NFT领域已经很久没有出现新的蓝筹系列了。

过去一段时间，Blur凭借一套“Blur激励+bidding+Blend”组合拳虹吸了NFT市场的交易量，但在缺乏流动性和新叙事的情况下，蓝筹NFT的交易量和地板价都相当低迷。BAYC、MAYC和Punk相比高点已经腰斩；Moonbirds、Doodles地板价都跌至2ETH，CoolCats更跌破1ETH。

NFT赛道的第一个熊市，是蓝筹NFT的洗牌之时。

过去一个月，0N1 Force——一个OG NFT项目，一直出现在Blur的Trending榜单中，30天地板价从0.5ETH稳步涨至最高1.97ETH，30天交易量达到1700 ETH (约340万美金）。

作为第一个动漫主题的PFP项目，0N1 Force正在努力回归蓝筹NFT的行列。

0N1 Force的回归，要从今年2月被Web 3 基金Old Fashion Research（OFR）收购说起。

NFT的品牌价值评估

0N1 Force （读作Oni force, Oni是日语里魔鬼的意思）诞生于21年8月的NFT盛夏，凭借日本文化元素的动漫头像风格，在推出时便受到社区狂热追捧，持有者还包括著名DJ Steve Aoki、美国演员Logan Paul等。

值得一提的是，0N1 force还是首个推出白名单铸造的项目，并创新性地推出铸造后揭示头像（reveal）。这些运营方式后来都成为NFT项目铸造的常规操作。

0N1 Force的铸造价格是0.0777ETH，头像展示前价格飙升至2ETH，地板价一度升至7ETH，Logan Paul还花188ETH（当时约62.3万美元）购买了0N1 #717刷新了NFT的交易历史记录。

0N1 Force开局漂亮，但2022年却惨遭滑铁卢，因为原有团队不作为，一再拖延并不履行承诺社区的路线图，持有者的信心受损并抛售，地板一度跌至0.2ETH。

一些早期的大户还是希望能拯救0N1这个品牌，于是寻求VC的帮助。其中一个大户Goltra联系了Wei Zhou (前Binance CFO，同时也是OFR战略顾问和LP），在长达4个月的评估和调查后，OFR在今年年初决定收购0N1 Force，并深度参与0N1 Force品牌的重建。

NFT的品牌价值评估

首先，我们坚信NFT和游戏是推动区块链技术和Web 3大规模应用的重要赛道。NFT是区块链行业最早的非金融类的应用，有极强的出圈能量，NFT的爆发吸引了一大群金融和科技圈以外的人进入行业。

NFT是一种文化运动，一个出色NFT系列往往在社交媒体广泛传播，并形成活跃社群，除了创作者享受NFT二次交易的版税收入以外，其持有者还可能共享NFT品牌的IP，进行二次创作并享受收益。PFP类NFT是真正意义上的Web 3原生品牌。

我们认为0N1 Force是一个有价值的Web3品牌，而且潜力巨大。0N1 Force是首个原创的动漫主题PFP项目，品牌识别度很高，这使0N1 Force在动漫、游戏、时尚、生活方式等领域都有足够强的可扩展性。

尽管原先的团队不作为，但社区经理Starlordy却在危机中主动站出来，在Discord与社区积极沟通，缓和了项目与社区的冲突，赢得了社区的信任。Starlordy (原名Henry Finn) 有媒体和漫画从业背景，之前经营一个艺术品网站；两位创作者IMCMLPX和Cromagnus也是日系动漫狂热爱好者，深谙日本文化，Cromagus还是10KTF系列的创作者。我们决定与Starlordy和两位创作者继续合作，在官宣收购消息之前，在社区的townhall里，Starlordy还被推举为CEO。

0N1 Force保护和尊重持有者的权益，推出过0N1 画框0N1 Frames 系列，持有者可以获得跟进头像特征的定制Frames防止山寨持有者冒充，并且卖出头像后，新的持有者可以撤销原来持有者的frames。0N1 Force持有者可以在网站上解锁0N1的漫画系列。

和BAYC相似，0N1 Force持有者在获得授权后，可以使用0N1的IP创作衍生产品，获得收益。这也提供了社区共创的自由度，品牌的延展性进一步提升。

我们在调研中还发现，0N1 Force的持有者和BAYC、Azuki的持有者高度重合(近20%），有5%左右的长期持有者是NFT巨鲸，在NFT圈子影响力巨大。这说明0N1 Force有一个购买力极强的优质持有群体。

因此，我们认为0N1 Force的品牌价值被严重低估，其IP可拓展性极强，并决定迎接挑战，运用Wei、OFR和社区的资源，共同探索并重塑0N1 Force的品牌。

0N1 Force 的重建与回归

Web 3 行业最不缺新热点，相比发行全新的NFT系列来炒热度，重建一个品牌要难得多。

OFR收购0N1 Force的消息公开后得到热烈响应，地板价应声上涨至1.3ETH左右，但这仅仅是开始。

过去2年，头部NFT项目纷纷完成原始资本化，拓展自己的品牌路线，比如Yuga Labs串联旗下蓝筹NFT系列构建了游戏元宇宙、Azuki与潮牌合作、PudgyPenguins发行玩具开拓大众市场，如何在社区认同的前提下合理规划和经营0N1 Force的IP，在这个关键节点尤其重要。

我们一致认同0N1 Force最独特的地方在于其故事叙述，这是一个有浓厚日本文化的漫画叙事，主创团队有创作漫画的实力和资源，应该立足于漫画，在长期朝泛娱乐的方向发展。

重塑一个NFT品牌的第一步是凝聚社区的信心。Starlordy在上任CEO后，动员社区经理每周举行AMA或者TwitterSpace，征集社区的想法，和社区共同探讨路线图，并且频繁拜访NFT巨鲸和核心从业者寻求支持。

在过去的一个季度，OFR和0N1团队奔走于美国、巴黎、日本、香港等地，举办线下0N1 Force社区聚会，请教这些地区娱乐产业的资深从业者。我们确信，0N1 Force可以成为Web 3 与娱乐产业的互通桥梁，在原创动漫以外，在游戏、时尚领域拓展广泛的IP合作。

在团队人事方面，0N1 Force有了更多的专业力量：

1. 宣布Horizen Labs Ventures (HLV）成为0N1 Force顾问。HLV重仓0N1 Force NFT，为Yuga Labs设计ApeCoin的经济模型，同时也是the Sandbox、Jam City、Dust Protocol和Animoca Brands的顾问。HLV将为0N1 Force设计积分体系，预计6月份上线。

2. 宣布David Uslan为0N1 Force顾问。Uslan家族拥有蝙蝠侠的版权，Uslan的加入会助力0N1在漫画、影视行业的开拓。

3. 任命Helen Peng为亚太地区BD负责人。Helen在影视娱乐行业拥有超过10年的从业经验和丰富资源，会负责0N1 Force在亚太区的IP商务拓展。

4. 任命Hicham Habchi为创意总监和顾问。Habchi是前Riot Games的总监，参与开发过多个知名IP，包括射击游戏《无谓契约》、《守望先锋》、蝙蝠侠、《爱、死亡与机器人》等。Hicham会和IMCLPX一起开发0N1 Force的漫画系列。

同时，0N1 Force还发布了R0N1N特许经营、品牌大使和0N1 World Club计划，0N1的持有者可以通过官网申请加入，在获得授权后，即可参与特许经营或开展相应活动，享受相应权益。

娱乐版图第一步：在堡垒之夜构建0N1 Verse

6月1日凌晨，Starlordy举办最新一期的0N1Force社区twitter space, 并公布了重磅消息——将在堡垒之夜（Fortnite）上构筑0N1 Force的Enclave飞地，这将是第一个在堡垒之夜上拥有元宇宙的NFT项目。0N1 Force此次与 FortniteGame 堡垒之夜的合作也得益于Theia Interactive公司，他们将为0N1 Force建造堡垒之夜上的元宇宙世界0N1 Verse，给社区和玩家带来视觉声效全方位满足的新体验。

Theita Interactive是美国知名的创意解决方案工作室，也是Unreal Engine的三大官方合作伙伴之一，服务过 200 多个企业项目以及与 Epic Games、惠普和 NVIDIA 等行业巨头的合作的产品组合。0N1 Verse是0N1 Force向游戏拓展的新尝试，会提供有强交互性的游戏体验。

今年7月，0N1 Force还将亮相圣地亚哥的美国最大影视展ComicCon，发布新一季的漫画书。0N1 Force还计划发行Bitcoin Ordinals。

0N1 Force的回归之旅，才刚刚开始。

此场与说唱组合直火帮达成首发艺人合作，将以纪念其《爬墙少年》专辑发布五周年为主题，量身打造实时元宇宙演唱和互动影片等一系列虚拟娱乐体验。这也是国内音乐人首次选择元宇宙实时演唱会的形式来呈现演出。届时，用户将有机会在此场元宇宙空间与直火帮成员虚拟化身进行实时互动，并获得纪念数字资产。本次演出得到了Conflux树图区块链的大力支持。

此场atfield可通过 PC 端和微信小程序进行丝滑体验和访问。平台计划在6月初全面投入运营。

日本目前正在密切关注基于社区的项目运营，例如 Web3 和 DAO。 我本人是从一家日本数字机构分离出来的 Web3 研究小组 DAO 的成员。 尽管人们谈论“以社区为中心的项目”的理想，但那些有自上而下项目管理经验的人可能会发现很难将其付诸实践。 0N1 Force 尽管一度激怒了社区成员，但现在通过与社区的拉近关系重新获得了人气。 而且，新任CEO是在逆境中得到支持的前社区管理员。 一个组织如何才能受到社区的喜爱？ 我们采访了 0N1 Force CEO Starlody、艺术家 IMCMPLX 和 0N1 Force Japan 代表 NORI 以获取见解。

首席执行官 Starlody 居住在旧金山，而艺术家 IMCMPLX 居住在印度尼西亚巴厘岛。 日本巡演的主题是“REBORN——再生”。 作为一个从日本获得巨大灵感的项目，0N1 Force 聚集在东京，与他们珍视的日本文化和社区一起重新启动，并获得新的灵感。 他们举办了一长活动，以了解社区成员构想的 0N1 Force 世界，并一起用餐。 他们聊到与KANSAIMAN（关西超级工作室）合作，将优秀的作品绣在飞行员夹克上，并作为惊喜赠送出去。 其他艺术作品在东京代官山的一家名为 EDGEoff 的画廊展出，为 0N1 Force NFT 持有者和创作者提供了许多展示他们作品的机会。

我有幸在日本参加了几次 0N1 Force 活动。 气氛非常热烈和欢迎，我可以明显感受到诚意，项目方承诺永远不会重复过去对社区的不公正行为。

消除社区的愤怒情绪，逐步换牌

所以，Starlody 从社区支持的新团队中被选为 CEO，但他的背景是什么，他是如何成为 CEO 的？

Starlody：当 0N1 Force 在 2021 年夏天首次亮相时，我正在以粉丝的身份关注这个项目。 当时我正在运营一个艺术网站，并立即被 IMCMPLX 创建的高度艺术项目所吸引。 当时这是一个高价项目，所以我将其视为一个有抱负的项目。 但是，我开始通过为圣何塞动漫展制作视频来参与社区活动，并逐渐融入其中。 最初，我以周末志愿者的身份参与，但逐渐被赋予了更多的产品管理职责。

