to cooperate with MakerDAO. If the BTC all-chain lending is then combined with PCX rewards, it may attract more users and share part of the market share of wBTC and renBTC.

5/ Team situation?

OmniBTC is developed by the PolkaX team. The team is currently developing the Bitcoin Layer2 network ChainX, the crypto chat tool ComingChat, the EVM network SherpaX, and more.

In the official Blog published on August 3, 2021 (https://chainx-org.medium.com/chainx-an-overview-a418005e54bf), the current 5 development teams are introduced.

Working on XBTC 2.0, Taproot integration, EVM and WASM, ComingChat UI and UX, and ComingChat Red Envelope for Coming Chat, respectively.

6/ Social media situation?

7/ Under what circumstances can barriers be broken? How can you tell when a barrier is broken? What are the indicators?

OmniBTC is still in its early stage and has not built a competitive barrier. As mentioned earlier, one can focus on. (1) XBTC balance on ChainX chain. https://scan.chainx.org/crossBlock (2) XBTC adoption by other DeFi projects in the Polkadot ecosystem, and XBTC pool liquidity.

8/ What are the people and drivers of token selling and buying, respectively? Can the demand for token purchases be sustained? Can it offset token sell-offs? Can business expansion increase demand for tokens?

As of now, the SO sell-off is mainly coming from liquidity mining rewards.

Token application scenarios other than liquidity mining have not been fully announced. Perhaps a Gas scenario will be available in the future.

In the long term, SO value will come primarily from demand for governance of the BTC omni-chain lending pool, and treasury revenue for purchase to destroy SO, or possibly through a deflationary scenario similar to the EIP1559 proposal, but the time required is all expected to be long.

9/ Risks?

(1) Systemic risks from the security side. (2) Substitution risk from Polkadot ecology in addition to the full chain of projects.

Twitter @godotsancho

What is an application chain?

An application chain is a blockchain that is built specifically for a certain application. For example, Ronin for Axie Infinity

In addition, dApps originally built on Layer1 or Layer2 can escape from the original public chain and develop customized public chains independently in order to further improve the scalability and experience of dApps and extend the application scenarios. Such as dYdX.

Recently, dYdX, the largest derivatives trading platform in Ethereum, announced that it would develop its own Layer1 based on Cosmos SDK and break away from Ethereum in the V4 update.

Compound had also planned to develop its own custom chain based on Substrate, a Polka technology framework, before it was suspended for some reason.

Yuga Labs (the entity behind CryptoPunks, BAYC, Meebits and other blue chip NFTs) had proposed that ApeCoin needs its own blockchain or migrate to a network such as Avalanche.

Why develop an application chain?

Existing networks, such as Ethereum, do not meet the project requirements. For example

dYdX is currently built on Ethereum Layer2 StarkWare. It is only when funds are transferred to and from the margin account that StarkWare uploads the transaction results to Ethereum, and other operations are not on the chain.

dYdX wants to pursue complete decentralization of functions and components, and user operations based on order books, which also need to be on the chain.

Therefore, it was either to change the existing transaction method and turn the order book into AMM or other ways, or to move away from Ethereum. The team chose the latter.

Yuga Labs proposed the migration in the context of the Bored Ape virtual land Otherdeeds sale when gas rose sharply and caused network congestion, ultimately contributing a total of $180 million in sky-high Gas prices.

In a word, Layer1 and Layer2 such as Ethereum meet the generality. With the development of dApp, generality can no longer meet all the needs, and on the basis of generality, more specialized and customized functions or implementations are needed.

About the choice and controversy of application chain

Currently there are three main options for application chain development: based on Cosmos SDK, Polkadot Substrate, and Avalanche Subnet development.

For comparison.

Cosmos advantages: easy access, cross-chainable

Disadvantages: ecological projects need to ensure their own security

Polkadot advantage: ecological projects can share security and can cross-chain

Disadvantage: XCMP cross-chain model of pay-per-block is not yet online, currently cross-chain requires participation in parallel chain slot auctions

Avalanche advantage: easy access, can share security

Disadvantage: SDK is not online, currently no cross-chain

Cosmos is more like Avalanche in that it is license-free to cross chain and projects have unrestricted access to the SDK.

The difference is that Cosmos does not guarantee the security of the accessed projects and projects need to create their own verification nodes.

Avalanche allows projects to share the security with verification nodes of Avalanche main network.

Polkadot has been created with security in mind from the beginning. Projects can share Polkadot authentication nodes and use the consensus of Polkadot, but access requires a vote of DOT holders, i.e. slot auction.

Even if a project successfully wins the slot, it still requires permission from both sides when communicating with other projects across the chain.

AltLayer: An Alternative Solution

AltLayer is a temporary scaling layer built on the concept of Optimistic Rollups that connects to Layer1 and Layer2 of Ethereum, Solana, Polkadot, Cosmos, and even Arbitrum, Optimism, and more.

When temporary scaling is needed on these networks, such as a Otherdeeds sale, AltLayer can temporarily help scale Ethereum, improving performance and reducing Gas. when the sale ends, AltLayer is no longer needed and the Ethereum network remains as usual.

The advantage is that projects can still be developed based on the original network and enjoy the dividends of the original network without having to migrate.

AltLayer supports multiple chains and multiple VMs, and supports EVM and WASM by default, so AltLayer is not tied to a single Layer1 or Layer2, but can be used as a modular and pluggable extension solution for all EVM and WASM compatible chains.

AltLayer has received a total of $7.2 million in institutional and individual funding.

AltLayer Analysis

1/Does AltLayer meet the market demand?

Projects enjoy the dividends brought by liquidity on Ethereum and user traffic on the one hand, and are troubled by the high Gas and congestion of Ethereum on the other hand, and do not want to participate in the competition for network resources.

That's why a large number of EVM chains are created.

This kind of relationship that projects want to pursue, coupled with Ethereum, is exactly what AltLayer needs.

AltLayer value can be significantly cyclical. In a bull market, AltLayer demand will soar. In bear markets, subject to low on-chain activity, AltLayer demand will also decrease.

2/ What are the core competencies of the project? Are barriers created? Competitive situation?

Currently, there are no projects similar to AltLayer's concept. AltLayer has a more than sufficient first-mover advantage.

3/ Team

Founder Yaoqi Jia, former Director and GM of Parity Asia, co-founder and CTO of Zilliqa. Profile can be found at http://jiayaoqi.com/.

Dorothy Liu, head of growth, was formerly head of Synthetix China.

4/ Social media profile

Twitter: 16001 Discord: 16134 Telegram: 458

5/ What are the people and drivers of token selling and buying respectively? Can the demand for token purchases be sustained? Can it offset token selling? Can business expansion increase demand for tokens?

The AltLayer token model has not been released yet. Hopefully, it will not just be "mine, withdraw and sell".

My personal thought is that one should never follow POKT's token model.

The ways I can think of to empower AltLayer tokens.

1/ When Layer1 or Layer2 users use AltLayer, they pay Gas in native tokens normally. for example, there is an event on Ethereum now, which needs to use AltLayer, users still pay Gas in ETH. the paid Gas goes to AltLayer treasury.

2/ The treasury proceeds, part of which is rewarded to the pledger of AltLayer Token, and the other part is used to buy AltLayer Token from the secondary market at market price and destroy it, turning AltLayer into a deflationary token.

3/ 1/ In the mentioned content, users can also use AltLayer Token to pay for Gas. users can independently choose the lowest way to pay for Gas. AltLayer official can provide Gas conversion function, just like the once 1inch.

Twitter @godotsancho

Project Description

Gmx is a DEX platform that supports both spot and perpetual contracts and currently focuses its main business on derivatives trading.

Formerly known as Gambit, a BSC on-chain project, it was migrated to Arbitrum and supports the Avalanche (AVAX) chain.

Unlike dYdX and Perpetual Protocol, Gmx does not use an order book or AMM model, but a GLP liquidity model.

By ‘GLP liquidity model’, we mean that when a user provides liquidity to Gmx, instead of providing two tokens in a 1:1 ratio, such as ETH/USDT, they directly purchase and pledge the liquidity token GLP issued by the Gmx Protocol, and by pledging GLP, they participate in Gmx market making.

The GLP itself represents a blanket collection of tokens with the weights shown in the following chart.

In fact, when a trading user long ETH, it is equivalent to borrowing ETH assets from the GLP pool. Opening short is equivalent to borrowing stablecoin assets.

In other words, the counterparty of a Gmx open user is actually a user who has pledged GLP.

The price of GLP, therefore, will go down or up as the trading user makes a profit or a loss.

The advantage of ‘GLP liquidity model’ is that the depth can be consolidated, theoretically infinite as long as the GLP pool has remaining assets. Second, trading fees are low and there is no slippage.

Users can buy or sell GLP directly within the Gmx platform. GLP are backed by real assets, and users can also choose to redeem other assets with GLP.

Pledged GLP, which can share 70% of the platform's fee income, currently have an APR of 30.9%.

For trading users, positions can be opened after depositing margin. Gmx currently supports four varieties of ETH, BTC, LINK, and UNI, and supports users to open the above four varieties using ETH, wETH, BTC, LINK, UNI, USDC, USDT, DAI, FRAX, and MIN, with a maximum support of 30 times leverage.

In addition, it should be noted that the assets represented by GLP have a target weighting, and when the actual weighting deviates too much from the target weighting, the fees for opening a position with that asset will also increase, so as to correct the asset weighting.

Project data status

As shown in the chart above, Gmx's cumulative trading volume in Arbitrum and Avalanche exceeds $45 billion, total fee income exceeds $60 million, total users exceed 48,000. Open positions in Arbitrum network exceed $14 million.

The total 24-hour trading volume exceeded $110 million, and the total fee income exceeded $310,000 in the last 2 days.

According to Delphi data, the GLP pool has been rising since August 21 of last year.

According to tokenterminal data, Gmx 30-day protocol revenue, ranked 14th, surpassed old DeFi and public chains like Sushi and Avalanche, and the 180-day revenue growth rate reached 183.1%.

In the data above, Gmx trading volume is the sum of spot and derivatives trading volume, while the rest of the platforms only recorded derivatives trading volume.

If you compare them horizontally, you will find that the current Gmx trading volume is equivalent to the derivatives trading volume of second-tier trading platforms such as Kraken, and there is a small gap between first-tier platforms such as Binance, and the derivatives DEX leader dYdX.

Stable Coin Trading

GLP Liquidity model brings an unexpected benefit in the form of low stablecoin exchange slippage. As the chart shows, Gmx is not only smaller than Traderjoe in terms of large stablecoin slippage, but even outperforms Platypus, an Avax ecosystem project dedicated to stablecoin exchange.

Token economic model

The total number of GMX issued is 13,250,000, the current circulation is 7,721,700, the tokens under pledge are 6,627,000, the pledge ratio is 85.8%, and the actual liquidity is 1,098,800.

The current coin price is $17.24, the actual liquidity is $18,874,300, and the FDV is $228 million.

6 million from XVIX and Gambit (predecessor of GMX) migration 2 million with ETH in Uniswap to form LP as initial liquidity 2 million for GMX's pledged rewards 2 million to be managed by the Floor Fund (to support GMX prices) 1 million for marketing, partnerships and community 250K to be distributed linearly to the team over 2 years

GMX usage scenarios.

1. Participate in the governance of the agreement

2. Pledge GMX, share 30% of the platform's fee income, issued in the form of ETH or AVAX

3. Pledge to get GMX rewards

4. Get Multiplier Points

Floor Price Fund.

1. Liquidity of GMX/ETH transaction pair on Uniswap, added by Gmx protocol. The fee income generated by this trading pair will be converted to GLP and deposited into Gmx as a Floor Price Fund.

2. 50% of the proceeds from the sale of Olympus bonds will also be deposited into the Floor Price Fund, and the other 50% will be used for marketing purposes.

Floor Price Fund is used to maintain GLP liquidity or to repurchase and destroy GMX to guarantee the value of GMX.

Pledge of GMX

As shown in the figure, users who pledge GMX are rewarded with

1. Trading fee income, in the form of ETH or AMAX

2. GMX rewards

3. esGMX, which represents the Escrowed GMX

4. Multiplier Points

5. Users can pledge Multiplier Points to get Staked Multiplier Points

esGMX

esGMX is the abbreviation of Escrowed GMX.

esGMX is not transferable and there are two ways to use it: Stake and Vest.

Stake esGMX is the same as Stake GMX and also shares the platform fee revenue.

Vest, on the other hand, converts esGMX into GMX and requires a 1-year waiting period, in which esGMX is converted into GMX proportionally every second for 1 year. during the vest process, users still need to continue to pledge GMX or GLP.

Multiplier Points (MP)

The main purpose of MP is to reward long-term holders. When a user pledges GMX, MP is earned every second. 1000 GMX pledged for one year will earn 1000 MP. Users can continue to pledge MPs and each MP earns the same amount as a GMX pledge. Once the user cancels the pledge of GMX, the corresponding percentage of MPs will be destroyed.

In other words, when a user initially pledges GMX, he or she receives esGMX and MP, and can repledge esGMX and MP to increase the APR. the larger the number of GMX pledged and the longer the pledge, the higher the percentage of the agreed revenue that can be shared.

Conversely, once the user cancels the pledge of GMX, the revenue of esGMX and MP, will also be affected.

The Future of Gmx: X4

Gmx creator X is a serial entrepreneur whose previous projects are known as X1, X2, and X3.

X1 is XVIX, X2 is a leveraged token, X3 is Gambit, and GMX is an improved version of Gambit. X4 will be designed around Gmx.

X4 is a custom AMM that allows the pool creator, through a smart contract, to define any contract or function to be invoked when adding or removing liquidity, or when a user buys or sells tokens. For example

Dynamic Fees. The pool creator, can set fees, can set different fees for buying and selling actions, can specify Tokens as Gas, etc.

Access to all Tokens. Ability to trade special tokens such as GLP, which represent mimetic assets.

Greater Composability. For example, LP Token is used as a tradable Token, Mint at purchase and redeemed at sale.

Aggregation (Aggregation). Aggregation of multiple DEX liquidity, similar to 1inch.

In other words, in the future, Gmx will become a spot aggregation DEX + derivatives DEX platform, which can even create scenarios such as ICO and LBP.

Analysis of GMX token value and potential risks

1/ How big is the market where Gmx is located? What are the current market conditions?

According to TokenInsight and Coinmarketcap data, as of 8:00 p.m. (UTC) on July 2, the total market capitalization of global crypto assets was $864.01 billion, total trading volume was $225.08 billion, derivatives turnover was $122.88 billion accounting for 54.6%, and DEX open interest value was $285.96 million, accounting for only 1.01%.

(1) Trading is the most dominant activity in the crypto market. The track has broad prospects and fierce competition. (2) Total derivatives trading is gradually overtaking spot, in line with traditional financial markets. As the crypto market develops, derivatives trading is expected to grow further and the volume of trading is exponentially the same as spot trading. (3) The 24-hour trading volume, DEX accounts for only 1.19%. However, in terms of specific projects, dYdX already has a certain volume, and its 24-hour trading volume and open interests have exceeded those of mainstream trading platforms such as Bitfinex and Kraken. 24-hour trading volume of Gmx is basically the same as Bitfinex and Kraken, and its open interests are inferior to them.

To sum up, Gmx is in the largest volume and most competitive track in the industry. At present, the project's competitiveness has been initially revealed, and we need to focus our analysis on whether the project's competitiveness can be sustained, and how strong the substitutability is.

2/ What are the core competencies of the project? Does it create a barrier? Competitive situation?

Macro situation.

As a trading platform, the competitiveness is reflected in the safety of funds, stable trading system, good trading experience, including deep depth, low slippage, less commission, more ways to trade, easy operation, and rich tradable assets.

On the other hand, trading platforms are more likely to have a Matthew effect.

The better the depth and the lower the slippage, the more trading users there will be and the more trading volume there will be, and then the depth and slippage will be more optimized, forming a positive cycle.

At the same time, the number of market makers that can be attracted increases, and the number of online assets will also increase.

The more revenue the platform generates, the more investment it makes in security and system development, and the more safety and security it provides.

Comparative advantages of DEX and CEX.

Mainstream CEX platforms such as Cryptocurrency, compared to DEX such as dYdX and Gmx, firstly, have OTC business, which is a more upstream capital entrance.

After users trade fiat currency into crypto assets, they can directly trade on CEX platform, which is more convenient.

Secondly, the first-mover advantage is obvious, the depth, slippage, asset type and pending order method are enough to meet the needs of most users.

More importantly, as a centralized platform, users can directly contact customer service to deal with funding or trading problems, and the centralized platform is in a position to compensate users based on stable and continuous cash flow gains.

The advantages of DEX over CEX, on the other hand, are first and foremost the ownership of funds. Large capital fears CEX platform restrictions on withdrawals, or the so-called "fixed-point blast" price manipulation, the problem of capital security.

Second, the trading algorithm advantages, such as global liquidity without slippage, AMM or native token incentive, etc.

Third, based on the token economic model, such as native token incentives, etc., to attract users to trade.

Gmx core competencies.

In terms of Gmx alone, its core competencies are mainly reflected in the ownership of funds and the advantage of large amount of no slippage brought by the GLP liquidity model.

Gmx can currently accommodate a maximum position of about $41 million for ETH, $25 million for BTC, $300,000 for LINK and $50,000 for UNI without slippage (0.3% actual slippage).

Taking ETH trading pairs as an example, dYdX can still have a trading slippage of less than 1% after accommodating a depth of 4 million USDT, and more than 4 million USDT, the trading slippage is greater than 1% and gradually enlarges as the amount of funds increases.

Perpetual's slippage has reached 5.5% when accommodating a depth of 100,000 USD.

In the case of LINK, for example, dYdX reaches 50.78% slippage when holding 200,000 USDDT. Perpetual has reached 10.6% slippage when accommodating a depth of 100,000 USD.

On the other hand, because of the GLP liquidity model, traders are actually borrowing coins from GLP, so they have to pay additional hourly borrowing fees in addition to the transaction fees.

Gmx is more suitable for large, short term trading. This is also the reason why Gmx trading volume is basically on par with Kraken and Bitfinex in the previous article, but the gap in open positions is larger.

3/ Future direction of the project? How expandable is the business? Can business expansion expand market capitalization?

From a macro perspective.

There is still room for growth in crypto market trading. Currently, the total value of world gold is about USD 10.87 trillion if the price is USD 1,800 per ounce. And the current total market capitalization of the crypto market is $865.07 billion.

About Gmx.

Gmx is currently foreseeable, with three directions of expansion. (1) Derivatives trading on line with more varieties, currently only four varieties of BTC, ETH, LINK and UNI are supported. (2) Spot Swap trading. (3) Based on the global liquidity without slippage feature, the large stable coin exchange is combined with other DEX to provide basic liquidity.

Based on the Gmx token economic model, the above business expansion and the increase in transaction fee income will increase the APR of GMX and GLP pledges and incentivize more locked positions. the increase in GLP locked positions will further increase the value of large openable positions, forming a positive cycle.

4/ Team situation?

Project founder tweets nickname X (https://twitter.com/xdev_10), serial entrepreneur, has created XVIX, Leveraged Token, Gambit, GMX projects. Other information is unknown.

5/Social media profile?

6/ Potential alternative is?

A better way to make a market

7/ Under what circumstances can barriers be broken? How can we tell when barriers are broken? What are the indicators?

(1) Security issues arise (2) GLP liquidity is siphoned off (3) Substitution

(1) Decrease in total GLP volume and price collapse (2) Plunge in trading volume

8/ What are the people and drivers of token selling and buying respectively? Can the demand for token purchases be sustained? Can it offset token selling? Can business expansion increase demand for tokens?

According to the GMX token model. 6 million from XVIX and Gambit (GMX's predecessor) migration 2 million with ETH in Uniswap to form LP as initial liquidity 2 million for GMX pledged rewards 2 million managed by the reserve fund (to support GMX prices) 1 million for marketing, partnerships and community 250K to be distributed linearly to the team over 2 years

Given the 85% pledge rate and the 2 million GMX managed by the reserve fund, GMX selloff pressure comes mainly from pledge and liquidity incentives.

GMX buying momentum mainly comes from the pledge APR and expectations for the future development of the agreement, while the pledge APR will share the agreement fees in the form of ETH or AVAX in addition to GMX incremental rewards. Currently, GMX APR 22.75%, users can also continue to Compound earnings to further increase the APR.

The green curve above represents the price against USD, and the yellow represents the price against BTC. It is easy to see that GMX tokens are performing much better than DYDX, especially outperforming BTC in the last half month.

The reason for this is that DYDX is currently unable to effectively capture the protocol revenue and is rewarding market makers and users with tokens to provide liquidity, increasing the selling pressure.

The GMX token economic model, on the other hand, compares much better, not only capturing the value of the protocol revenue and not using the tokens themselves to incentivize liquidity, but also having a large number of lock-in scenarios.

The 85%+ pledge rate also illustrates the success of the GMX token model.

And from the data, although the net value of dYdX users is higher than Gmx, but subject to the token economic model, the circulation market value of DYDX is almost the same as GMX.

Thanks for following Twitter@godotsancho

Background

To improve capital utilization, Uniswap v3 requires users to set a price range when adding liquidity.