虽然我认为参与蓝筹（顶级 NFT 项目，如 Bored Ape、CryptoPunks、Azuki、Doodle、CloneX 等，包括 0N1 Force）项目对我的职业生涯有好处，但社区的热情确实非常了不起。 现场有很多人畅谈对0N1 Foce的梦想和热爱，也有愿意共同努力推动0N1原力动漫改编的艺术家。 我想为这个社区做出贡献，所以我在 2023 年 3 月成为了 CEO。此外，一个主要的决定因素是有机会与我喜爱的 0N1 Force 的艺术家 IMCMPLX 合作。

IMCMPLX：我负责 0N1 Force 的美术，并且是创始成员之一，但当 Starlody 第一次加入时，我担心他是否是这份工作的合适人选。 那是因为，在他加入时，社区对该项目感到愤怒，内部控制也没有到位。 我怀疑在这种情况下谁能平息事态。 然而，看到 Starlody 真诚地倾听社区的愤怒，推进内部事项，制定社区计划和 0N1 Force 的未来战略，让我觉得我们可以一起工作，并邀请他加入我们。

社区愤怒的原因很明确。 他们喜欢 0N1 Force 项目。 所以，我觉得如果我消除愤怒的情绪，提取他们陈述的真实意图，并在路线图中反映出来，这个项目和社区将会有一个光明的未来。 作为一个 Web3 项目，我们需要与社区合作，因此重要的是在不被情绪影响的情况下提取他们的信息。 由于 Web3 社区的特点是它的“去中心化”，每个人都有自己的观点。专注于持续、稳定的产出、一步步影响社区的看法也很重要，而不是试图一次做出自上而下的决定。

社区的愤怒来源是什么？我们访问了NORI，他对社区最初的冲突更加熟悉。

NORI：当我第一次看到这种情况时，我真的很惊讶。 我参加了项目在 2022 年 2 月举行的townhall（定期在线会议），每个人都在诽谤和批评新的社区管理团队。 人们甚至在共享的 Google 文档上编辑 CEO 创建的路线图。 社区愤怒的原因是，0N1 Force明明是社区优先的项目，但团队似乎并不关心社区，缺乏远见和动力。 如果你通过获得价格相当高的 NFT 成为社区成员，结果却违背了承诺，这是很自然的结果。

听了town hall我就震惊了，不过我还是坚持听到最后。 活动是在西海岸时间进行的，当时是日本的清晨，但我对 0N1 Force 很感兴趣，想知道我是否可以在日本做点什么。 于是，我向管理社区的Starlody请求让我这个日本人参与策划和其他活动。

2022年2月之前，有很多日本题材的NFT项目，比如0N1 Force、Azuki，但创始人都来自日本以外的国家。 我接触接触 Starlody的背景是，希望以某种方式将日本与世界联系起来。 然而，起初，我不确定他们对日本文化的了解程度。 当我和他们交谈时，我意识到他们对动漫和艺术的了解比我多，我最初认为日本人应该负责日本主题项目，但在遇到 IMCMPLX 和 Starlody 后这个想法大小了。 看到他们如此尊重日本文化，我决定继续跟他们一起工作。

总之，社区的愤怒主要是由于未满足的期望和原来团队的忽视。 然而，Starlody 真诚地倾听社区意见、改进内部控制并为 0N1 Force 的未来制定清晰的路线图，这有助于重建信任。 作为首席执行官，Starlody 强调了与社区密切合作和稳步改进的重要性，一步一个脚印。 他与 IMCMPLX 和其他艺术家的合作，以及他对日本文化的欣赏，为该项目的发展和成功做出了贡献。

Web 3 艺术项目：0N1 Force

社区的不满始于2021 年秋天，那是一年多以前。 那么，为什么社区没有离开，而以Starlody为首的新0N1 Force诞生了呢？

IMCMPLX：我认为一个很大的原因是像 Starlody 这样重视社区的人成为了首席执行官。 社区可能会觉得他们能够带来 CEO 的改变。 虽然之前的 CEO 创始人把Starlordy推出来，是典型的 Web2 式人事变动，但 Starlody 的任命更像是 Web3 式的。 此外，作为一个 web3 项目，我们一直在推进创新举措，这可能是社区继续喜爱我们的另一个原因。

例如，我们的项目本身是以 Web3 方式启动的。 我们与像 JR 这样的艺术家一起开展这个项目，我们在 Clubhouse 认识了他们，当时每个人都在不同的地方。 其他 NFT 项目通常由朋友、同事或资金运营，但我们通过投入自己的时间并召集来自世界各地的成员来推进我们的项目“0N1 Force”。 这可能是 Web3/去中心化 NFT 艺术项目的早期示例。

此外，0N1 Force 是第一个创建允许列表 (Allowlist) 系统的人，允许列表现在在 NFT 项目中很常见，优先向对社区做出贡献的人发行NFT。 它的创建是为了分配访问权限，以便当每个人都试图同时访问时，NFT 交易的汽费不会变得太高。

“魔鬼” 背后的想法

为什么0N1 Force会选择“Oni”（恶魔鬼おニ）作为主题呢？

IMCMPLX：我尊重日本文化。 除了0N1 Force，还有一个项目叫做“Inari”，灵感来自参拜京都的稻荷神社。 神道教及其神灵的起源故事引人入胜。 教义和情节本身非常吸引人。 0N1 Force 就是出于对这种日本文化的热爱而诞生的。

至于为什么是鬼，部分原因是个人经历。 有人告诉我，即使我很高兴，我的脸上也会有一种恶魔般的表情。 还有，当我情绪高涨时，我的脸就会变红，所以我被称为红魔。 恶魔的存在一直离我很近。 从小就经历过这些，我在想那些熟悉的恶魔是不是真的很邪恶，会不会也有善良的一面。 这种背景导致了 0N1 Force 的诞生。 0N1 Force 的角色也融入了我的祖国印度尼西亚的巴厘岛神“Barong”。 我们想通过 0N1 Force问一个问题：“神和魔是否相似？”

虽然恶魔和神灵同时存在，但我们想创造一个怀旧而温暖的世界。 最初，流行的 NFT 项目很酷，但冷酷或愤世嫉俗。 因此，我们的目标是打造一种让人感到温暖和怀旧的东西，表达凌晨 3 点独自在房间里时置身于这个区域的感觉。

0N1 Force 的主导团队曾与社区发生过争执。 这次洗礼将如何与未来联系起来？

我们想结合 0N1 Force 的 IP 和我们社区的创造力，来创作动漫和漫画。 此外，通过利用 Web3/区块链，我们希望在不做现有 Web2 公司所做的事情，而是专注于我们活动的透明度和可信度。

我们希望我们的新内容充满创意，让人们在与 AI 共处的时代感受到人性。 我在硅谷长大，见过很多像 Facebook 这样的公司只关注利润，而没有履行企业责任。 作为 Web3 的领导者，0N1 Force 希望以对社区和所有相关人员的信任和尊重向前发展。

NORI：目前，参与 Web3 项目就是不断更新自己的代名词。 因此，我们希望专注于创造新形式的IP，而不用担心不断的进化和发展。 我们旨在将 0N1 Force 社区的声音传播给更广泛的利益相关者，并使 0N1 Force 成为下一代 IP 的标准。

在社区活动中，我们遇到的一位艺术家来自美国，他们使用 AI 创作了受 0N1 Force 宇宙启发的艺术，而另一位艺术家则谈到了他们在创造虚拟空间方面的专长。 该项目旨在不仅利用艺术家的才能，还利用每个参与者的技能，利用技术和去中心化来利用全球分布的人才。 我们期待密切关注0N1 Force项目，这是一个Web3艺术项目的例子，作为组织和IP不断创新，为艺术和娱乐的未来铺平道路。

0N1 Force的“REBORN——重生”巡演未来将如何展开？ 您可以在场边观看，也可以加入社区并帮助共同建设，这取决于您。 我们应该接受Starlody的话，未来的IP应该是对我们自己的成长有贡献的东西，并牢记在心。

研究支持：Alastair (Analyst of OFR) , Otto Verstl (Analyst of OFR)

感谢社区志愿者 @Jessicashen6699 和 @Pupig_Lily 的翻译支持

在所有公链、Layer 1（一层网络，即底层区块链）和Layer 2（二层网络，即底层区块链的扩容解决方案）中，Polygon是一个综合素质较高的选手，各方面都能与竞争者匹敌，也具有自身独到的杀手锏。

项目评分：强于大市

目标价格:  Y2023:$3.8 ，Y2024:$7.2 USD to $23.98 USD

核心结论：

1. 依靠业务并购锁定行业前沿地位 Polygon拥有一整套零知识证明（Zero Knowledge）和数据可用性（Data Availability）解决方案，不仅证明了他们在上一轮牛市中使用自己的代币进行收购的战略眼光，更重要的是帮助其在基础设施层面建立了深厚的护城河。

2. 海纳创新DeFi产品 Polygon当前稳定的DeFi生态群为其“金融网络层”的身份定位奠定了坚实的基础，但与其他Layer 2和想要成为以太坊杀手的Alt Layer们相比，它需要更多创新的DeFi产品带来更高的交易量和流动性。

3. 打造NFT全明星阵容

   在为Reddit、星巴克和Meta等传统大品牌成功发行NFT后，Polygon成为寻求年轻时尚的web3用户市场的不二之选。

4. 为下一波GameFi热潮做足准备

Polygon在2020年和2021年的牛市期间经历了多次游戏热潮，积累了大量活跃的Gamefi用户。 Polygon Studio也将积极投资和建设，为整个Polygon生态做出贡献。

风险提示：宏观市场风险、竞争风险、价格波动风险

目录

1. 赌上全部只为”终局之战” — Polygon的零知识证明布局

1.1 抢占zkEVM的圣杯

1.2 ZK套件之间的协同增益

Polygon的零知识证明扩容产品并非相互排斥，也非独立生长。相反，每个产品都贡献了核心创新点，共同构建起了 Polygon围绕ZK零知识证明的zk宇宙（”zkVerse”）。

1.3 实现以太坊数据可用性

2. 激进的生态建设策略助其跻身主流公链

2.1 DeFi:表现尚可，但仍需更多创新

2.2 NFT：“名牌”率先入驻

2.3 GameFi：顺“周期”而为，乘风破浪

3. 估值

3.1 代币供应和分配

3.2 代币用途

3.3 估值 - EPT分析（平均代币收益法）

3.4 估值 - 可比分析

3.5 估值 - ZK-EVM主网上线后

4. 风险

1. 赌上全部只为”终局之战” — Polygon的零知识证明布局

正如以太坊创始人Vitalik在《Endgame》文章中的描述的那样，Polygon在宣布财政资助10亿美元ZK项目后，收购了三个采用不同技术方案解决以太坊扩展性的团队，与加密市场主流叙事靠拢，战略性地选择了ZK-rollup解决方案。

Polygon的战略押注缓和了市场对其作为PoS侧链（Polygon当前选择的主链）的质疑，也为未来公链技术栈的叙事替代奠定了基础。Polygon团队的雄心和远见令人敬佩，比起滥用资金游说政客、高杠杆押注低流动性资产的市场参与者更为理性。

在Polygon的零知识证明扩容方案中，Polygon zkEVM（即Polygon Hermez）作为Polygon的旗舰产品脱颖而出，因此我们从Polygon zkEVM开始进行分析。

今年以来，Scroll、Matter Labs、Polygon等项目的激烈竞争无不暗示着将各家都希望成为“第一个”推出zkEVM产品的项目，力图抢占先发优势。

1.1 抢占zkEVM的圣杯

zkEVM开发难度极高，但通常被认为是促进更具可扩展性和更低成本的区块链的必要基础设施，因此只有非常有限的玩家（如上列举）能够在这个方向上领先，反过来资本市场也会更加重视这条赛道，给予更高的溢价。

Vitalik根据zkEVM项目在兼容性、效率和原生性等不同属性上的权衡，将项目分为四种类型。

Polygon zkEVM当前的解决方案属于第三种类型，这意味着它与大多数以太坊应用兼容。如果应用程序无需预编译，则代表无需重新编写代码以适应zkEVM。

第三类zkEVM并不是Polygon zkEVM会追求的最优格式，因为兼容性水平还有待提高。考虑到性能的权衡，Polygon的最终目标将以途中第二类的方式构建，与以太坊在Virtual Machine上无差异，即“ 完全EVM等效”。

在这种结构下，EVM上的当前应用程序将完全兼容Polygon zkEVM，除了需要进行一些小的修改。且当前的 EVM 开发工具（如debug工具）也适用Polygon zkEVM。

与所有基础设施的演变过程一样，选择某一特定的 zkEVM路线没有绝对的优势或劣势。但是，我们认为 Polygon 的选择是最适合构建其生态的选择，也是所有同行中最实用的解决方案：

• 第二类zkEVM产品选择兼容性而牺牲了一定性能，基于当前Polygon的PoS侧链上庞大的开发人员网络，进一步最大限度地吸收EVM开发人员。

• 性能的不足可以通过采用由Polygon Zero开发的增强型证明系统来缓解（细节将在后文介绍） 。

• 当前的竞争格局是有利于 Polygon zkEVM的，其竞争对手要么EVM兼容性较差，要么在开发者生态网络较弱（见图表 3）。

1.2  ZK套件之间的协同增益

Polygon的零知识证明扩容产品并非相互排斥，也非独立生长。相反，每个产品都贡献了核心创新点，共同构建起了 Polygon围绕ZK零知识证明的zk宇宙（”zkVerse”）。

Polygon Zero，前身为 Mir Protocol，在 2021年被 Polygon 收购之前，宣布了其最新的里程碑递归零知识证明系统 Plonky2，这是一个生成零知识证明（ZKP）的证明系统，在2021年款Macbook Pro上实现了不到 170 毫秒的递归证明生成。

有趣的是，由于 Plonky2 选择 FRI 作为其承诺方案，而不是更常见的 KZG，它变得与以太坊更加兼容，但同时也不得不做出一些牺牲和权衡：要么牺牲证明体积换更快的生成速度，要么保全更小的证明体积却不得不延长生成时间。

Plonky2 在证明速度很重要时使用更大体积的证明，而在证明体积重要时使用更小的证明。所以我们假设它选择以更快的速度生成更大的证明，这将需要大约 100 万gas（相当大的成本）。

然而，这个成本主要是在以太坊上发布证明的 CALLDATA 成本。如果CALLDATA在EIP-4488中重新定价，一个plonky2证明的验证成本将下降到170-200k gas之间，这会是一个相对合理的水平，同时意味着Plonky2不仅在证明速度上更快，而且当以太坊的EIP-4488执行之后，将会在证明成本上有明显优势。

Polygon Miden，一个基于 STARK 的以太坊兼容 Rollup扩容方案，填补了 ZK-Rollup版图里Polygon缺失的一席之地。简而言之，基于 zk-STARK 的 Rollups 优于其 zk-SNARK 兄弟姐妹，因为它们具备后量子 (Post-Quantum) 安全密码学的保护，且不需要受信任的设置，但在更大的零知识证明大小的扩容性方面面临更多挑战。

与其所有产品的核心理念一样，Polygon 在 zk-Rollup 套件发展方面比较务实，将 Polygon zkEVM（基于 zk-SNARK 的 Rollup）确立为旗舰产品，同时在 FRI 等递归证明上实施 STARKs。

1.3 实现以太坊数据可用性

虽然数据可用性问题已经成为以太坊社区长期讨论的话题之一，但到目前为止，没有多少产品能够提供可靠的解决方案，Polygon Avail也不例外。

数据可用性的关键技术挑战问题是验证区块链交易数据不会被块生产者或 Rollup 排序器操纵，而验证者不需要下载整个数据集来验证每个交易。

简单来说，Polygon Avail和它的主要竞争对手Celestia都采用了数据可用性采样（Data Availability Sampling）和纠删码（Erasure Code）的方法来保证数据被彻底验证并且极难被恶意隐藏数据。

与 Celestia 相比，Polygon Avail 的关键区别是 Avail 使用 KZG 承诺，与以太坊 DankSharding 相同的方法，通常被认为比欺诈证明（Celestia的方法）更简洁、有效，以强制区块生产者正确生成纠删码。值得一提的是，EVM中的KZG证明验证的高gas问题将在EIP-4844实施后得以解决。

Polygon Avail 和 Celestia肩负起“模块化区块链”的责任，旨在将当前类似以太坊的公链（称为单体链）中数据可用性功能附加给自身，使基础链专注于执行或结算层面的工作。

模块化的链结构意味着其安全性和网络稳定性依赖于区块链的原生币种，因此 Polygon Avail 将受益于Matic代币的流动性和价值，相比于重新搭建一个新项目，节省了大量精力。

Polygon基础设施方面小结：

未来发展具备较深的护城河：Polygon的每个基础设施项目都在各自领域的研发工作中处于领先地位，且这些领域均是加密货币行业的核心方向，只有个位数的团队能够坚持到最后完成。

产品矩阵的协同效应互相增益：从以上分析，我们可以推断出Polygon的每个项目都不是以独立增长，在保持开源代码库为整个加密社区做出贡献的同时，产品矩阵之间彼此互生互利，产生了较强的协同效应。

2. 激进的生态建设策略助其跻身主流公链

2.1 DeFi:表现尚可，但仍需更多创新

Polygon的TVL自今年7月以来一直没有太大的动静，仍然有将近10.8亿美元的TVL锁定在生态系统中。其中Aave占总TVL的25%，而有70%的TVL则被前十的协议包揽，其中包括Quickswap、Balancer、Uniswap、Curve、Beefy、Tetu、Klima DAO、SushiSwap和Stargate Finance。

截止原文发稿前，Polygon的TVL仍位居所有区块链中第三位，仅次于以太坊和BSC。但恰逢Arbitrum和Optimism这两大强力竞争对手推出流动性挖矿活动，Polygon的TVL也出现了-43%的季度环比下降。有趣的是，流动性挖矿恰恰也是Polygon前期为DeFi崛起吸引用户入驻的方式。

回到DeFi Summer前期，AAVE、Curve、Sushiswap和Balancer等以太坊蓝筹协议带头掀起了第一波热潮，而后不久纷纷决定将规模扩大到Polygon，以触及更广泛的用户群体。

2021年4月，Polygon推出了一支名为#DeFiforAll的生态基金，旨在在未来两到三年内持续发展和支持Polygon的DeFi生态，并将MATIC总供应量的2%投入该基金。其中AAVE的流动性挖矿参与者享受了1%的MATIC，而SushiSwap、Curve、Balancer等其他25个协议则共享了另外1%的奖励。

受流动性挖矿激励的直接影响，顶级DeFi应用的用户被激励桥接到Polygon，随着跨链桥接的发展，进一步提高了各链的互操作性。Polygon协议的TVL在推出激励活动后的3个月内上升了10倍左右，同时也获得了显著的新用户。独特地址的数量在6个月内飙升了500%，从2021年4月的20万到同年10月中旬的1亿。

然而，成功的用户获取并不能保证用户留存。从长远来看，这种由代币激励的用户增长是不可持续的，其中投机的意图较强，同时缺乏对生态系统的归属感。 这反映在 2021 年 10 月之后向 Polygon 添加新地址的速度下降。

2022 年 4 月Polygon启动第二轮流动性挖矿计划。这次改用了更严格的基于KPI的流动性挖矿。代币奖励根据每周活跃用户或 TVL 等 KPI 数据分配给符合条件的应用。但由于市场环境低迷，该方案最终效果平平，同时也印证了我们之前提到的 Polygon DeFi 生态的不足——用户对生态的粘性较差，容易被其他地方更高的回报所吸引。

与 Polygon 的价值主张类似，Arbitrum 和 Optimism 也旨在为以太坊提供更好的可扩展性，但用户提款难度各不相同。Optimism 的提款可能需要 7 天，Arbitrum 的提款需要 2 周，而通过 PoS 桥在 Polygon 上的提款可在 3 小时内完成。 尽管在提款时间方面比其扩容方案竞对更快，但同时却也导致其在保护资本外流方面处于相应的劣势。（作者注：只是一种可能性）

当Arbitrum和Optimism各自发起流动性挖矿活动时，资金开始外流向这些扩容方案竞争对手，由于Arbitrum和Optimism提款时间较长，使得资金流出存在一定阻碍，从而反向鼓励用户留在其生态系统内。从跨链 TVL 比较（图表9）中可以看出，Polygon TVL 的减少与 Arbitrum 和 Optimism 的 TVL 的增加同时发生。

另一个关键原因是其 DeFi 生态系统缺乏创新。 2022 年第三季度，拥有最多独立地址的 DeFi 协议是 QuickSwap、inch、KyberSwap、Uniswap v3、SushiSwap、Balancer 和 Curve。除 QuickSwap 外，这些都不是 Polygon生态所独有的。去中心化永续合约交易所 GMX 在 Arbitrum 网络上占据了43%市场，并推动了围绕它的一系列DeFi协议，构建了一整个DeFi整个生态系统，可见创新和原生协议对公链的生态发展的重要性。

虽然与 NFT/GameFi 相比，Polygon 目前的 DeFi 布局并不出众，但当前稳定的DeFi生态表现尚可，为NFT和游戏的金融层价值捕获打下了坚实的基础，我们期待看到它如何引导并构建具有长期主义的、更为紧密的社区，共同参与Polygon未来发展。

2.2 NFT：“名牌”率先入驻

在 NFT 市场的交易量在 2022 年 1 月达到顶峰的同时，Polygon 每周的 NFT 买家数量也创下历史新高，从 10 月初的 10,000 增加到 12 月的超过 120,000。 如此激增的市场采用率主要是由与知名品牌的合作伙伴关系推动的，Polygon 从一开始就预见到了这一点。

2021年6月，Opensea在Seaport上实现了对Polygon链上NFT的支持，Polygon上架销售情况开始明显增加。此后，Polygon上NFT的热度开始上升，热门项目包括 Aavegotchi、ZED Run、Pegaxy 和 Crypto Unicorns 等。 Opensea 上的 NFT 交易量在 2021 年 6 月至 2022 年 1 月期间激增了 7 倍，从 1100 万增加到 7900 万。

尽管如此，除了正统性最高的以太坊之外，Polygon还面对着Solana和BSC这两个强大的对手的竞争压力。

Polygon的优势是与以太坊兼容，并且由于以太坊高昂的 gas费用吸引了大量应用从以太坊上迁移扩展；而 BSC 则有更多来自 Binance Launchpad 和 Binance NFT 的精选项目，以及更容易上Binance和PancakeSwap的优势。另一边Solana能以更低的成本更快地进行交易，但构建其上的基础设施需要更长的时间，因为它是基于相对Rust语言而非solidity。