For example, suppose the current ETH price is fluctuating between $1990-2010. If the user sets the ETH-USDT LP price range at A. $1000-$3000 B. $1900-2100 C. $2101-$4000

then A and B will receive LP rewards, but B will receive more rewards than A.

Similarly, the risk of taking impermanent losses is greater than A. C will not receive any LP rewards.

Therefore, Uniswap v3 LPs need to. 1/ Adjust the liquidity price range at any time based on token price fluctuations 2/ Keep the tokens they provide at a 50:50 ratio 3/ Balance the gains and impermanent losses

This led to the need for Uniswap v3 liquidity management and the emergence of protocols such as Arrakis, xToken, Gamma (formerly Visor Finance), Charm.fi, Mellow and others.

Introduction to Arrakis Project

Arrakis Finance (https://www.arrakis.finance/), formerly G-UNI, as shown below, provides a UI through which users can directly provide liquidity to Uniswap v3 for additional LP rewards. Ethereum, Polygon and Optimism are currently supported.

The protocol automatically adjusts the liquidity price range, rebalances token ratios based on strategy, and more importantly, the protocol is permissionless, non-custodial and openly-governed by the Arrakis DAO.

According to DeFiLIama data, Arrakis TVL currently stands at $1.24 billion, accounting for 25% of Uniswap TVL, with a monthly growth rate of 127% at one point.

In that article (https://medium.com/arrakis-finance/selecting-a-uniswap-v3-range-da34d8741089), Arrakis explains the basic strategy principles that make the gains consistently outweigh the impermanent losses in the long run. TVL illustrates the effectiveness of the strategy.

Uniswap v3 Liquidity Strategy Project Cross-Sectional Comparison

Gamma

Previously, the most well-known program in this category would be Visor Finance. unfortunately, Visor suffered consecutive hacking attacks and not only $1.6 billion in funds were stolen, but also the vVISR infinite casting bug was discovered.

The protocol was later restarted and renamed to Gamma, with a current TVL of $3.57 million.

Firstly, the market is definitely worried about Gamma's security and the consensus is damaged by the theft of Visor.

Secondly, there are fewer pools to choose from on Gamma, only 15. In contrast, Arrakis covers almost all of the Uniswap v3 mainstream token pools.

Charm.fi

Previously did Options and Cube Token products, not very successful, recently shut down these two products, the focus shifted to Uniswap v3 liquidity management.

Currently there are only 3 pools available and the strategy price range is relatively large. The product is relatively early and has a lot of room for improvement.

Current TVL $4.72M.

xToken

This protocol was developed over a long period of time and later changed its business direction to mainly face projects to Uniswap liquidity incentives.

Projects that want to launch on Uniswap v3 can use this protocol to launch the pool and provide incentive tokens.

The protocol creates a platform between users and projects. Currently, the quality of projects using the platform to bootstrap liquidity is average.

The current TVL is $2.84 million.

Mellow Protocol

The product has not yet been released.

In summary, in a comparison, Arrakis, at $1.11 billion TVL, is in a monopoly position among similar projects and is the absolute head of the pack.

Tokenomics

Arrakis will launch token SPICE, using veToken model, locking SPICE to get xSPICE, gaining governance rights and increasing pledge revenue.

SPICE is expected to go live in 2023.

More details to be announced.

Project Analysis and Evaluation

1/ How big is the market where Arrakis is located?

The chart above shows the monthly trading volume of Uniswap. Despite the downward trend in trading volume since last December, the volume is still showing a multiple order of magnitude growth in the long term.

In June 2022, Uniswap monthly volume was $46.9 billion, up $32.7 billion, or 3.3 times, compared to the peak volume of $14.2 billion in the summer of DeFi in September 2020.

TVL follows the same trend. The TVL in June 2022 is $5.3 billion. $1 generates $8.84 in transaction volume per month.

In June 2022, the protocol revenue was $59.1 million. $1 TVL generated revenue of $0.011 per month, with an average monthly return of 1.1% and an average annualized return of 13.2%.

The Uniswap protocol was born in a bear market in late 2018, saw explosive growth in the summer of 2020, and has been in development for just four years through a full round of bull and bear conversion tests by July 2022.

And it is clear from the chart above that, as a trading platform, Uniswap's trading volume and revenue increased with the market's dramatic shocks, which was particularly evident in May 2021 and November and December 2021.

This is despite the fact that both of these time points are during the transformation of the market from a bull to a bear market.

Therefore, bull and bear market transitions will not play a decisive role in the survival of Uniswap, except for long periods of extreme bear markets.

What really determines the life and death of Uniswap is the cannibalization of Uniswap's trading share by other protocols.

Such as Curve's domination of stablecoin exchange, and Synthetix liquidity model, nibbling on large transactions, and Launch platforms like Balancer, nibbling on new Uniswap coins coming online. Then there is the replacement of AMM by newer and better trading algorithms.

Such as Curve's domination of stablecoin exchange, and Synthetix global liquidity model, the cannibalization of large transactions, and Launch platforms such as Balancer.

Also, newer and better trading algorithms, an alternative to AMM.

But to date, Uniswap is one of the absolute leaders in the DEX space and has maintained growth for a long time.

2/ What are the core competencies of the project? Does it create barriers? Competitive situation?

Arrakis algorithm can be found in the article (https://medium.com/arrakis-finance/selecting-a-uniswap-v3-range-da34d8741089), and more practically, let's look at the data.

Currently, Uniswap has the largest trading pairs in terms of volume and revenue, as shown in the graph above.

First, sorting the Arrakis pairs by TVL, there is $1,182.2 million in DAI/USDC liquidity, or 95.3% of the total liquidity of the protocol.

It can be noticed that the third place in TVL, agEUR/USDC liquidity, drops directly to $15,772,000.

Second, the top 7 Arrakis liquidity pool TVL, all stablecoin trading pairs, have a total volume of $1,228 million, accounting for 99% of the protocol's total TVL.

The other trading pairs have a TVL of $12 million.

Therefore, Arrakis is the protocol that market makers of stablecoins such as DAI and agEUR, choose to use when providing liquidity to Uniswap v3.

The Gamma protocol has a high APR for the main trading pairs due to the use of native tokens to incentivize liquidity, and a staggering 147.51% APR for ETH/USDC.

Despite the super high APR, the Gamma Protocol TVL has dropped from over $7 million in early June to over $3 million. And since last December, the TVL has always shown a downward trend.

Charm.fi currently supports only 3 trading pairs, which are ranked at the top of Uniswap in terms of volume and revenue.

From the disclosed data, Charm.fi capital utilization is lower compared to Uniswap v3. For example, for the ETH/USDC pair, Charm.fi utilization is 14.6%, while Uniswap v3 is 84.5%.

In summary. (1) On demand. Currently, Uniswap v3 liquidity management project, the demand comes from the Buisness-side. Such as Maker decentralized management of DAI, and the demand of market makers. Secondly, Uniswap's mechanism of distributing rewards according to the proportion of funds, also determines that institutions and large investors are the main force in providing liquidity and earning APR. According to Dune data, Arrakis currently has 76 independent addresses. (Except for a few projects that offer native tokens to stimulate users with high APR to provide liquidity) Currently, the demand for Uniswap users' stablecoin positions has increased due to the market, and the TVL share of Arrakis, from 16.677% in early June, has increased to 25%. In the future, in the event of a market rebound, Arrakis TVL may continue to rise, but the percentage will fall.

(2) About core competencies. Based on the first point, the safety of funds, the stability of protocol performance and the resource situation are the current sources of core competencies for this type of project. The safety of funds, especially the non-custodial attributes, is very important. At a time when CeFi is frequently mined, the non-custodial attribute may even be one of the deciding factors for the success of the protocol development. Based on this, it is difficult for Gamma to regain consensus and compete with Arrakis in a short period of time.

(3) Regarding the development stage, Uniswap v3 liquidity management projects are in the early stage, such as Charm.fi, Mellow Protocol algorithm or product still needs to be polished and developed, Arrakis product is relatively mature.

(4) Based on the above 3 points. MakerDAO had initiated a proposal to approve the minting of $1.75 billion DAI based on Arrakis liquidity, one after another.

DAI's market maker, by providing DAI/USDC liquidity in Uniswap v3, anchors DAI to USDC prices and prevents de-anchoring. Arrakis has also reached cooperation with Maker, Aave, OlympusDAO, Frax, Synthetix, Fei Protocol, with more obvious resources and first-mover advantage, and is the leading project in this field.

3/ Future direction of the project? How expandable is the business? Can business expansion expand market value?

Currently, the main source of demand for Arrakis' business is other protocols. In the future, it is foreseeable that Arrakis business can be expanded in two directions.

(1) To incentivize more Uniswap v3 liquidity providers, such as institutions and large investors, to use Arrakis based on the native token SPICE. (2) As a liquidity middle layer, lending liquidity to other protocols, similar to CEX "borrowing depth".

Scenario (1) is one of the foundations of scenario (2). Attracting more liquidity through scenario (1) allows SPICE to pull demand through scenario (2) based on the veToken model.

Maker protocol based on DAI/USDC transaction pair collateralization, casting DAI, has actually expanded the new scenario of Arrakis liquidity usage.

Also according to officials, in the future, in addition to LP position scenarios combined with loan/borrowing or option markets, Arrakis will give birth to. a. delta-neutral LP positions with automatic hedging b. complex long positions on centralized AMMs c. Cross-AMM positions d. Cross-chain liquidity

etc. scenarios.

4/ What about team?

Arrakis was founded by the team of Gelato, a smart contract platform on ethereum with token GEL and a current FDV of $123 million. According to the official description, the team currently has 30 members from 10 countries, including Switzerland, Germany and Spain.

The founders have only made Gelato's work experience public on Link. The other founder does not disclose relevant experience.

5/ Social media situation?

6/Potential replacements are?

As things stand now, Arrakis may be replaced when market makers for stable coins such as DAI are no longer needed to make markets, or when better market making tools become available.

Of interest is the global liquidity model represented by Synthetix and Gmx, which have the advantage of no slippage on large exchanges. However, in the short term, Uniswap v3 market making is still necessary and the global liquidity model is not very open, users need to purchase SNX collateral for sUSD or GLP within Gmx in order to participate in market making.

7/ Under what circumstances can barriers be broken?

(1) Arrakis has security issues. (2) Uniswap v3 team introduces liquidity management tools by themselves or other teams.

8/ How can we tell when a barrier is broken? Indicators are?

Short term. (1) Whether there are security issues with Arrakis. (2) Arrakis TVL, especially the TVL percentage of DAI on the protocol.

Long term. (1) Percentage of TVL of non-stable coins on Arrakis. (2) Arrakis TVL (3) SPICE price.

9/ What are the people and drivers of token selling and buying, respectively? Can the demand for token purchases be sustained? Can it offset token sell-offs? Can business expansion increase demand for tokens?

At this time, SPICE has not yet announced the exact distribution and economic model. We can only extrapolate from the available information.

SPICE will use a veToken model similar to CRV, pledging SPICE, getting xSPICE, and gaining the right to govern and BOOST earnings.

The value of VeToken lies in the bribe.

It is the various protocols, competing for liquidity, buying and pledging SPICE to get xSPICE and thus access to Arrakis' liquidity that makes the veToken model valuable. Just as Terra and Frax compete for liquidity in Curve.

On the other hand, if the protocol itself is not available, allowing other protocols to compete for liquidity, even with the veToken model, it is ineffective in the long run, as in the case of veRBN and veANC. because user pledges only serve to increase lock-in returns, the incentive is limited and unsustainable.

The SPICE sell-off mainly comes from the "mine, withdraw, sell" generated by the liquidity incentive. (Disregarding the team incentives, fundraising assets generated by the selloff)

SPICE buying, when analyzed according to the CRV framework, comes from the need for bribery and boost gains. We need to focus on whether SPICE can make users generate the need for bribery or boost gains.

Therefore, the indicators to judge the potential value of SPICE can focus on. (1) The number of Arrakis independent addresses. (2) The average pledge age and pledge percentage of SPICE (3) The emergence of ‘Arrakis war’ or not (4) In addition to stable coins, veToken new bribe growth point (5) The deployment of cross-chain liquidity

Regarding the SPICE valuation, it can be analogous to CRV. Curve's current TVL is $4.98 billion and CRV FDV is $2.25887 billion. Arrakis current TVL is 1.24 billion USD and SPICE FDV is more reasonable at 562 million USD. (With Arrakis war), you can review the SPICE price based on the final SPICE allocation here.

10 / risk?

(1) systemic risk, such as protocol security issues. (2) cyclical risk, the market bull and bear switch, SPICE price decline. (3) Substitutability risk.

Thanks for following Twitter @godotsancho

一、背景

为提高资金利用率，Uniswap v3需要用户在添加流动性时，设置价格区间。

举例，假设当前ETH价格为在1990-2010美元波动。若用户将ETH-USDT LP价格区间分别设置在： A. 1000-3000美元 B. 1900-2100美元 C. 2101-4000美元

则A和B可获得LP奖励，但B获得的奖励多于A，同样的，承担无常损失的风险也要大于A。C不会获得任何LP奖励。

所以，Uniswap v3 LPs需要： 1/ 根据代币价格波动，随时调整流动性价格区间 2/ 随着资金池偏斜，将自己提供的代币，尽量保持在50:50比例 3/ 平衡收益和无常损失

由此催生了Uniswap v3流动性管理需求，诞生了Arrakis、xToken、Gamma（原Visor Finance）、Charm.fi、Mellow等协议。

二、Arrakis项目介绍

Arrakis Finance（https://www.arrakis.finance/），前身G-UNI，如下图所示，提供了一个前端，用户可直接通过该协议，向Uniswap v3提供流动性，获得更多LP奖励。

目前支持以太主网、Polygon和Optimise网络。

协议会根据策略，自动调整流动性价格区间、再平衡代币比例，更重要的是，该协议无需资金托管。

根据DeFiLIama数据，目前Arrakis TVL达到12.4亿美元，占到了Uniswap TVL的25%，月增长率一度高达127%。

在该文中（https://medium.com/arrakis-finance/selecting-a-uniswap-v3-range-da34d8741089），Arrakis解释了基本的策略原理，使得收益在长期始终大于无常损失。TVL说明了该策略的有效性。

三、Uniswap v3流动性策略项目横向比较

Gamma

此前，Uniswap生态项目中最知名的，是Visor Finance。但是，Visor连续遭遇黑客攻击，不但有16亿美元资金被盗，还被发现了vVISR无限铸造Bug。

后来协议重启，改名为Gamma，目前TVL为357万美元。

首先，受Visor被盗影响，市场对Gamma的安全肯定会有担忧，共识受损。其次，Gamma上可选择的池子较少，只有15个。

Charm.fi

此前做过期权和Cube Token产品，不算很成功，最近把这两个产品关停了，重点转到Uniswap v3流动性管理上。目前可用的池子就3个，策略价格区间相对较大。产品比较早期，有很大的改进空间。

目前TVL 472万美元。

xToken

该协议发展时间较长，后来业务方向改变，主要面对项目方开展Uniswap流动性激励引导。想要在Uniswap v3上线的项目方，可以通过该协议，上线池子，并提供激励代币。协议为用户和项目方之间搭建了平台。目前，使用该平台引导流动性的项目质量一般。

目前TVL为284万美元。

Mellow Protocol

产品尚未发布。

综上，横向对比来看，Arrakis 11.1亿美元TVL，在同类项目中处于垄断地位，是绝对的头部。

四、代币经济模型

Arrakis即将发行代币SPICE，采用veToken模式，锁仓SPICE得到xSPICE，获得治理权，以及提供质押收益。

SPICE预计上线时间2023年。

更多细节待公布。

五、项目分析及评价

1/Arrakis所在市场有多大？

上图为Uniswap每月交易量情况。尽管自去年12月起，交易量呈下滑趋势，但长期看，交易量仍呈现倍数量级增长。

2022年6月，Uniswap月交易量469亿美元，相比2020年9月DeFi之夏高峰142亿美元交易量，增长327亿美元，3.3倍。

TVL亦呈现相同趋势。2022年6月TVL为53亿美元。1美元单月产生交易量为8.84美元。

2022年6月，协议收入为5910万美元。1美元TVL单月产生收益为0.011美元，平均月化收益1.1%，平均年化13.2%。

Uniswap协议诞生于2018年末的熊市，2020年夏天迎来爆发式增长，至2022年7月，已发展仅4年时间，经历一轮完整的牛熊转化考验。

且从上图可明显看出，作为交易平台，Uniswap交易量和收入随着行情大幅震荡增加，在2021年5月及2021年11月、12月表现得尤为明显。尽管这两个时间点，都是行情从牛市到熊市的转化过程。

所以，行情牛熊对Uniswap存亡不会起到决定性作用，长时间的极端熊市除外。真正决定Uniswap生死的，是其他协议对Uniswap交易份额的蚕食。

如Curve对稳定币兑换的统治，以及Synthetix全局流动性模型，对大额交易的蚕食，以及Balancer等Launch平台，对Uniswap新币种上线的蚕食。再就是，更新更优的交易算法，对AMM的替代。

但到目前来看，Uniswap是DEX领域绝对的龙头之一，且长期保持增长。

2/该项目核心竞争力是什么？是否产生了壁垒？竞对情况？

Arrakis算法可在该文中一探究竟 （https://medium.com/arrakis-finance/selecting-a-uniswap-v3-range-da34d8741089），更实际的情况，我们来看数据。

目前，Uniswap交易量及收入最大的交易对，如上图所示。

首先，将Arrakis交易对按TVL排序，DAI/USDC流动性有11.822亿美元，占协议总流动性的95.3%。可以发现，TVL第三名的agEUR/USDC流动性直接降到了1577.2万美元。

第二，Arrakis流动性池TVL前7，全部是稳定币交易对，资金量总计12.28亿美元，占协议总TVL的99%。

其他交易对TVL为1200万美元。

所以，Arrakis是DAI、agEUR等稳定币做市商，在向Uniswap v3提供流动性时，选择使用的协议。

Gamma协议由于采用了原生代币激励流动性的做法，主要交易对APR较高，ETH/USDC的APR更是达到惊人的147.51%。

虽然APR超高，但Gamma协议TVL已经从6月初的700多万美元，下降到300多万美元。且从去年12月以来，TVL始终呈现下降趋势。

Charm.fi目前仅支持3个交易对，这3个交易对成交量和收入都排在Uniswap前列。

从披露的数据来看，Charm.fi资金利用率相比于Uniswap v3较低，例如ETH/USDC交易对，Charm.fi利用率为14.6%，Uniswap v3为84.5%。

综上：

（1）关于需求。目前，Uniswap v3流动性管理项目，需求来自B端。如Maker去中心化管理DAI，及做市商的需求。

其次，Uniswap根据资金比例，分配奖励的机制，也决定了机构和大户是提供流动性，赚取APR的主力军。据Dune数据显示，Arrakis当前独立地址为76个。（除少数项目提供原生代币，以高APR刺激用户提供流动性之外）

当前，受行情影响，Uniswap用户稳定币持仓需求增加，Arrakis的TVL占比，也从6月初的16.677%，提升到25%。未来，在行情回暖的情况下，Arrakis TVL可能会继续升高，但占比会下降。

（2）关于核心竞争力。基于第一点，资金安全、协议表现稳定以及资源情况，是当前该类项目核心竞争力的来源。

资金安全，尤其是非托管的属性，非常重要。在CeFi频繁暴雷的当下，非托管属性更是可能成为协议发展成功的决定因素之一。

基于此可以判断，Gamma在短时间内很难重新获得共识，也很难与Arrakis竞争了。

（3）关于发展阶段。Uniswap v3流动性管理项目整体属于早期阶段，如Charm.fi，Mellow Protocol算法或产品仍需要打磨发展。Arrakis产品相对成熟。

（4）基于以上3点。MakerDAO曾发起过提案，批准基于Arrakis流动性，陆续铸造17.5亿美元DAI。DAI的做市商，通过在Uniswap v3提供DAI/USDC流动性，使DAI锚定USDC价格，防止脱锚。

Arrakis也已经与Maker、Aave、OlympusDAO、Frax、Synthetix、Fei Protocol达成合作，资源与先发优势较为明显，是该领域龙头项目。

3/项目未来方向？业务可拓展性如何？业务拓展能否扩大市值？

目前，Arrakis业务需求方主要来源是其他协议。未来，可以预见地是，Arrakis业务可以向两个方向拓展：

（1）基于原生代币SPICE，激励机构和大户等更多Uniswap v3流动性提供方，使用Arrakis。

（2）作为流动性中间层，将流动性借给其他协议，类似CEX“借深度”。

场景（1）是场景（2）的基础之一。通过场景（1）吸引更多流动性，使SPICE在veToken模型的基础上，通过场景（2）拉动需求。

Maker协议基于DAI/USDC交易对抵押，铸造DAI，实际上已经拓展了Arrakis流动性使用的新场景。

另据官方介绍，未来，除了与贷款/借款或期权市场相结合的LP头寸场景之外，Arrakis还会诞生：

a. 自动对冲的delta中性LP头寸

b. 集中AMMs上的复杂多头头寸

c. 跨AMM仓位

d. 跨链流动性

等场景。

4/团队情况？

Arrakis由智能合约平台Gelato团队创立。Gelato是以太坊上的智能合约平台，代币GEL，目前FDV为1.23亿美元。据官方介绍，目前团队拥有来自瑞士、德国、西班牙等10个国家的30名成员。