那么，Polygon的NFT有哪些与众不同的立场和价值主张呢？ Polygon Studio鲜少在Twitter发声，但在为数不多的推文中曾提到，Polygon“将成为 NFT生态中一流开发者、创新者、艺术家和投资者的家园，也将成为IP所有者和大型 Web2连锁品牌寻求进入 Web3的首选平台”。回顾现状，Polygon确实做到了这一点。

从 2022 年开始，奢侈品品牌Prada和运动服饰巨头Adidas相继在Polygon合作上推出 NFT项目。 除了面向消费者的品牌之外，Polygon还与Adobe的Behance合作。 通过 Polygon 的集成，艺术家和创作者将能够在 Behance 上创作和展示他们的作品。

2022 年 7 月是 Polygon NFT 最繁忙的月份之一。 著名社交网站 Reddit 推出了一个基于Polygon的NFT 市场，专门提供社交媒体头像交易。公告发布后，$MATIC 的价格上涨了 6%，拥有超过 400 万独立的 reddit NFT 持有者和 1100 万美元的总销售额。

同样在本月（12月），迪士尼的2022加速计划决定再次使用 Polygon 的区块链进行 Web3生态系统的开发。 几天后，梅赛德斯奔驰选择了 Polygon来启动其 Acentrik 数据共享平台。Acentrik已经经过两年开发形成产品雏形，此时他选择使用 Polygon来进行更上一个台阶的、去中心化的探索。

然后，在8月初，可口可乐在Polygon上发布了新的 NFT，以纪念国际友谊日及该品牌进入Web3世界一周年。一个月后，总部位于加利福尼亚的金融服务公Robinhood选择了Polygon作为其新推出的Web3钱包的第一个区块链网络。

不久之后的11 月，Meta透露其Instagram用户将能够在 Polygon上铸造、展示和销售数字藏品，使创作者能够更有效地交流他们的粉丝网络并从中获利。在撰写本文之前几天（2022 年 12 月），星巴克的奖励忠诚度计划 Odyssey 上线，为其用户提供基于 Web3 的 NFT 收集体验。9 月该消息最初发布时，$MATIC的价格上涨了 3%。

凭借这些主流化策略，Polygon成为寻求年轻时尚 Web3用户市场的不二之选，使品牌方们能够以较低的成本快速打入市场。 我们继续期待未来Polygon会有更多的合作伙伴关系，为其打开更多加密货币圈外的用户和受众。我们对$MATIC的价格保持长期看涨，因为我们相信破圈将是实现大规模Web3采用的重要一步。

2.3 GameFi：顺“周期”而为，乘风破浪

第一浪潮：GameFi之夏

由于GameFi的崛起，诸如Ethereum之类的公链的gas费用骤增，这种情况使 Polygon 的低 gas 费用立即成为优于其同行的竞争优势。

与Axie Infinity自推出Ronin应用链以来由于交易成本大幅降低而带来的高速增长相似，Polygon 快速和低成本交易优势与以太坊不断上涨的gas价格形成鲜明反差，尤其是在GameFi场景中，由于用户必须持续不断的进行小而频繁的交易，价格低廉的重要性不言而喻。

凭借这些优势，Polygon上的游戏协议数量在过去一年中增加了 50%，而以太坊上的这一数字几乎保持不变。然而，它也面临像 BNB 链这样的竞争对手，生态增长也是由低成本交易费用推动的。

My Crypto Saga, Brave Frontier Heroes和EmberSword均是这个时期为Polygon上游戏生态发展铺平道路的GameFi案例。

第二浪潮：Polygon Studio的成立

Polygon 于 2021 年 7 月推出了 Polygon Studios，向市场再次重申了其向游戏生态发展的战略重心，目标是“游戏项目会获得 360 度全方位的开发支持，大型和广受欢迎的品牌可以在 Polygon 上发布游戏，游戏玩家则可以在去中心化的游戏世界拥有全新的体验。

自Polygon Studios成立以来，Polygon上的游戏类协议数量已迅速超越Tron和EOS，位居以太坊和BNBchain之后的第三位。 在交易量及独立地址数方面，Polygon也是名列前茅。7月，其最受欢迎的游戏之一Aavegotchi获得了超过1,500名用户。

投资公司也对这个市场产生了强烈的兴趣。比如Animoca Brands，其下的两家子公司Lympo和Gamee均为Polygon Studios 的合作伙伴，而Gamee在Polygon上的手游Arc8在一个月内吸引了超过373,000个独立活跃钱包。同期还有Zed Run, 0xUniverse等区块链游戏，共同为Polygon扩展了相当大的用户群体。

除了游戏项目，像Sandbox这样的元宇宙世界也已与Polygon整合，将他们的NFT和代币都带到了Polygon生态系统中。

值得注意的是，此时的绝大多数游戏要么是Play-to-Earn模式，要么是游戏化的DeFi，用户可以通过游戏的方式来使得代币收益最大化。 DeFi 相关的交易数量同期却减少了，详细情况请阅读DeFi部分。

第三浪潮：Terra/Solana 捡漏期

第三波浪潮到来时恰逢Terra的崩溃和Solana陷入困境。 Polygon采取果断行动，协助和支持潜在项目迁移到 Polygon，使他们能够利用Polygon生态系统中的网络效应。

前YouTube游戏负责人今年早些时候也加入Polygon Studios，旨在通过投资、营销和开发人员支持扩大开发人员生态系统，并弥合 Web2 和 Web3 之间的差距。

2022年5月，Polygon上的GameFi协议数量超过了230个。Polygon在UST-LUNA垮台后启动了数百万美元的 Terra迁移基金，以吸引突然陷入困境的人才。超过 50 个曾建立在Terra生态系统里的加密项目已被Polygon纳入囊中，包括 Derby Stars等P2E游戏和桥接Web2与Web3游戏环境的基础设施GameSwift等。

Polygon 的游戏生态系统现状

当我们深入研究 2022 年 10 月至 2022 年 11 月独立用户数量的变化时，我们发现Polygon的百分比增长最大 (7.5%)，其次是Wax (6.4%)和BNB (1.8%)。此外，Polygon为市场贡献了最多的新增用户（561,285个新增用户），占行业新增用户总数的67%。与10月相比，11月Polygon的新用户增长了近 14%。

尽管用户的增长可能与多种因素有关，例如与品牌方的诸多合作等，但我们认为Polygon的游戏生态系统推动了大部分新用户的增长。 在10月和11月里，Benji Bananas 和PlanetIX等游戏的销量和新用户数量都出现了大幅飙升。

Planet IX和Benji Bananas都为 Polygon 的用户增长做出了巨大的贡献。从 11 月中旬到 11 月底，Planet IX 的地址数量增长了五倍，从6,514个增加到35,058个；Benji Bananas则到月底达到了 85,000 多个独立地址数。尽管在最初几周的活动后数据有所下降，但这两款游戏在上个月仍旧保持了30,000至35,000个独立地址数的健康平均水平。

其他为 Polygon 游戏生态系统的发展做出贡献的游戏包括 Cometh、Crazy Defense Heros 和 Arc8 等。

尽管区块链游戏行业的头把交椅已经从以太坊转移到 BSC，但 Polygon 仍然占据第三的位置。类似于炉石传说的流行纸牌策略游戏Skyweaver仍然是 Polygon 生态系统中最具代表性的游戏之一。截至 2022 年 12 月，Skyweaver 在 NiftySwap 上已经发生超过 150,000 笔交易。

我们对Polygon游戏生态的预测

了解Polygon 的合作伙伴关系和即将推出的游戏吼，我们对Polygon游戏的未来充满期待。我们看到诸如Oath of Peak、Swords of Blood、Shatterpoint 和 Dvision Network 等这些曾获得大量关注的游戏名称。在游戏工作室、游戏公会和品牌的通力合作下，预计 Polygon 的游戏生态系统将在未来几年呈指数级扩展。

至于Polygon的游戏生态是否会在未来超越BSC等竞争对手，关键在于Polygon Studios能否保持其游戏生态持续为用户提供令人期待的游戏，建立利于生态的合作伙伴关系，以便纳入更多 Web3新生代游戏玩家。

3. 估值

3.1 代币供应和分配

Matic代币总供应量为100 亿。当最后一批代币在 2022 年 10月底解锁时，所有代币都将变在市场中流通，但质押奖励部分除外，该部分要到 2025 年初才能完全分配。

为简单起见，我们将使用 2022 年 10 月的流动供应数量9,509,641,762枚代币，作为下面估值程序中 Matic 的整个流动代币供应。

根据最新解锁统计，1.562亿枚$MATIC代币已被解锁。在去年的私募融资期间，大量代币从 Polygon的生态基金地址转移给了投资者。这是三年锁定期间第一个解锁的三分之一。

在11月16日至 11月28日期间，共计向投资者分发了1.312 亿的$MATIC（1.217亿美元）。其中大约一半的代币随后被转移到 Coinbase、Bitfinex 等交易所。

另一部分代币被转移到Hermez Network，其中12月9日转移了2500万枚$MATIC，12月12日转移了7190万枚$MATIC。

在 Hermez Network 收到的9690万枚$MATIC代币中，只有280万个$MATIC 代币被转出到 Bitfinex 和 Kraken 等交易所；6000万的$MATIC被重新质押到Polygon的PoS质押合约中。

3.2 代币效用

在目前的代币模型中，Matic代币主要有两个功能：PoS 侧链的 Gas 费和 Staking。

自 Polygon 于 2022 年 1 月采用EIP-1559 以来，交易的基础费用将用于销毁 Matic。 迄今为止，Matic代币在近一年内被销毁的数量为 5,022,420.1819，仅占总供应量的 0.05%。考虑到与以太坊相比，Polygon 是一条具有成本效益的链，销毁机制不太可能对代币供应产生显著影响。

目前 Polygon 质押率为 32.55%，平均收益率为 6.73%，扣除通货膨胀后调整后年化收益率为4.06%，略低于以太坊调整后收益率 4.15%。

然而，Matic代币质押者最大的担忧是质押收益将在2025 年初耗尽，因此要么代币价格上涨到足够高，要么交易金额飙升，以确保可以通过交易费向质押者提供足够的补偿。

另一种选择是Polygon在推出上述基础设施新套件的同时，为 Matic代币带来全新的价值捕获方式，我们认为这是极有可能发生的。

就像Polygon的联合创始人Sandeep的推文一样，当Matic代币在主网上线时，它将作为 ZK-rollups 的抵押代币，而不仅仅是 Layer 1 的支付gas的代币。

3.3 估值 – EPT (Earnings Per Token)分析

由于加密行业仍处于非常初级的阶段，代币的市值在很大程度上受情绪影响或由巨鲸控制。传统金融世界中的估值模型可能并不完全适用于代币持有者。然而，我们借用了 EPS（每股收益）的概念，将代币的增值描述为EPT（每代币收益）。

我们假设：PoS 侧链收益 = 总交易量 * 每笔交易成本

从 Polygon 的季度报告来看，网络总收入接近 18.88 亿美元，这意味着每个代币价值每年相当于$0.00188792USD，代币价格/EPT倍数等于484 倍（采用当前币价）。