创始人仅在领英上公开Gelato工作经历。另一位创始人则未公开相关经历。

5/社媒情况？

6/潜在替代者是？

就目前情况来看，DAI等稳定币做市商不再需要做市，或者有更好的做市工具时，Arrakis可能会被替代。

值得关注的是，以Synthetix和Gmx为代表的全局流动性模式，在大额兑换无滑点上的优势。但短时间内，Uniswap v3做市仍有必要，且全局流动性模式开放度不高，用户需要购买SNX抵押换成sUSD，或在Gmx内购买GLP，才可参与做市。

7/壁垒在什么情况下能被打破？

（1）Arrakis出现安全问题。

（2）Uniswap v3团队自己或其他团队推出流动性管理工具。

8/如何判断壁垒被打破？指标是？

短期：

（1）Arrakis是否出现安全问题。

（2）Arrakis TVL，尤其是协议上DAI的TVL占比。

长期：

（1）Arrakis上的非稳定币TVL占比。

（2）Arrakis TVL

（3）SPICE价格。

9/代币抛售和购买的人和动力分别是什么？ 对代币购买的需求能否持续？能否抵消代币抛售？业务拓展能否增加代币需求？

目前，SPICE尚未公布具体的分配情况及经济模型。我们只能从现有资料进行推断。

SPICE将采用类似CRV的veToken模式，抵押SPICE，得到xSPICE，获得治理和boost收益的权利。

VeToken的价值在于贿选。

各个协议，为了争夺流动性，购买并质押SPICE，以获得xSPICE，从而获取Arrakis的流动性，才会让veToken模型有价值。正如Terra和Frax对Curve的流动性争夺一样。

另一方面，若协议本身不具备，让其他协议争夺流动性的条件，即便是采用了veToken模型，长期来看也是无效的，例如veRBN和veANC。因为用户质押只是为了提高锁仓收益，这种刺激是有限且不可持续的。

SPICE抛售主要来自于，流动性激励产生的“挖、提、卖”。（暂不考虑团队激励、募资产生的抛压）

SPICE买盘，若按照CRV的框架进行分析，则来自于贿选及boost收益的需求。我们需要关注SPICE是否能让用户产生贿选或者boost收益的需要。

因此，判断SPICE潜在价值的指标可以关注：

（1）     Arrakis独立地址数量。

（2）     SPICE平均质押年限及质押占比

（3）     Arrakis war是否出现

（4）     除了稳定币之外，veToken新的贿选增长点

（5）     跨链流动性部署情况

关于SPICE估值，可以类比CRV。

Curve当前TVL为49.8亿美元，CRV FDV为22.5887亿美元。

Arrakis当前TVL为12.4亿美元，SPICE FDV在5.62亿美元较为合理。（在有Arrakis war的前提下），可以此根据SPICE最终分配情况，检视SPICE价格。

10/风险？

（1）系统性风险，如协议安全问题。

（2）周期性风险，行情牛熊转换，SPICE价格下跌。

（3）可替代性风险。

欢迎关注推特@godotsancho

仅以这样一种形式，纪念疫情里的中国，纪念疫情里发生过的喜怒哀乐与悲欢离合。

也想以这种形式引起一些反思：天灾与人祸之间的界限在何处？面对“铁路困境”博弈，是否真的应该牺牲1个人，救活另外的5个人？以及，个人的私有权利、财产、空间，在何种情况下，可以做出让步，给公共权力让路。

吉林

上海

封城下的众生相与自嘲段子

关于抢菜

西安

江苏

云南瑞丽

疫情里的动物

还有其他

文/推特@GodotSancho

一些废话：

2019年私募起，我就一直持有DOT。经历过312、519、1204等等起起伏伏，也看到过各种KOL及投资者们的思考和质疑。

从持有至今，我也在不断思考，跨链究竟必不必要？如果必要，为什么是波卡，而不是别的项目？

以及，自己有没有产生路径依赖，陷入低成本DOT带来的舒适圈而不自知？自己有没有找借口合理化波卡，从而忽视了某些问题？

同时，投资者，尤其是中国投资者，普遍对波卡有几个主要误解：

1、 波卡就是用来跨链交易的，没什么价值。 2、 波卡平行链就是“联盟链”，生态闭塞。 3、 用波卡跨链，只能成为平行链，参与插槽拍卖。 4、 波卡都是中国人在玩，生态项目垃圾。 5、 波卡就是下一个EOS，三浪打完直接归零。 6、 V神说了，跨链桥不安全。 ……等等。

诸多原因，还是决定写下一些，关于波卡的思考。欢迎大家共同交流探讨。

文中有不对的地方，欢迎批评指正。同时，本文不作为任何投资建议，更不对任何投资结果负责。

正文开始：

一、跨链不是波卡的全部

与Multichain（原Anyswap）不同，波卡不止是一个跨链交易平台。跨链交易是波卡的功能之一。

我其实更愿意将波卡完成的事情分为几大类：

跨链、分片扩容、多链架构、抽象及其他。

接下来的文章，会从这几个方面展开分析。

二、跨链——跨链是刚需吗？

目前来看，是的。

1. 但凡在多个链参与过DeFi，或者购买过NFT，就能体会到资产跨链是多么的重要。

除了跨链转账麻烦外，你还要记ETH链、SOL链、LUNA、ATOM、XTZ、RON等等多个助记词。

2. 没有哪个链能满足全部需求，且各公链都有优质项目出现。Multichain的使用数据，及Multichain和LayerZero等项目融资情况，也说明机构看好跨链桥的未来。

3. 目前公链共同问题是，所有交易使用的资源是相同的，不管是转0.0001个ETH，还是10000个ETH。

想象一下，银行VIP办业务，只能通过不断提高手续费，来获得转账效率。吊诡的是，普通业务办理甚至可以提高手续费，来让VIP的效率变低，甚至可以截胡VIP将要办理的业务。

我们是不是可以拥有二条链组合链，它们提供统一dApp入口，可以自动识别转账金额大小。

对于大额，采用安全性更强的链，而对于小额，则采用效率更高，安全性相比之下没那么强的链。

这两条链互不干涉，对不同的用户采用不同的服务方式，不一视同仁，从而提高效率。

同样的，跨链可以给予不同交易、合约调用类型，不同的定制化服务。

4. 从逻辑上，不会存在一条链满足所有需求。因为如果存在，那条链也就代表了区块链的终极形态，否定了发展的存在。

综上，目前来看，跨链是刚需。

三、分片扩容与多链架构——跨链为什么一定要用波卡

除大家所熟知的跨链属性之外，波卡是一条公链，可以兼容异构及同构公链。

更为重要的是，作为公链，波卡完成了以太坊曾经没有完成的任务——分片。

分片是曾经以太坊扩容三驾马车之一，另外两个是Casper（对应PoS）和Plasm（对应侧链）。由于难度过大，以太坊放弃开发，转而寻求Rollup等方案。

Amber Group分析师LaoBai（推特：@wuhuoqiu）在推特里曾经提到过“分片是区块链扩容的圣杯” 。

个人感觉，“圣杯”这个修饰略显夸张，Rollup也好、分片也好，都属于不同的扩容方式。

但是分片，尤其是波卡的分片，有着特别独特的竞争优势。

https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1473644822925774848 https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1474375007694475270

首先，分片可以从根本上解决一个问题——状态爆炸。更准确的说，可以在不损失可组合性的情况下，解决状态爆炸。

不损失可组合性的前提下，解决状态爆炸问题，会成为比现有Layer2更优的解决方案。

1、什么是状态爆炸？

区块链数据分为：历史数据、状态数据。

简单理解，历史数据需要硬盘空间，状态数据需要CPU强大。状态爆炸就是，CPU过载，电脑卡死了。

Nervos（CKB）CTO、以太坊早期核心开发者Jan，曾写过文章《区块链与状态爆炸》（https://talk.nervos.org/t/topic/1515）解释该问题。（下文引号内的部分为原文引用，也欢迎大家关注真正的国产之光项目——Nervos）

历史数据是指，区块数据和交易数据。历史是从 Genesis 到达当前状态的路径。

状态数据是，节点在处理完从 Genesis到当前高度的所有区块和交易后形成的最终结果。状态随着区块的增加一直处于变化之中，交易是造成变化的原因。

Jan指出，“共识协议的作用是通过一系列的消息交换，保证每一个节点看到的当前状态是相同的，而实现这个目标的方式是保证每一个节点看到的历史是相同的。” ··· “只要历史相同（即所有交易的排序相同），处理交易的方式相同（把交易放在相同的确定性虚拟机里面执行），最后看到的当前状态就是相同的。当我们说「区块链具有不可篡改性」时，是指区块链历史不可篡改，相反，状态是一直在变化的。”

以比特币UTXO为例，严格来讲，比特币网络记录的是，一个个未被花费的状态，而不是钱包余额。“如果要做一个比喻的话，Bitcoin 的当前状态是一个装满了金币的袋子，每个金币上刻着所有者的名字。”

Jan写文章的时候，比特币历史数据大约有200G，而状态数据有3G左右，包括5000万个UTXO。

由于比特币上合约活动较少，主要以交易转账为主，数据大小线性增长，所以不存在状态爆炸问题。

而对于智能合约平台以太坊来说，情况大不相同。

2、以太坊的状态爆炸问题

富状态性（rich statefulness）是以太坊带来的新范式，“它允许一个合约调用另一个合约”，且“不对这种调用的层级数量施加任何的限制。”（以 “状态” 视角理解以太坊及其未来，Ajian，https://ethfans.org/posts/from-state-view-to-understand-ethereum-and-its-imporvement-solutions）

Maker通过抵押，创造DAI，用户又可以通过DAI去Uniswap上交易。或者，假设Uniswap里有ABC/ETH和ETH/USDC池，而在Curve里有USDC/DAI池。

用户在Metamask里，用DAI去买ABC，实际上现在Curve里讲DAI换成了USDC，然后在Uniswap里讲USDC换成了ETH，然后再用ETH换成ABC，调用了多次合约。

当然，过程中还调用了预言机喂价等等。

所以，以太坊可以拥有各式合约，这些合约可以彼此访问，产生组合，继而诞生了“DeFi之夏”。

但问题也随之出现。首先，是存储空间不够了。

状态数据一旦创建，会永久保存，这就给节点维护带来了严重负担。

除非使用者主动释放，否则这些状态将作为负担永久保存。

Jan举过一个例子，区块高度5700001（May 30, 2018）的时候，使用状态最多的5个合约是：

（1）EtherDelta, 5.09% （2）IDEX, 4.17% （3）CryptoKitties, 3.05% （4）ENS, 1.92% （5）EOS Sale, 1.73%

仔细观察最后一个，虽然众筹已完成，EOS代币也已在EOS链上流转。但，众筹记录却永远留在了以太坊节点上，消耗存储资源。

其次，CPU过载了。

链上频繁合约调用，也使得状态处在频繁调用中，随着以太坊上部署的项目越来越多，读写困难也会不断加重。

状态爆炸会造成以下危害： （1） 硬件存储成本过高，只有少数人能负担节点成本，网络中心化，从根本上影响以太坊安全。 （2） 状态数据是节点运行的底线。历史数据可以存储在别的地方，比如以太坊基金会最初构想的Swarm，但状态数据不行。所以，节点只能硬抗状态爆炸的负担。

状态爆炸，不仅是以太坊会遇到的问题，更是其他公链，乃至以太坊替代链都会遇到的问题。

3、状态爆炸解决方案

1\Layer2方案

如果用过Aztec、Arbitrum等Layer2，你会有以下感受： （1） 需要官方跨链桥，在Layer2和以太坊主网间转币； （2） 币从以太坊主网抵押到Layer2至少要半小时，而从Layer2代币解除抵押，需要几周。 （3） Layer2的交易速度确实快，Gas也便宜。

Layer2提高了效率，降低了成本，但在易用性上，表现的似乎不是很好。

原因在于，Layer2解决状态爆炸的方式是，当用户将代币锁入Layer2合约后，用户在Layer2的交易，不会直接发送到以太坊主网上。

他们之间互相交易产生的状态，不会成为以太坊主网的负担。直到某刻结算时，Layer2才会把当前状态及签名，发送到以太坊主网上。这也是为什么，使用Layer2，需要质押和提币。

但这样一来，用户和Layer2交易时的状态，就无法从外部调用了，可组合性没了。

所以，尽管像Curve协议，已经部署在Polygon、以太坊等多个网络上，但每个网络上的流动性是独立的。

Polygon上的Curve需要重新积累流动性，无法与以太坊上的Curve共享流动性资金池。

另一方面，用户可在以太坊上，用一个聚合器，获得Curve、Uniswap等等不同DeFi应用，提供的最优交易路径。

而在Layer2上，除非这些DeFi应用同时迁移到同一个Layer2网络内，否则这种组合性就不存在。

还有一个问题是，万一Layer2作恶，同步了错误的信息到以太主网，该怎么办？由此，诞生了Rollup方案。

2\Rollup方案

Rollup会在每次调用Layer2状态时，发布交易数据到以太坊上。用户可根据这些公开数据，追溯交易状态，解决Layer2安全性问题。

但在保障了安全性、去中心化前提下，Rollup调用状态也只是自身内部的，且无法从外部获知状态调用情况。

因此，Rollup也好，Layer2也好，与以太坊既是竞争，又是合作的关系。他们需要独立发展自身生态，而另一方面，Layer2与以太坊结算时，消耗的也是ETH。

所以，Layer2更像抽离出来的dApp层，将以太坊作为结算层。

3\其他共识方案

目前，比较热度比较高的公链，如SOL、AVAX、ATOM、MINA、MATIC等等，都在以一种以太坊替代链的形式，解决遗留的状态爆炸问题。

但其实，他们有个共同点，在不可能三角里，倾向于去中心化和可扩展性。

推特@Justin_Bons，和他的推文https://twitter.com/Justin_Bons/status/1469375118036160529，详尽阐述了Solana宕机问题，及PoH共识安全性的担忧。

同样的，其他链也出现过安全问题。

但我无意在本文里拉踩。

事实上，目前市场对于安全性的感知并不敏感。

此前，Solana宕机的20多个小时里，SOL价格丝毫未受影响。而MATIC面临较严重的安全问题，则完全没有引起市场注意。

所以，我并不能说，波卡就一定会成功，一定比其他项目强。

公链们也在想办法弥补各种安全问题。AVAX、ATOM链在安全性方面，做了大量工作。所以，很有可能出现的情况是，等到市场对敏感的时候，这些安全问题或许已经不在了。

而且，Solana实在是太受资金青睐了，SBF背后的Alameda Capital，以及有华尔街背景的Jump Capital，都在不遗余力的发展Solana生态。

毕竟，所谓成功，或许偶然性是最重要的因素，区块链也不例外。

4、分片——波卡Polkadot的解决方案

分片的思想是，每个节点不用处理全部交易，而是只处理一部分交易，然后将这些交易排列到一起。

分片之所以难以实现，是因为，多个分片互相调用合约时，需要解决排序和时延问题。

比如，当分片A要先后调用自身、分片B、C和自身合约，同时分片B也需要调用A、自身和C的合约，C也是时，问题光听着就复杂很多了。想象下，几百个节点互相调用的场景。

所以，分片必须要有一个可信的中间层。

在波卡系统里，主网就是中间层，而分片，就是平行链。

波卡在传统分片思想基础上，进行了创新。利用BABE共识随机性，在离散的时间内选择节点，又利用Grandpa确定性，减少出块分叉，提高效率。再利用PoS惩罚属性，保证节点共识安全。

波卡采用了分层架构，共识与计算分离。

波卡主网是共识层，本身不提供智能合约，最大程度保障安全与去中心化。这位波卡提供了两个属性：

1. 共识与计算分离，保证高TPS，且理论上，随着分片（平行链）增加，TPS会跟着增加。

2. 基于波卡构建的项目，无需考虑安全问题。也就是说，当项目方通过波卡Substrate框架开发完成后，可直接通过XCMP（波卡跨链通讯协议）上线（无需通过插槽拍卖），并实现跨链。

无需考虑节点如何构建，代币模型如何激励节点等问题，甚至还可以直接使用波卡的NPoS共识，而无需考虑共识问题。它甚至可以单纯做一条链，而无需发币。

正如Arrington XRP Capital，在文章《深度剖析波卡平行链设计理念与运作机制》中写那样：

“波卡的目标是成为区块链中的区块链，将状态与应用分开，让每个Layer1专注于自己链的可定制性。 这种共享的安全系统释放了(1)平行链的可定制性而不牺牲其安全性；(2)不同的平行链之间的内在互操作性。”

波卡可组合性由平行链间跨链通信保证。

波卡平行链，是一条条公链，每个平行链都有自己的生态项目。各公链间，可通过XCMP（波卡原生跨链通讯协议）共享流动性。

也就是说，当Moonbeam上的DeFi项目已经积累了流动性时，Acala、Zenlink、Bifrost生态项目，都可共享这些流动性池。

总结下：

目前以太坊扩容方案，或者替代方案包括Solana、Avalanche 、Mina等等都在解决以太坊遗留问题。

一方面，目前，所有项目受到了不可能三角（去中心化、安全性、可扩展性三者不共存）的限制。

事实上，波卡也面临不可能三角问题，平行链的设计其实是解决该问题的折中方案。

另一方面，基于刻舟求剑的历史脉络，打败以太坊的，一般不会是一个更好的以太坊，而应该是一个更加抽象的新范式。

就像以太坊抽象智能合约层，创造富状态性，将区块链带入新的领域一样。

就像，打败柯达的，不是更好用的照相机、交卷，而是手机。

在Web2.0，创新诞生于边缘，诞生于将某种体验做到极致，而在Web3.0，创新则诞生于技术层级和抽象和应用范式的转移。

那么，接下来，创造范式转移的，会是波卡吗？

四、抽象——新范式、波卡的价值

你觉得，现在你正在使用的区块链。是区块链发展的终极形态吗？

或者，或一种问法，你觉得区块链还会发展吗？

凭借最朴素的直觉，也应该会感觉到，现在肯定不是区块链世界的终极形态。因为Metamask、Curve等等dApp，仍然运行在Http上。

几乎所有的链游，除了代币交互上链外，几乎没有操作是需要上链的，除了NFT的所有权在你手里，NFT的使用权，理论上并不在你的手中。

所以，当前区块链仅仅迈开了一小步。未来，一定会有不同的定制链来解决上述问题。

万链定制时代，就是波卡的时代。

完全可以基于Substrate框架，开发隐私链上浏览器。

浏览器的运行在链上，且采用加密方式，不用再担心木马获得钱包插件助记词问题。

这个浏览器dApp，甚至可以只是一个dApp，不需要考虑发币吸引节点，也不需要考虑经济模型。

因为开发者可以选择，直接共享波卡主网的共识和安全。也可以在移除Sudo，实现去中心化后，直接使用波卡的链上治理。

也可以采用XCMP（波卡跨链通讯方式）资源租赁的方式，实现跨链，无需参与插槽拍卖。（所以，在波卡跨链，是不一定需要参与插拍的）

这也诞生了新商业模式的可能性。即创造一条功能链、或者联盟链，以共享波卡安全性与治理的方式，直接完成冷启动。

该链可固定提供某项功能，按照区块固定收取Gas。成本为XCMP租用成本，溢价部分作为收益，进入智能合约，由团队获取。

所以，在波卡生态的强组合性，可以诞生多种不同的区块链形态。

**这种可组合性，也体现在波卡NFT与DeFi中。**同样的，也可以定制一条链，来专门处理NFT装备穿戴、更新等等。

**波卡支持平行链无Gas传输。**所以，在用户授权的前提下，该链可以处理用户在游戏中的交互请求。

该链模式可以to B，即向应用的游戏dApp收费。

所以，以太坊将智能合约层抽象出来，产生了富状态性，以及合约间互相调用的可能性，而波卡，则是将“链”的形态抽象出来。或许能产生某种新范式。

此外，XCMP允许相同中继链生态内的项目，共享流动性。也就是说，Acala与Moonbeam生态原生项目，可共享流动性。

同时，由于波卡可实现无叉升级，也避免了Uniswap V2、V3流动性分叉。

综上，当你持有DOT，你其实是在持有一个多链、定制链的未来。

五、DOT价值及基本面来源

DOT价值来源于以下方面： 1、 Acala、Moonbeam、Astar等等公链生态迅速发展、生态项目间相互借调流动性，或有其他深层次互动，以致在2年后的新一轮插槽拍卖中，平行链不惜付出更大的奖励，吸引用户投票。由此，创造更多财富效应，吸引用户加仓DOT。 2、 如上所述，多链形式、商业模式大发展，跨链项目按照区块租用XCMP资源，并以DOT形式付费。 3、 3月11日，波卡生态各平行链正式上线波卡主网后，DOT挖矿等使用场景拓展。 4、 以太坊、Solana等公链现有项目发展，区块链性能遇到瓶颈，导致项目溢出到波卡。

六、波卡面临的问题

1、 为了主链安全，波卡需要大量锁仓，由此产生了平行链插槽，牺牲了用户的资产流动性。 2、 平行链投票锁仓期过长。目前，市场上流动性解决方案都很垃圾，比如币安，采用BDOT兑换方案。BDOT不支持提现，也无其他交易对。导致无法通过套利方式，将价格1:1锚定DOT。

且BDOT唯一作用，是承接用户兑换DOT的抛盘。BDOT价格完全要看币安做市商按照多少折扣来承接。

目前BDOT：DOT维持在0.6的比例，也就是说，用户兑换后，要按币本位，损失40%DOT代币，十分不合理。

3、 链上解锁28天时间过长。为了保障网络安全，防止极端行情下，节点和质押代币大量出逃，采用了与LUNA相同的方式。 4、 XCMP技术实现难度较大，目前功能仍未推出，仅以XCM替代方案来通讯。 5、 异构链跨链资产，相对混乱。Moonbeam与Multichain（原Anyswap）跨链后，稳定币池过多，且两条链原生稳定币池不相容。

七、补充资料

关于Gavin Wood博士与Web3.0： Gavin Wood 最早在2014年提出Web3 https://youtu.be/pdiTiGboZeI?t=4092 在2017年就Web3议题发表演讲 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH1pEE0W3ug 在2018年发表Web3论点纲领 https://gavofyork.medium.com/why-we-need-web-3-0-5da4f2bf95ab

波卡链上开发者活跃度

资料引用： 以 “状态” 视角理解以太坊及其未来 https://ethfans.org/posts/from-state-view-to-understand-ethereum-and-its-imporvement-solutions 推特Lao Bai @wuhuoqiu https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1473644822925774848 https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1474375007694475270 区块链与状态爆炸 https://segmentfault.com/a/1190000019085254

Some nonsense.