2023 年网络价值预测：

将2022年Q1-Q3交易金额按类别划分，并将数据换算成年度数据，我们得出以下表格：

基于我们对生态部分的分析，我们对Polygon不同类别的生态应用给予不同的评级：

我们也有一个基于我们对加密行业的主观判断的预测。 虽然判断可能有偏差，但我们的模型的可以根据不同的假设和判断进行修改。

我们将上述假设相乘得到一个预测参数矩阵来评估Polygon 生态在 2023 年的增长：

最后，我们根据不同情况下的情景分析和EPT（Earning Per Token）模型做出如下预测：

3.4 估值 – 可比分析

我们可以根据我们之前的计算得出 Matic 代币的 P/E（价格与 EPT）比率，如下图所示：

由于2022年市场行情波动非常大，P/E区间接近10倍。按照同样的计算方法，我们得出 2022 年以太坊的 EPT：

以太坊平均 EPT = 0.01538154902 USD

以太坊中位 EPT = 0.008622489434 USD

那么我们也可以得到这样的结论，以太坊既在盈利能力上更强（更高的EPT），同时也在资本市场上也享有更高的溢价（超过300x P/E）。

考虑到其余行业可比对象的高度不确定性，我们仅用以太坊作为参考，预测 Matic 2023年的P/E。我们选择以太坊的 P/E 中位数作为基准，得到如下预测：

2023 年 Matic 代币的目标价格为 3.85 美元。

3.5 估值 – ZK-EVM 主网上线后

对于 Polygon 的 zkEVM Rollup，尽管预计在 2023 年初上线主网，我们假设它有一定概率推迟到Q2甚至 Q3。 即使它在 2023 年上半年上线，与其目前的现有PoS链相比，生态项目至少需要一个到二个季度才能达到全面运营状态。

我们基于 Polygon zkEVM 与生态项目将从 2024 年开始完全合并到主网的假设进行以下分析。

我们还将以下参数作为假设。

然后我们可以得到理论上一个区块中有184375笔交易，每年最多447,322,115,384.62笔交易。如果我们将Polygon zkEVM每个交易的 Gas 成本设为 0.00875 美元，那么我们得出以下2024 年的预测。

2024 年的目标价为 7.2 美元至 23.98 美元。

4. 风险

• 宏观经济市场风险：加密货币市场与宏观经济的相关性仍然很高，项目的表现可能会受到宏观市场的直接影响。

• 波动风险：加密货币市场波动较大，虽然我们认为该项目基本面稳固，但价格可能在一定时期内表现不及预期。

• 竞争风险：

  • 来自其他 Layer 2项目的竞争威胁，比如 Arbitrum或Optimism。尽管我们相信ZK Rollup会在 1-2 年后成为主流，但 Polygon 仍可能面临基于Optimistic Rollup的Layer 2公链的挑战。

引用

1. https://notes.ethereum.org/@vbuterin/proto_danksharding_faq

2. https://mirror.xyz/msfew.eth/JJudP_Kf-IS6VhbF-qU0BUor1Ap6SFEb0TzYOHZ34Rc

3. https://www.theblocktopian.com/a-valuation-model-for-polygons-zkevm-matic/

4. https://github.com/Polygon-Analytics/Resources#-threads

5. https://www.nansen.ai/report/nansens-polygon-quarterly-report-q1-2022

6. https://medium.com/blockchain-capital-blog/wtf-is-data-availability-80c2c95ded0f

声明

This report is meant for informational purposes only and should not be relied upon. This report is neither financial nor investment advice. You should conduct your own research, and consult an independent financial, tax, or legal advisor before making any investment decisions. Nothing contained in this report is a recommendation or suggestion, directly or indirectly, to buy, sell, make, or hold any investment, loan, commodity, or security, or to undertake any investment or trading strategy with respect to any investment, loan, commodity, security, or any issuer. This report should not be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any security or commodity. Old Fashion Research does not guarantee the sequence, accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of any information provided in this report.

Among all public chains, all Layer 1s and Layer 2s, Polygon behaves like a more well-balanced player who possesses a few deadly weapons while keeping competitive in almost every front.

Key takeaways:

1. Established a leading edge through a series of acquisition

   Polygon’s ZK Suite and Data Availability solution, not only proved their strategic insights on the acquisition with its own token in the bull market, but more importantly, they established a deep moat at the infrastructure level for future years.

2. Calling for more innovative DeFi products

   Polygon’s current stable and legitimate DeFi stacks lays a solid foundation for its financial layer, but compared with other L2s or alt layers, it needs innovative products to drive volume and liquidity.

3. Built an All-star lineup for NFT launch

   After a couple of successful launch of NFTs for legacy brands such as Reddit, Starbucks and Meta, Polygon becomes the obvious choice for marketers seeking to target young and trendy web3 users

4. Ready for the next wave of Gamefi fever

   Polygon has witnessed several hyped waves during the 2020/2021 bull trend and accumulated a large amount of active Gamefi users. Polygon Studio also dedicates to contributing to the whole ecosystem through investment and building.

For the full report, please go to  https://docsend.com/view/hnabaxbrx9jtqjbv 

Advisor: JX (Partner of OFR)

TL;DR

• DAO对加密货币领域产生更多的影响，但其发展面临着诸多挑战；越来越多的DAO工具和解决方案已经出现，，帮助DAO克服所面临的挑战，并优化其运作方式。

• 我们认为，在加密货币的下一个牛市周期中，DAO很有可能会接替P2E游戏项目，承担起吸引非加密用户入场的主要责任；因为DAO的核心价值主张更加多样化，不像P2E游戏那样以盈利为目的。

• 我们对这些工具所设计的DAO的重要特征展开了研究，即DAO框架、贡献者激励机制（支付/流媒体管理、身份和声誉平台）、财务管理和DAO治理/投票。

• 作为一个相对新兴的领域，DAO工具发展迅速，目前市场上已经有不少可供DAO使用的工具，然而，为什么这些工具产品没有被充分利用呢？

• 实际上，DAO工具领域已经过饱和，且非常分散；这些工具大多只是为了满足特定需求而单独开发的，不同工具之间缺乏协同。

• 我们希望看到的是DAO基础设施，不仅仅是工具。它能够整合所有高效工具并进行协作；像是一个模块化的中心，将这些工具集成到一起，帮助DAO克服所有挑战，蓬勃发展。

什么是DAO？

DAO，即“去中心化自治组织”（Decentralized Autonomous Organization），是一个由社区发起但没有中心化权力的实体。DAO是完全去中心化的，可随时接受公众的监督：由智能合约建立基本规则，并执行已达成的决议；在任何时候，提案、投票、甚至代码本身都可能受到来自公众的监督。

DAO的目的是对一个类似于公司的实体进行管理和监督。然而，没有单一权威人士的时候，DAO的发展是最好的；DAO的集体领导人和成员就是其治理者。DAO的成员是该组织未来所有事项的唯一决策者，包括但不限于有关技术发展和资金分配的问题。

DAO的投票过程记录在区块链上。用户必须要在不同互斥的选项中做出选择。通常，用户的投票权由他们拥有的代币数来分配。例如，拥有100个DAO代币的人的投票权是拥有50个代币的人的2倍。

这一方法是为了鼓励那些在DAO中拥有较大股权的用户诚信经营。假设一个用户拥有总投票权的25%，他/她可能会做出不正当的行为；但是，如果他/她这样做了，也会危害到他/她持有的25%的股权价值。

大多数DAO也有国库，用于存放可能用于法币交易的代币。DAO的成员可以投票决定资金的使用；例如，某些希望获得稀有NFT的DAO可以投票决定是否用国库资金换取资产。

现有的问题与挑战

尽管DAO日益盛行，许多早期涉入者必然会遇到问题和障碍。由于对DAO感兴趣的人在Web 3社区中只占一小部分，因此，DAO仍处于起步阶段。我们能预见它会是一个比企业架构更优越的组织架构。本节将阐述Web3生态系统中的与DAO相关的一些运营和管理上的难点。

1) 搜索和加入

让我们设想下，为了进入DAO并提供专业技能，一个Web3参与者可能采取的步骤。最开始是要开展全面的研究，从而找到与他们有共同目标并需要他们帮助的DAO。对绝大多数人来说，第一步就非常困难。因为DAO的数量在持续增加，其目的也大不相同，因此很难找到理想的DAO。

而对于想要尝试的贡献者来说，找到理想的DAO更加困难，特别是当他们不确定是否会成功时，他们可能会放弃尝试。诸如Messari’s那样的DAO名单有一定帮助，但它们没有为个人提供足够的信息来坚定他们加入某个DAO的决心，仅仅是网站和社媒平台上发布愿景声明对DAO来说是远远不够的。

当一个人找到合适的DAO后，下一个关键步骤是加入流程和文件。由于不同的DAO有不同的运作方式，入职流程也不尽相同，有的仅需购买代币，有的甚至需要通过多轮的面试和申请。

正如Avenueplace.eth关于DAO的文章中所说，入职流程和文件的表述和执行将在确定理想成员方面发挥重要作用--即背景问题。

2)激励措施 - 个人成长

提到DAO中的激励措施时，用代币作为奖励是很正常的，因为付出的努力应得到该有的回报。然而，金钱不应该，也不会成为DAO成员的主要激励措施。之前没有提到的是，在DAO工作，不仅在经济上会有所收获，还有能力、知识面和资源网络方面的成长。

鉴于DAO的性质，个人更容易参与并可为多个DAO作出贡献。在标准的Web2职业道路上，随着员工工作经验的增加，他们会有更多的能力去完成任务，并提供更多的价值；因此，他们也会得到更高的收入，并被分配更有挑战性的任务。那么，在DAO工作时，人们如何去展示自己经过验证且与DAO相关的投资组合，以便他们在申请其他DAO的职位时会有优势呢？

SourceCred就是从这个角度出发而构建的工具之一，它可以在链上记录DAO的参与度。许多与SBT相关的应用程序也可以通过分发不可转让的代币来证明个人的贡献和成就。DAO也可以学习观察到的企业的做法，如指导和成员评估。

3) DAO系统的开发

如何使DAO公平、可扩展，并坚持去中心化治理模式，是DAO和众多其他Web3项目的挑战。正如TheDefiant的一篇文章中所说，许多DAO只是复制了前人的系统，并没有去考虑这样的策略是否适合他们的项目。

鉴于DAO的数字化和去中心化性质，它们往往缺乏传统组织所享有的发达和高效的基础设施。许多DAO被要求在创办前创建自己的基础设施和工具，但这些工具大多都十分“古怪”。DAO在报告、财务管理、治理、薪酬、沟通和身份管理等方面缺乏适当的基础设施。如果没有合适的基础设施来管理，很多DAO将面临成员流失，缺乏凝聚力的问题。

在可扩展性方面，如果DAO是集中化的，并通过法人实体进行具体运作，那么它们将发展得更快。尽管有的制度有缺陷，但其建立是为了协调有共同经济利益的各方的决策。代币持有人对提案投票的零参与是DAO必须克服的另一个重大挑战。不活跃的代币持有人会对DAO的运作带来负影响。如前所述，尽管许多人可能会迅速决定投票赞成，但授权也会引起集中化的问题。一些DAO正在评估使用激励措施来解决这一问题——奖励活跃的代币持有人并惩罚不活跃的。

深入了解DAO工具

随着DAO和其他数字群体数量的持续增长，对加速DAO发展的基础设施和技术的需求也在不断增加。DAO工具使DAO能够克服上述提到的一些难点。

DAO技术的选择范围不断扩大，使我们能够有效地组织DAO、管理资金、调整激励机制、投票和回报贡献者，以促进这些项目生态系统的发展，并释放DAO的真正潜力。

DAO框架

开发或构建一个DAO的关键想法和原则是搭建一个可发展的最小可行社区（MVC）。涉及到构建DAO时，会有许多意料之外的与工作和设计相关的考虑。过去有许多技术已经简化了构建DAO的流程。然而，随着DAO的发展，原先的工具已然落后，产品迭代也将因此变得缓慢且繁琐。