I have been holding DOT since the 2019 private sale. experienced the ups and downs of 312, 519, 1204, etc., and have seen various KOLs and investors thinking and questioning about Polkadot.

From the holding so far, I am also constantly thinking,if cross-chain is necessary? If necessary, why Polkadot and not other projects?

And, have I ever become path-dependent and fall into the comfort zone brought by low-cost DOT without knowing it? Did you find excuses to rationalize Polkadot’s problems and ignore certain issues?

Meanwhile, investors, especially Chinese investors, generally have several major misconceptions about Polkadot.

1. Polkadot is used for cross-chain trading, and has little value. 2、Polkadot parallel chain is a "coalition chain", ecological occlusion. 3、 If you use Polkadot to cross the chain, you can only become a parallel chain and participate in the slot auction. 4、 Polkadot is built by Chinese projects, and the ecological project is garbage. 5、Polkadot is the next EOS, it will go to zero directly. 6, Vitalik said, cross-chain bridge is not safe. ...... and so on.

For many reasons, I decided to write down some thoughts about Polkadot. Welcome to share and discuss.

If the text has the wrong places, welcome criticism correction. At the same time, this article does not serve as any investment advice, and is not responsible for any investment results.

Main article.

I. Cross-chain is not all about Polkadot

Unlike Multichain (formerly Anyswap), Polkadot is more than a cross-chain trading platform. Cross-chain trading is one of the functions of Polkadot.

I actually prefer to divide what Polkadot accomplishing into a few broad categories.

Cross-chain, Sharding, multi-chain architecture, abstraction and others.

The next article will analyze these aspects.

Ⅱ. Cross Chain - do we need cross chain?

So far, yes.

1. But anyone who has participated in DeFi in multiple chains, or purchased NFT, can appreciate how important it is to cross-chain assets.

2. No chain can meet all the needs, and there are quality projects in each public chain. the usage data of Multichain, and the financing of projects like Multichain and LayerZero, also show that institutions are optimistic about the future of cross-chain bridges.

3. The common problem of public chains at present is that all transactions use the same resources, no matter whether they turn 0.0001 ETH or 10,000 ETH.

Imagine a bank VIP doing business and can only gain efficiency in transferring money by constantly increasing the fees.

Imagine a bank VIP doing business, only by constantly increasing the fees to get transfer efficiency.

Ironically, ordinary business handling can even raise the handling fee to make VIP less efficient, or even cut off the business that VIP will handle.

Couldn't we have two chains of combined chains which provide a unified dApp entrance and can automatically identify the size of the transfer amount.

For large amounts, the chain with stronger security is used, while for small amounts, the chain with higher efficiency and less security is used.

These two chains do not interfere with each other and use different services for different users without treating them equally, thus increasing efficiency.

Similarly, the cross-chain can give different transactions, contract call types, and different customized services.

1. logically, there will not exist one chain to satisfy all needs. Because if it exists, that chain also represents the ultimate form of blockchain and negates the existence of development.

In summary, for now, cross-chain is just needed.

III. Sharding and Multi-chain Architecture - Why Polkadot must be used for cross-chain

In addition to the well-known cross-chain property, Polkadot is a public chain, which can be compatible with heterogeneous and homogeneous public chains.

More importantly, as a public chain, Polkadot has accomplished a task that was once not accomplished by Ethereum - sharding.

Sharding was once one of the triad of Ethereum expansion, the other two being Casper (corresponding to PoS) and Plasm (corresponding to sidechain). Due to the overwhelming difficulty, Ethereum gave up development and turned to solutions such as Rollup.

Amber Group Analyst LaoBai (Twitter: @wuhuoqiu) once mentioned in a tweet that "fractions are the holy grail of blockchain scaling".（https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1473644822925774848 https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1474375007694475270）

Personally, I feel that the "holy grail" is a slight exaggeration, as Rollup and Sharding are different ways of scaling.

But Sharding, especially the Sharding provided by Polkadot, has a special unique competitive advantage.

First, sharding can fundamentally solve one problem - state explosion. More precisely, it can solve the state explosion without loss of composability.

Solving the state explosion problem without loss of composability would be a superior solution to the existing Layer2.

1. What is state explosion?

Blockchain data is divided into: historical data, state data.

Simple understanding, historical data needs hard disk space, and state data needs CPU. State explosion is that the CPU is overloaded and the computer is stuck.

Jan, CTO of Nervos (CKB) and early core developer of Ether, has written an article "Blockchain and State Explosion" (https://talk.nervos.org/t/topic/1515) to explain the problem. (The part in quotation marks below is the original quote, and you are also welcome to follow Nervos)

Historical data means, block data and transaction data. History is the path from Genesis to the current state.

The state data is the final result formed by the node after processing all the blocks and transactions from Genesis to the current height. The state is always in flux as blocks are added, and transactions are the cause of the change.

Jan notes, "The role of the consensus protocol is to ensure that each node sees the same current state through a series of message exchanges, and the way to achieve this is to ensure that each node sees the same history." --. "As long as the history is the same (i.e., all transactions are ordered the same way) and the transactions are processed the same way (by placing them inside the same deterministic virtual machine for execution), the current state seen at the end is the same. When we say 'blockchain is tamper-evident,' we mean that the blockchain history is not tamperable; instead, the state is always changing."

In the case of Bitcoin UTXO, for example, the Bitcoin network records, strictly speaking, an unspent state, not a wallet balance. "If you want to make an analogy, the current state of Bitcoin is a bag full of gold coins, each with the owner's name inscribed on it."

At the time Jan wrote the article, there were about 200 gigabytes of historical Bitcoin data and about 3G of state data, including 50 million UTXOs.

Since there is less contract activity on Bitcoin, mainly transaction transfers, the data size grows linearly, so there is no state explosion problem.

For the smart contract platform Ethereum, the situation is very different.

2. Ethereum’s Statefulness Explosion Problem

Rich statefulness is the new paradigm brought by Ethereum, which "allows one contract to call another contract" and "does not impose any limits on the number of layers of such calls." (Understanding Ether and its future from a "state" perspective, Ajian, https://ethfans.org/posts/from-state-view-to-understand-ethereum-and-its- imporvement-solutions)

Maker, through collateral, creates DAIs through which users can in turn go to trade on Uniswap. Or, suppose there are ABC/ETH and ETH/USDC pools in Uniswap, and USDC/DAI pools in Curve.

The user goes to buy ABC with DAI in Metamask, and actually now speaks DAI for USDC in Curve, then speaks USDC for ETH in Uniswap, and then ETH for ABC, calling the contract multiple times.

Of course, the process also calls the prophecy machine to feed the price and so on.

So, Ethereum can have all kinds of contracts, and these contracts can access each other, and generate combinations, and then the "Summer of DeFi" is born.

But there are also problems. First, there is not enough storage space.

Once the state data is created, it is kept forever, which puts a serious burden on node maintenance.

Unless the user actively releases it, the state will be kept permanently as a burden.

Jan has given an example that the five contracts that use the most state at block height 5700001 (May 30, 2018) are.

(1) EtherDelta, 5.09% (2) IDEX, 4.17% (3) CryptoKitties, 3.05% (4) ENS, 1.92% (5) EOS Sale, 1.73%

Looking closely at the last one, although the crowdfunding has been completed and the EOS tokens have been circulated on the EOS chain. But, the crowdfunding record is left on the Ether node forever, consuming storage resources.

Second, the CPU is overloaded.

Frequent contract calls on the chain also make the state in frequent calls, and as more and more projects are deployed on Ether, the reading and writing difficulties will keep getting worse.

The state explosion can cause the following hazards. (1) The hardware storage cost is too high, only a few people can afford the cost of nodes, and the network is centralized, which fundamentally affects the security of Ethereum. (2) State data is the bottom line of node operation. Historical data can be stored in other places, such as Swarm, which was originally conceived by the Ethereum Foundation, but not state data. Therefore, nodes can only resist the burden of state explosion.

The state explosion is not only a problem for Ethereum, but also a problem for other public chains and even alternative chains to Ethereum.

3. State explosion solution

（1）Layer2 solution

If you have used Layer2 such as Aztec and Arbitrum, you will have the following feelings. (1) Official cross-chain bridges are needed to transfer coins between Layer2 and the main Ethereum network. (2) It takes at least half an hour for coins to be deposited from Ethereum mainnet to Layer2, and a few weeks to withdraw from Layer2. (3) Layer2 transactions are really fast and Gas is cheap.

Layer2 improves efficiency and reduces cost, but it doesn't seem to perform very well in terms of ease of use.

The reason is that the way Layer2 solves the state explosion is that when users lock their tokens into Layer2 contracts, the users' transactions in Layer2, will not be sent directly to the Ethereum mainnet.

The state generated by their transactions with each other will not become a burden to the main Ethernet network. It is not until a certain moment of settlement that Layer2 will send the current state and signature to the Ethernet mainnet. This is why, using Layer2 requires deposit and withdrawal of coins.

But then, the state of the user and Layer2 at the time of transaction, can not be called from outside, combinability is gone.

So while protocols like Curve, have been deployed on multiple networks like Polygon, Ethereum, etc., the liquidity on each network is independent.

Curve on Polygon needs to re-accumulate liquidity and cannot share a pool of liquidity funds with Curve on Ethereum.

On the other hand, users can use an aggregator on Ethereum to get the optimal transaction path provided by different DeFi applications such as Curve, Uniswap, etc.