我们都知道，类似初创公司这样的小组织的优势在于他们可以快速调整，快速行动。在没有规则和特定标准的情况下，人们确实可以在DAO领域引入MVC概念并尝试这种模式——既能保持运作的流畅性，又能快速看到结果。

Syndicate最近推出了社交网络协议Collectives。人们可以在无代码平台上轻松搭建他们自己的社区。由于它是基于ERC-721M标准（由Syndicate建立的ERC-721的扩展，M代表模块化）建立的，在整个空间内，它具有高度的可组合性和互操作性，甚至允许人们定制元数据，并根据每个集体的需要进行定制。模块化、可定制、可发展、可编程是他们构建集体的核心原则之一，这也与我们对未来DAO工具的愿景相吻合。

另一个专注于MVC概念的项目是Metropolis（前身Orca Protocol），他们把每个MVC表述为一个pod，并对整个项目重新命名，以强调每个工作的pod（muti-sig封装）如何连接和合作，从而形成复杂而强大的数字城市。

Aragon是一个DAO管理平台，它简化了各个组织的DAO创建和管理问题。Aragon提供了一系列的产品，从创建简单的DAO到与其他各种DAO应用的扩展，再到根据你的要求提供专家帮助。像Aragon这样的平台可以帮助创建者简单地建立一个满足其特定需求的DAO。另一个显著的特点是，它能够用一系列不同的DAO工具发展他们的社区和业务；Aragon与这些工具开展合作，以扩大在其平台上建立的DAO。

有了先开发MVC的概念后，DAO基础设施和框架工具就能给他们带来构建经验，从而不断优化并调整他们现阶段使用的必要工具，这一点非常关键。虽然不远的将来会有更多的DAO，但要意识到，建立一个新的DAO时，速度不一定是最重要的标准。我相信，适应性和流动性将是区别一个好的启动平台和一个想要搭建的平台的关键因素。

贡献者激励

就激励DAO的成员而言，根据贡献水平分配代币一直是奖励贡献者的最直接的方法。然而，更深层次地，我们还应该考虑个人发展，正如我们的问题陈述中提到的：虽然有许多DAO工具可以帮助财务管理和支付流，但是很少有认可个人贡献的DAO解决方案。

让我们先看看上述提到的一些财资管理和支付流工具，如Gnosis Safe、Utopia、Superfluid和Zebec Protocol。

财务管理层

Gnosis Safe是一个针对DAO的多签财务管理平台。多签国库对DAO来说并不罕见，它们为DAO在管理其组织的数字资产方面提供了灵活性。国库是DAO基础中最重要的方面之一，因此安全管理国库内的资金非常重要。在执行交易前，Gnosis Safe要求多个团队成员进行确认，从而防止组织资产的未授权访问。

Gnosis Safe还包括一些其他功能，分别是DeFi整合，增加隐私，以及添加其他数字资产，如ERC-721代币（数字艺术，ENS名称，游戏资产等）。

像Gnosis Safe这样的DAO工具使得DAO内链上交易更加安全并有效。还有许多其他的多签应用，如Exponent、Domo和Multis，它们也在努力实现类似的目标；然而，与这些平台接触后会发现它们比较相似：大多数都能兼容多链，用户界面清晰，有详细的资产和交易仪表盘以及核算分析。

支付/流媒体管理

由于DAO本身的去中心化性质以及大量贡献者不断地为DAO提供价值，奖励、付款和工资分配会变得杂乱无章。Utopia和SuperFluid都是DAO工具，能帮助DAO更有效地管理、简化和自动化支付流程。这些工具与Gnosis Safe等各种多签钱包兼容，并集成到DAO的流程中。

Utopia允许用户在发起付款前生成受款人（贡献者）/循环付款/请求列表（手续费gas由Utopia承担）。DAO还可以使用定期付款，根据贡献者的角色分类，并保留他们的历史贡献和报酬记录，并遵守税收法规（尤其在美国）。

Superfluid在本质上与Utopia类似，它引入了流支付的概念。流支付是一种基于预定时间的持续支付方式（例如，年付、月付、周付，甚至秒付）——在区块链上持续进行代币流通，不锁定资本，资金转账将无限进行，除非取消支付或发送者的账户余额耗尽，且现金流的速度也可以随时改变。

现在我们已经讨论了多签财务管理、薪酬自动化和流支付，以及实现这些操作的工具，接下来我们讨论一下Zebec协议。Zebec是一个全面的DAO资金管理平台，涵盖了上述所有功能。Zebec汇集这些工具的优势，使Solana链上的DAO可以在单一协议上执行所有的金融操作。此外，Zebec可以直接用法定货币汇入或者汇出，减少了频繁换汇的繁琐。

与其他产品相比，Zebec在功能上具有极大的优势，但我相信随着时间推移，其他平台也会采用相同的概念来扩展它们的功能和服务。

贡献/认可

除了贡献者的金钱利益外，我们还强调了认可不同DAO贡献者的贡献的重要性。这种DAO内部的认同感在团结社区和鼓励其他DAO成员努力为DAO提供更多服务上有不可思议的作用。这一节中，我们将看看任务管理/贡献者认可平台，如DeWork和CharmVerse。

Dework是一个Web3原生的项目管理平台。它包含了代币支付、认证和所完成工作的赏金。在这个平台，DAO可以明确定义他们的项目路线图和必须完成的任务。DAO还可为正在进行的计划提供背景，并吸引新的贡献者参与进来。同时，DAO可根据各种任务筛选申请人资料，并选择最合适的个人/团队。任务完成后，可以用任何形式的链上代币将赏金奖励给贡献者。除了金钱利益，贡献者完成的所有任务将被储存在链上的个人资料中，他们可以依此编写简历，让其他人了解他们为DAO所做的工作。

与Dework类似，Charmverse是一个Web3工作流运营平台，包括任务列表、赏金、文件和投票。团队可以给代币/NFT持有人创建代币门控小组，或者利用Moloch DAO协议邀请成员。CharmVerse还为DAO提供了治理工具，指导他们无缝完成社区提案过程的各个阶段——从制定提案的最初阶段到社区讨论以及投票阶段。

Dework的外观和感觉让我想起了Web2 DAO工具、Discord和Notion的结合。它对项目负责人和贡献者都很友好。我特别喜欢的一点是，贡献者可以根据他们的贡献获得成就徽章。CharmVerse和Dework都提倡通过 "工作证明 "（POAP）徽章来认可DAO的贡献者的价值。贡献者也能轻松地创建他们在链上的专业身份，特别是在DAO空间内，他们出类拔萃，其他人也会更容易地了解到他们的成就。

DAOU也是一个很有趣的新项目，它通过Soulbound Tokens（SBT）和Social Oracle，将DAO中的活动数据转换成链上可验证的数据。最近它们获得了ETH上海黑客松铜奖。通过利用 "Social Oracle"来激励DAO成员验证其他DAO成员产生的数据，从而提高数据的可信度。他们会根据每个成员的社会活动、参与度和总体贡献给他们打分，授予他们在DAO中的信誉；信誉可以用于DAO功能，如定向空投、白名单等。这个概念相当耐人寻味，因为它就像一个社会聚合器，帮助DAO发现他们的关键成员和贡献者。原则上是不可能对高质量的社交活动和信息数量进行区分的，即每小时用 "GM "向Discord发送垃圾邮件的人和定期贡献高质量内容的人。

DAO治理/投票

DAO的治理和投票过程是DAO涉及决策时的另一个关键点。最初，代币和股票是投票权的主要形式。后来，更多的DAO投票技术出现，以确保投票和治理仍然是分散的，并鼓励更多社区成员参与决策。Snapshot、Commonwealth和Tally是DAO治理和投票工具的代表，大面积地被使用在活跃的DAO中。

Snapshot是一个链外多治理客户端，无需手续费，它的特点是结果易于核实且难以争议。在计算投票的投票权方面，它具备一定的灵活性。Snapshot支持各种投票方法，能满足各种组织的需求。在Snapshot上创建提案和投票非常简单，因为这个过程是在链外执行的，因此不需要任何手续费。

从DAO所有者和成员的角度来看，Snapshot是用户友好型平台。由于空间创建过程仅需不到5分钟，因此DAO所有者可以快速而轻松地构建他们的治理模式。在投票方面，成员可以在Snapshot上编写他们的提案，设置开始和结束日期，并发布投票。投票发起人还可以选择投票方式，如单选投票、批准投票、四选一投票等，以满足DAO可能遇到的不同情况。

DAO成员也可以搜索他们喜欢的DAO，加入并参与他们有资格参与的任何投票过程。目前已有一万多个来自不同区块链的DAO加入了Snapshot，其中不乏一些较大的DAO，如Uniswap、Aave和ENS。

Tally.xyz 也是一个DAO治理平台，其工作方式与Snapshot相似，都有链外投票机制。Tally有趣的点在于它们的 "治理者合约"——这是一个开源智能合约，代币持有人可以通过链上投票来管理DAO。治理者合约负责处理DAO提案：跟踪提案的进展，并计算票数，看它们是否被批准。如果一个提案被批准，治理者会在链上执行提案。链上提案可以做任何事情，比如从国库转移资金，改变DeFi协议的参数，改变子DAO的权限，铸造NFT，或者改变治理者定下的规则。

治理者模式的最大好处在于DAO在链上做出所有的决定。由于智能合约在链上完成所有工作，投票者不需要依赖第三方来计算他们的投票或开展交易。DAO可以通过他们选择的应用接口与治理者互动，因为所有人都可以调用智能合约。

我相信这种治理者概念已经存在；如果没有，那它也会是下一个逻辑步骤。这种去中心和自主的方法能避免DAO内部的暗箱操控，达到全流程百分百透明，尽管刚开始可能会受到智能合约风险的影响。

DAO基础设施的出现

与Web3的其他方面相比，相对来说，DAO工具领域仍然是少有人涉足且落后的。为了运营大部分业务，目前运作的DAO大多依赖于传统平台，如Discord、Twitter，以及少数的Web3工具，如Gnosis（用于多签）和Snapshot（用于投票）。Web3 DAO工具并没有为现有的大型DAO提供有足够说服力的价值，使其改变原先的流程。

DAO工具领域比较碎片化，各种提议都集中在特定的问题和用例上。在我看来，这些项目之间缺乏明显的凝聚和可组合性，这也正是DAO工具计划没有充分利用的主要原因之一。当然，即使所有这些努力都对DAO有利，但其实际执行是否可以得到改善？

我们相信，随着DAO的数量和质量以指数级的速度增长，DAO的创建者和成员会需要更多的管理、扩展和贡献机制。因此对更复杂的DAO工具应用的迫切需求也会随之产生，从而推动下一个DAO工具的兴起。

尽管我们相信从长远角度看DAO tooling工具项目会成功，但是我们更主张方向上的改变，即从制造下一个伟大的DAO工具转变为构建适用所有DAO的基础设施。接下来将讨论一些关键收获，这些收获将有助于扩大DAO工具领域，并使其成为未来企业的典范；以及为什么我们说要构建基础设施而不是工具。

我们仍需要哪些类型的工具？

一般来看，相比于其他领域，在某些问题领域上会有更好的工具和更全面的功能。例如，在财务管理方面，Gnosis Safe、Multis等项目以及其他多签财务管理平台和支付流平台可以有效地管理DAO资产。同样，像Snapshot、Tally和Commonwealth这样的应用程序也有效地解决了DAO的投票和治理，尽管不完全是这样。