On Layer2, this composability does not exist unless these DeFi applications are migrated to the same Layer2 network at the same time.

There is also the problem of what to do in case Layer2 is evil and synchronizes the wrong information to the main Ethereum network. Thus, the Rollup scheme is born.

（2）Rollup

Rollup will publish transaction data to Ethereum every time Layer2 state is invoked. Users can trace the transaction status based on these public data to solve the Layer2 security problem.

However, under the premise of security and decentralization, Rollup calls the state only internally, and cannot be informed of the state calls from outside.

Therefore, Rollup and Layer2 are both in competition and cooperation with Ethereum. They need to develop their own ecology independently, while on the other hand, Layer2 consumes ETH when settling with Ethereum.

Therefore, Layer2 is more like the abstracted dApp layer, using Ethereum as the settlement layer.

（3）Other consensus schemes

At present, the hotter public chains, such as SOL, AMAX, ATOM, MINA, MATIC and so on, are all solving the legacy state explosion problem in the form of a kind of Ether alternative chain.

But in fact, they have one thing in common, a preference for decentralization and scalability in the Impossible Triangle.

Twitter @Justin_Bons, and his tweet https://twitter.com/Justin_Bons/status/1469375118036160529, elaborate on the Solana downtime issue, and the PoH consensus security concerns.

Likewise, other chains have had security issues.

But I don't mean to belittle other public chains in this article.

In fact, the market is currently not sensitive to perceptions of security.

Previously, the SOL price was not affected at all during the 20+ hours Solana was down. MATIC, on the other hand, which faced more serious security issues, did not attract the market's attention at all.

So, I am not saying that Polkadot will definitely succeed and must be better than other projects.

The public chains are also trying to find ways to compensate for various security issues. AVAX and ATOM chain have done a lot of work in terms of security. So, it is likely that the situation is that by the time the market is sensitive to it, these security issues may not be there anymore.

Moreover, Solana is really too popular with funds. Alameda Capital, behind SBF, and Jump Capital, which has a Wall Street background, are sparing no effort to develop the Solana ecology.

After all, perhaps serendipity is the most important factor in so-called success, and blockchain is no exception.

4. Sharding- Polkadot's solution

The idea of Sharding is that instead of processing all transactions, each node processes only a portion of transactions and then arranges these transactions together.

The reason why Sharding is difficult to implement is that, when multiple Sharding call each other's contracts, they need to solve sequencing and latency problems.

For example, when Sharding A has to call itself, Sharding B, C and its own contract successively, while Sharding B also needs to call the contracts of A, itself and C, and C as well, the problem is much more complicated just by the sound of it. Imagine a scenario where several hundred nodes call each other.

So, the Sharding must have a trusted middle layer.

In the Polkadot system, the main network is the middle layer, and the Sharding, the parallel chain.

Polkadot innovates on the basis of the traditional idea of Sharding. Using BABE consensus randomness to select nodes in discrete time, and again using Grandpa determinism to reduce out of block forking and improve efficiency. Then use PoS penalty property to ensure node consensus security.

Polkadot uses a layered architecture, where consensus is separated from computation.

The main network of Polkadot is the consensus layer, and does not provide smart contracts itself to ensure maximum security and decentralization. This Polkadot provides two attributes.

1. the separation of consensus and computation ensures high TPS, and in theory, as the fractionation (parallel chain) increases, TPS will follow.

2. Projects built based on Polkadot do not need to consider security issues. In other words, when the project is developed through the Polkadot Substrate framework, it can go online directly through XCMP (Polkadot Cross-chain Communication Protocol) (without going through slot auction) and realize cross-chain.

There is no need to consider how the nodes are constructed, how the token model incentivizes the nodes, etc. It can even directly use Polkadot’s NPoS consensus without considering consensus issues. It can even simply be a chain without the need for a coin offering.

As Arrington XRP Capital, wrote in the article "In-depth Analysis of Polkadot Parallel Chain Design Concept and Operation Mechanism".

"Polkadot aims to be a blockchain within a blockchain, separating state from application and allowing each Layer1 to focus on the customizability of its own chain. This shared security system unlocks (1) the customizability of parallel chains without sacrificing their security, and (2) the inherent interoperability between different parallel chains."

Polkadot composability is guaranteed by cross-chain communication between parallel chains.

Polkadot Parallel Chain, a public chain, each parallel chain has its own eco-project. Between the public chains, liquidity can be shared through XCMP (Polka's native cross-chain communication protocol).

In other words, when the DeFi project on Moonbeam has accumulated liquidity, Acala, Zenlink, and Bifrost eco-projects, can share these liquidity pools.

To summarize.

Current Ethereum scaling solutions, or alternative solutions including Solana, Avalanche , Mina and so on are solving the legacy problems of Ethereum.

On the one hand, currently, all projects are limited by the impossibility triangle (decentralization, security and scalability do not coexist).

In fact, Polkadot also faces the impossible triangle problem, and the design of parallel chain is actually a compromise solution to the problem.

On the other hand, based on the historical vein of carving the boat, what defeats Ethereum will generally not be a better Ethereum, but a new paradigm that is more abstract.

Just as Ethereum abstracts the smart contract layer, creating rich statefulness and taking blockchain into new territory.

Just like, what beat Kodak was not a better working camera or handing in rolls, but a cell phone.

In Web 2.0, innovation was born at the edge, born of taking a certain experience to the extreme, while in Web 3.0, innovation was born of technology layers and abstraction and application paradigm shifts.

So, what's next, will it be Polkadot that creates the paradigm shift?

Ⅳ. Abstraction - the new paradigm, the value of Polkadot

Do you think that the blockchain you are using now. Is it the ultimate form of blockchain development?

Or, or a way to ask, do you think the blockchain will still evolve?

With the plainest intuition, one should also feel that it is certainly not the ultimate form of the blockchain world right now. Because Metamask, Curve, and other dApps, still run on Http.

Almost all P2E Games, except for token interaction on the chain, almost no operation is required to be on the chain, except for the ownership of NFT in your hands, the right to use NFT, in theory, is not in your hands.

So, the current blockchain is only a small step forward. In the future, there will definitely be different customized chains to solve the above problems.

The era of Chain Customization is the era of Polkadot.

It is entirely possible to develop privacy on-chain browsers based on the Substrate framework.

The browser runs on the chain and is encrypted, so you don't have to worry about Trojan horses getting the wallet private key.

This browser dApp, or even just a dApp, does not need to consider issuing coins to attract nodes, or economic models.

Because the developer can choose, directly share the consensus and security of the main network of Polkadot. It is also possible to use Polkadot’s on-chain governance directly after removing Sudo and achieving decentralization.

It is also possible to use XCMP (Polkadot cross-chain communication method) resource leasing to achieve cross-chain without participating in slot auctions. (So, in Polkadot cross-chain, it is not necessary to participate in the slot auction)

This also gives birth to the possibility of a new business model. That is, to create a functional chain, or federated chain, to share the security and governance of Polkadot in a way that directly completes the cold start.

The chain can be fixed to provide a certain function, according to the block fixed charge Gas. cost for XCMP rental cost, the premium part as revenue, into the smart contract, by the team to obtain.

So, the strong combinability in Polkadot ecology can give birth to many different blockchain forms.

This combinability is also reflected in Polkadot NFT and DeFi. Likewise, it is possible to customize a chain to specifically handle NFT equipment wear, updates, etc.

Polkadot supports parallel chains without Gas transfer. So, the chain can handle user interaction requests in the game with user authorization.

The chain model can be to B, i.e. charge the game dApp of the application.

So, while Ethereum abstracts the smart contract layer to produce rich state and the possibility of calling each other between contracts, Polkadot abstracts the "chain" form. Perhaps some new paradigm can emerge.

In addition, XCMP allows projects within the same relay chain ecosystem to share liquidity. In other words, Acala and Moonbeam eco-native projects can share liquidity.

Also, Uniswap V2 and V3 liquidity fork is avoided because Polkadot can achieve forkless upgrade.

In summary, when you hold DOT, you are actually holding the future of a multi-chain, customized chain.

V. Sources of DOT Value and Fundamental Analysis

DOT value comes from the following aspects.

1. Acala, Moonbeam, Astar and other public chain ecologies are developing rapidly, and the ecological projects are lending liquidity to each other, or have other deep interactions, so that in the new round of slot auctions after 2 years, parallel chains do not hesitate to pay bigger rewards to attract users to vote. As a result, more wealth effects are created to attract users to increase their positions in DOT.

2. As mentioned above, multi-chain format and business model developed greatly, and cross-chain projects rented XCMP resources according to blocks and paid in the form of DOT.

3. On March 11, after each parallel chain of Polkadot ecology was officially launched on Poca main network, DOT mining and other usage scenarios expanded.

4. The development of existing projects of public chains such as Ether and Solana, blockchain performance encountered bottlenecks, resulting in project overflow to Polkadot.

VI. Problems faced by Polkadot

1. For the security of the main chain, Polka needs to lock a lot of positions, thus creating parallel chain slots and sacrificing the liquidity of users' assets.

2. The parallel chain voting lock-in period is too long. At present, the liquidity solutions in the market are garbage, such as Binance, which adopts BDOT exchange solution. BDOT does not support withdrawals, and there are no other trading pairs. This makes it impossible to anchor the price 1:1 to DOT through arbitrage.

The only role of BDOT is to take over the dumping of users for DOT, and the price of BDOT depends entirely on how much discount the market maker of Binance takes.

At present, BDOT: DOT maintains a ratio of 0.6, which means that after the user exchange, it is very unreasonable to lose 40% DOT tokens according to the coin standard.

3. The chain unlocking time of 28 days is too long. The same way as LUNA is used in order to protect the network security and prevent a mass exodus of nodes and pledged tokens under extreme market conditions.

4. XCMP technology is difficult to implement, and the function is still not launched, only XCM alternative is used to communicate.

5. Heterogeneous chain cross-chain assets, relatively confusing. after Moonbeam and Multichain (former Anyswap) cross-chain, there are too many stable coin pools, and the two chains native stable coin pools are not compatible.

VII. Additional Information

About Dr. Gavin Wood and Web 3.0. Gavin Wood first proposed Web3 in 2014 https://youtu.be/pdiTiGboZeI?t=4092 Presented on Web3 topics in 2017 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lH1pEE0W3ug Presented the Web3 argument platform in 2018 https://gavofyork.medium.com/why-we-need-web-3-0-5da4f2bf95ab

Developer activity on Polkadot

Source Citation. Understanding Ether and its future with a "state" perspective https://ethfans.org/posts/from-state-view-to-understand-ethereum-and-its-imporvement-solutions Twitter Lao Bai @wuhuoqiu https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1473644822925774848 https://twitter.com/Wuhuoqiu/status/1474375007694475270 Blockchain and the state explosion https://segmentfault.com/a/1190000019085254