例如，在社区参与和DAO讨论平台方面，无疑需要更多的创新。目前，大多数DAO在Web2应用程序（如Discord、Telegram、甚至Slack）上开展这些活动。我们还没有看到任何满足这一基本DAO标准的Web3系统。如果有一个旨在管理、参与和奖励DAO社区的Web3解决方案，并且优于Web2的同类产品，那将是一件极大的好事。然而，很多人认为没有必要为discord/telegram设计一个替代方案，毕竟“东西没坏，就不用修”。

我们在寻找一个无关链上的DAO中心，使DAO能够执行从链上投票分析到链下社区交流的所有事情。不是说我们需要一个“放之四海而皆准”的解决方案，而是需要一个能够在不同DAO工具之间进行整合和协作的方案。想象一下：一个更加模块化的Aragon DAO入职流程，一个既适合Web3老手，又适合新手和领域探索的创造者的解决方案。如果有方法可以统一所有这些资源，并允许DAO像乐高一样构建他们自己平台，那就再好不过了。

从DAO工具到DAO基础设施

基于对所有这些不同项目的研究和实验结果，我们为未来的DAO基础设施汇编了一些见解和想法。

DAO应该优先考虑模块化设计，尽可能地实现灵活性、适应性和开源，以便像乐高一样集成到现有的DAO工具栈中。我们期望DAO能够进行模块化升级，类似于电脑，不需要更换整个系统。我们想看到的是DAO基础设施构建，而不仅仅只是工具。

不需要有包罗万象或通用的解决方案：DAO必须与他们的成员探索程序和框架，同时学习其他DAO和组织的经验。我们认为，每个社区都有独特的基础设施需求，因此需要灵活的可定制解决方案。

社区应该是无限的，可集体移动的。例如，公会就与集成化平台完全相反。我们的目标是在社区的所有平台之间提供实现互通，以便共享、协作和互动。

通过工具开发和使用周期，DAO工具始终会与DAO和DAO框架一起发展；当工具之间存在差距时，人们会开发更多的工具。鉴于此，OFR正在寻找朝这个方向努力的人。如果您知道有项目与此相符，请在Twitter上直接留言或给我们发邮件。

为DAO的未来，干杯!

此前，香港财政司所发布的《有关香港虚拟资产发展的政策宣言》一石激起千层浪，大家不禁再一次讨论起Web3创业地点。夏末的大理被称为“web3圣地”，F1期间热闹的新加坡也吸引了大量行业目光。11月3日，OFRTalk #14 有幸邀请到几位常驻香港、大理、新加坡的伙伴，一起聊一聊，Web3创业者何去何从。

🎙录音回放 https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1djxXlzOzyoxZ?s=20

请关注我们的推特

OFR Intern @ofr_intern https://twitter.com/ofr_intern

Old Fashion Research @ofrfund https://twitter.com/ofrfund

OFRTalk是由Old Fashion Research支持的语音访谈会系列活动。其愿景是成为社区导向型的开放类访谈，为听众带来不同角度的对各赛道的分享，以及深度的区块链内容研究，旗下投资的项目对话及热门话题的讨论，以帮助大家对行业有更深的认知。

OFRTalk所有的内容仅代表个人和嘉宾的看法，内容有时会包含我们的投资项目的介绍，不构成任何投资建议。欢迎大家关注OFR Intern及OFR的官方推特，及时获取开播信息。

OFRTalk #14 参与嘉宾

JX, Partner @OFRfund // @jx_block

Jerome, Co-founder @EVG_Ventures // @jerome_wong99

Chess, CEO @HogwartsLabsHQ // @cryptochessxyz

0xLeon, Founder @CSpaceOfficial // @Leoninweb3

Gigi Yip, Builder of Antalpha Labs // @realgigiyip

Jay, MetaportDAO // @Polaris_DAO

Jiang, 大理DAO Space Founder // @dali_web3

Goku很Cool, Web3资深Builder // @gokunocool

—————————————————————————————————————————

主持人: 请各位嘉宾作一下自我介绍，以及现在所在位置，为什么选择在各自的地区创业？

Goku：目前我们团队是分布式办公，我的合伙人在香港，我本人在内地，研发和marketing遍布在国内外。当前大的政策对我们这种配置齐全、资金压力不大的团队来讲，在哪里都一样。不管是香港还是新加坡，我认为大趋势很热闹的情况下，很多人会选择抱团，去更热闹的地方。但对我们这种中型团队来讲，我们的目标明确，知道自己想要什么东西，所有人都是认识很多年，协同很久了，所以在哪里都一样。我个人去年还在房车上办公了几个月。

Chess：我们现在主要在新加坡，做web3应用层的产品，比如Quest3和ShowMe。我们团队有办公室也有分布式的。

Jerome：我是Everest Ventures Group的合伙人，我们平时是base在香港。关于这次的政策可谓是非常的鼓舞，在本周的Fintech week我们也有几场演讲，我一会可以分享一下我个人的看法。

Jiang：我们是大理 DAO Space的负责人之一，我们在大理举办了今年的瓦猫之夏的活动。我在大理一年半的时间，去年开始做web3的事情，现在主要做的是去中心化的DNS解析服务，叫DDNS。我在大理这边，过去一年经历了非常多的变化。经历了疫情之后，大理这边比较放松自由，疫情封控情况非常地少。很多web3的从业者都选择了进入大理。我来到大理之后，发现这里还挺适合数字游民的。

Jay：我个人进入区块链行业很久了，在16-17年左右加入了比特大陆。今年我参加了瓦猫之夏，因为这个缘分我去到了大理，最后也留在了大理，allin进行web3的创业。我们就直接把整个团队从杭州迁移到了大理，在大理租了一栋楼，作为创业基地。

选择大理和web3创业的原因是，瓦猫大会让我看到了两个东西成熟了。第一个是技术条件的成熟，瓦猫大会上我跟很多人聊了很多关于web3模式的东西。以前区块链算是金融行业相关，现在web3也逐步成熟了，web3在我看来就是区块链加上了更多非金融属性的东西。第二个就是社会条件的成熟，也是我选择大理的核心原因。我在大理发现了很多自组织的社区和群体，还有很多尝试发起社区的人。他们不知道web3，但也在往这个方向走。DAO本身存在了很久，可能几百年都有这个想法的存在，web3通过token、NFT这些给DAO赋能。我见到有做教育、农业、各种各样的人，都觉得web3带来了巨大的机会和工具，给老的思想赋能新的价值。在大理本身的群体很多人都是一线城市脱离内卷跑到大理，进行各种各样的社区，比较厌恶中心化结构的。瓦猫大会发生在大理也算是偶然中的必然。在大理大大小小的几百个社群都是在以DAO的模式在运转。

JX：我目前在新加坡，可以跟大家分享一下不同地方的感受。我们主要是投早期的web3项目，有大概30-40个项目，很高兴跟创业者一起交流。

主持人： 香港政府表态要打造虚拟资产中心，香港对于Web3创业优势有哪些？不足有哪些？

Jerome：这次香港的宣言相信大家也读过了。在过去4年，香港金管局在监管crypto这块还是采取比较谨慎的态度，给交易所开放牌照也开的非常少。目前，只有两家拿到了牌照，一个是OSL，一个是HashKey。同时，牌照也是只给到accreditted investors，专业投资人，要证明自己的资产有大百万港币才可以去交易crypto。这一次的宣言其实是很大的一个政策性的改变，第一，加密货币的交易对散户开放。从监管的角度去看，这四年对投资者的教育越趋成熟。越来越多的机构投资人或者散户也对加密货币作为资产的种类是有很浓厚的兴趣的。所以，也到了一个他们认为拥抱技术、拥抱资产的拐点，要积极拥抱这块。

在香港创业的不足是监管上面的不明朗，有了这个宣言以后不明朗的地方还会有，监管要一步步来，但宣言也证明了政府有决心把香港打造成亚洲这边的crypto asset hub。香港这边人才还是比较缺失，精英的话都会选择从医或者做律师，很少人会去读计算机科学。在香港，码农几乎不存在，很少人会在IT行业打工，找合约工程师难度非常大。资金的话，香港相对来说还是比较充裕，创投资金比较多。国内的一些美元基金也会覆盖到香港。

优势的话就是宣言后接下来为机构化的资金流入这个行业做了很好的准备。机构如果想要买入一些加密货币或者进行一些关于加密货币的资产管理业务的话，监管也是不可或少的。这次宣言提到，政府对发行虚拟资产的产品，比如ETF，是持开放态度的，也会放行一些加密货币资管通行。此外还有关于稳定币的监管，有进一步地研究。对NFT、STO、绿色债券代币化、数码港元等等，这些也是一些利好的政策。未来，我对于香港致力于打造成为加密资产在亚洲的中心，我还是持非常积极的态度的。

主持人：香港不仅是有作为资本中心的优势，我也知道有一些香港local的项目，NFT和DeFi都有。在金融中心的地方，对金融有一些深刻认知的人，转去做DeFi应该是好上手一些的。我想请问一下Goku，从内地想润去香港创业，需要哪些条件？

Goku：我个人对去香港创业持比较悲观的态度。早期FTX和crypto.com都是源于香港的，而且是非常重量级的。早些年，大陆在加密货币行业这块最活跃，最有生气的地方，当年V神都得来国内融资。当年是不可能忽略大陆市场的。随着这几年大陆开始清退加密相关的产业之后，随着衰落的也有香港的这一波，主要的原因是香港失去了一部分大陆市场的依托。另一方面是欧美企业的快速崛起，成为最大的加密市场，无论是从个人投资额度的角度来讲，还是从资本方的实力来讲，差距还是蛮大的。加上疫情的原因，香港从自由和中立化，逐渐变得封闭和脱钩。有大量的加密企业的总部都从香港迁出。

就算香港开放了政策，它能找到市场依托吗？从中国大陆上来说，政策明确支持的是实体行业，不管说是北京那边为什么允许香港开放，可能是内外相互补助，但失去的东西很难再回来。大家都知道，政策也不是完全能保障从业人员去安心做一些事情的。这个宣言是比较难以说服我去到香港创业，从成本上来讲，去新加坡和去香港的成本是差不多的，显然新加坡会更有优势。前段时间的牛市，链游把东南亚的态势推起来，给市场带来了一波新的风气。在这波热潮中，香港也落后了很多。如果付出一样的成本和同样的圈层，选择新加坡会比香港更有优势。毕竟政策只是刚刚开始，如果我们今天讨论是在政策落地的五个月、半年后，我们再聊，可能会更落地一些。现在所有人只是听到了这个政策，还没有人牵头去落地。如果现在让我选，我会选择去新加坡。

主持人：香港vs. 新加坡，哪个城市对于web3创业者的发展更有潜力？

Chess：对于一个产品经理来说，香港和新加坡没有特别大的区别，主要看你出来的目的是什么。去香港和新加坡的大部分是以founder和钱居多，因为这些地方是不可能产生码农的，当一个地方的供给没有办法变成产业基地的话，最多只是有老板在这里。看你做的业务是什么，如果你是偏金融的话，比如DeFi，需要拉资金的业务，就比较适合。对我们这种做应用层，关注用户的创业团队来说，我现在在新加坡的唯一原因是离东南亚市场很近，另外文化和国内没有特别大的落差。我们现在主要focus在东南亚市场，2个小时的航程可以覆盖主要的东南亚国家。我认为新加坡的土壤不肥沃，没有办法去招募更多的开发者，成本极高，性价比极低。国内的团队，北上杭，你要求他们996都是没问题的。但凡让新加坡或者香港的团队996，他们会六点准时下班。这些地方的开发者大部分没有经历过国内传统互联网阶段的大规模用户的并发量的锻炼和实操，从供给量来讲，这里不适合作为供应链的基地，适合做分销商和渠道，更适合作为市场中心。web3的项目，应用层，我们不应该只满足于新加坡和香港，我们应该学麦哲伦，去开拓市场。新加坡和香港可以作为华人创业者的跳板，以这个为基础去发展更国际化的市场和更多的用户，这是我对我们自己的预期。对我来说，我没有这么大的政治上或者口号上的诉求。如果你做的是很native的东西，比如说公链或者是协议的，如果能去美国，最好还是去美国，环境是不一样的。新加坡给我的感觉就是，我认识很多有资源的人，但没有很多的idea和方向。

JX：新加坡没有dev的供给，本地大学比较少，市场也不够大，孕育不出技术人才。唯一我觉得两大能够孕育出闭环产业链就是中美，中国有庞大的本土市场和庞大的dev群体，美国也是这个情况。对于华人来说，由于中国的政策原因，不是一个理想的选项。美国的话，对中国出去的团队而不是当地的华人团队，其实也面临着一个适应的问题。在新加坡我们作为基金也有同样的感受，看到不光crypto fund，包括传统的web2 fund，包括对冲基金的团队都搬到新加坡，但更多是一个safe haven的概念，尽量规避政策风险。在未来半年一年，等疫情的影响变小以后，会有一部分基金和创业团队回到国内进行发展，这是我自己的判断。

主持人：大理成为了国内数字游民的热门目的地，可以分享下在大理做 Web3 创业的经历吗？现在大理的 Web3 builder氛围如何？

Harry：我们现在做一个基于社区的Hacker House，刚完成了一个为期三周的活动。我们的主要形式是在大理租一个house，把hacker运送过去，在里面住三周，一块讨论，目标就是产出一些好的项目。我们第一期大概有50个人报了名，最终17个通过，有14个去到现场，三周出来了11个项目。在这三周里面，面对面地沟通，一块打牌，一起聊到深夜，很容易成为朋友。对远程协作偶尔聚一下的团队，大理非常适合做这些事情。

主持人：我想要多了解一下，这些开发者都是来自于哪里，他们大部分是什么样的背景，有很强烈的在web3创业的意愿吗？

Harry：有的开发者是在空档期，有的是自由职业，有的是本身自己是创业的，有远程办公的，还有一些帮别人做项目的团队。

Jiang：现在创业团队在大理其实不多，但是由于大理旅游目的地的属性，会有web3从业者不断地经过、旅居，并定居在这里。在瓦猫之夏以后，有很多新的人来到这里定居，建立他们的据点，之后再接触web3，探索这个行业。这个社区在慢慢建立的过程中，现在规模还是挺小的。但大理的特质是很不一样的，这里有很多社区，这里做的web3项目会非常社区化和去中心化。这些人可能不是一个非常成熟的web2项目的founder，但会更接受去中心化的协作和组织的形式。这跟当地的社会气候是紧密相连的，做的事情比外面不那么传统。现在是在一个不断成长和沉淀的社区，特别是在瓦猫之夏以后，很多人本来是不了解大理这个城市，现在发现大理有很多吸引他们的特质。包括这次Hacker House的活动，很多人都是第二次回到大理来。

大理跟新加坡和香港不一样，是在一个很不一样的语境之下成为一个新的web3城市的，之前是没有科技属性和产业属性，恰巧是因为疫情之后大家习惯了远程工作，成为一个默认的工作配置，以及在疫情的封锁之下，大家会选择一个更加稳定、自由的地方，开始考虑中心城市以外的其他选项，大理就成为了这个选择。大理本身和数字游民和远程工作的特质相关，如果未来我们的工作生活和商业是全球分布，去中心化松散的协作的话，就会对工作地点有自己的选择权，大理是一个更舒适自由和更低生活成本的选择。社区自发形成的特质也影响对项目的特质。

主持人：如果把整个产品开发团队迁到大理，优势和不足有哪些？

Harry：具体要看团队的需要。但我们在这边举办两三期Hacker House之后可能就会离开，不会是一个一直待的地方。我们更倾向于分布式，大家远程办公。

Jiang：在大理招聘是很难的，但如果你有一个成熟的团队，还没有成家的成员比较多的话，是一个还可以的选项。来大理更多是自己自发的选择，为了追求更舒适的生活方式，更高的生产力，更高性价比的生活选择，它作为一个数字游民的城市，价格的优势是比较大的。如果你希望以一个非常低的生活成本去生活的时候，这时候大理的优势就体现出来。团队如果是在本地组建的话会有一些挑战。

主持人：怎么看 “创始团队在境外设立实体 & 融资，把产研团队放在境内” 的团队配置？

JX：这个跟团队性质有关。如果是做应用的话，团队在境内，如果政策风险可控，还是线下办公的效率会更高。如果考虑到风险，有一部分团队在海外，也是可以的。如果是做基础设施，或者比较讲究narrative的产品，比如中间件，还有一些不太明朗的赛道，欧美会比较好一点。不一定要所有团队都在那边，但要经常参与高质量的crypto活动，可能还是在欧美。线上交流是ok，但线下配合线上交流效率会更高。对基金来说，更好的产品还是在欧美或者学术圈比较多，这类产品更容易获得大机构的青睐。如果是TO C的应用，你的团队Background是让用户参考的一方面，产品是核心的要素。这个要看项目希望发展的路径去考量。

Jerome：如果是一个dAPP，类似于StepN的项目，在境外设立实体融资，把产品放在国内，这样的配置是比较合适的。如果需要做一些比较大的，争夺话语权的基础设施的话，当然他们还是可以把一部分团队放在国内，但基本上商业团队、运营、市场，尽量还是在海外，特别是在欧美这些地方。想要一个生态蓬勃发展的话，在这些地方会吸引更多开发者在上面开发。

对我们自己投资来说，我们也没有局限于某个区域，还是看项目本身，也不会care团队来自哪里。由于监管原因，我们还是更愿意看到融资主体是BVI或者是境外比较方便的实体，对项目方来说也是一个很大的便利。产研团队在哪，这个真的取决于团队本身的构建，以及项目本身的DNA。作为投资人来说，我不太会看团队在哪，主要还是看能否把项目完成和做大。

Chess：所有的战术都是为战略服务的，你想打哪里的市场，团队和资源就往哪边倾斜。如果你是一个及其native的创业团队，最好还是在欧美市场，那里有叙事最高的正统性，就跟好莱坞一样，主导了世界文化的方向。但如果你是做一个web2就存在过的问题，会用token、NFT、web3的方式去解决问题的话，还是要看你的主要市场在哪里。大家最早融资都是PPT，很容易出现你想做的事情和故事，和你的资金是错配的。你想讲一个很大的故事，但只融到了很少的钱，完全不够做这个事情，更不用说把团队搬出来了。现在在主流发达国家的生活成本都非常高，对初创团队是一个很现实的问题。

过去这个行业大部分的产品都是协议或者网页，它的结构和沟通的复杂程度其实是不高的。随着未来大家做游戏、应用、APP，工程难度和复杂难度，还有沟通频次都非常高。跨时区跨地域会对团队交流带来很大的隔阂。我们倾向的方式就是把团队分为前中后三个环节。前台就是典型的marketing+BD，会很local地去招人。中台一般是运营团队或者执行层，后台就是产研团队。中台一定要挨在一起，强配合，而且要更有经验，长期的磨合。对创业团队来说，去中心化是手段，不是最终目标。要考虑创业的目的是什么，怎么样能让事情效率更高，获得最优解，才是我应该怎么做。

其实过去对很多地区来说，不存在很多团队融资在境外，产品在境内的。比如说在香港和新加坡的大部分的创业团队，他们从一开始做的就是出口生意。过去中国互联网或者币圈，大家都要做出口生意，是因为本土生意做不了。国内的业务已经不太能搞什么事情了。国内过去最强的就是两个能力，一个是供应链的能力，一个是培养了大量的产品设计研发一条龙的供应能力。这个本来就是我们最强的东西，只不过是过去拿这些供应链生产的产品是往国内还是国外销售的问题，而这个问题在web3不存在，web3就应该往世界范围去销售。

** **

对于大部分的团队，怎么去磨合？我觉得在同一个时区还是挺重要的，沟通效率会很高。所以我觉得最重要的就是现决定你的市场要打哪里，再去把团队和资源向那边配合，而不是一开始就要决定在哪里，做什么事情。

作者: @bigfatpenguinQ (Analyst of OFR)

Advisor: JX (Partner of OFR)， Kathy (Partner of OFR)

主要结论：

1. 通常DEX交易量在市场不稳定时激增，bots上会发生更多的链上和CEX交易、清算 lending & leveraged 协议，甚至恐慌性抛售。一般情况下这种现象只会持续几天，随着市场趋于稳定，交易也会随之稳定。不足以说明用户正流向DEX。

2. Binance这次危机中抓住了机遇，通过$BUSD stable cin、零交易费计划(zero-trading fee program)以及揭露行业骗局等方式，抢占了85%的市场份额。这不是件坏事，反而，它有助于加密货币空间的去杠杆化，帮助聚合市场流动。

3. 即使市场大环境看跌，仍旧有可以抓住的机会和值得学习的教训。

回顾:

过去的两周可以说是充满了震惊、不相信和背叛。FTX暴跌并破产。最不敢想的事情不仅发生了，还是48小时内发生的。当我们自诩“透明”并为之得意时，管理不善、不够透明...所有的这些丑陋，不吝于这个行业的最大讽刺了。但，我们真的倒下了吗？

虽然从短期看，这对行业来说是净负面影响，但部分投资者却有不同的看法。让我们深入了解一下!⛏🐧⛏

DEX成交量激增：短暂的热度还是长稳的交易？

FTX破产后，用户对CEX的信心已经降到了历史最低点。由于担心破产，大量资金从Crypto.com和Gate.com等CEX撤出。用户要么把资金转移到更安全的交易所，如Binance，要么转移到个人的own-chain wallet，从而防止资金被挪用。部分投资者有不同看法，他们认为，DeFi一直称自己是去信任化、去授权化且完全透明。基于这种说法，人们押在了CEX到DEX的范式转移上。一些DeFi代币并没有受到近期市场暴跌的影响，甚至在暴跌之后仍然保持坚挺，像$DYDX和$GMX，甚至在FTX破产后上涨了约25%。

此外，DEX的交易量再次飙升，进一步证实了这一趋势，特别是在11月的8~10日，DEXs的交易量达到了120亿美金。

我们来进一步看下8-10日的真实情况。回过头看，我们可以发现当时$FTT还在守在22上。之后它承受不住大量抛售带来的压力，开始下跌。跌幅大到像是在坐跳楼机，先是从22美元跌到16美元，之后的2天内从16美元跌到3美元。实际上，$BTC和$FTT之间存在价格相关，当时$BTC在2天内也从2万美元跌至1.6万美元，跌幅约25%。从下图中，我们可以看出其相关性几乎达到100%。

此外，$BTC仍然是市值龙头，因此它的涨跌也是其他替代币（altcoin）的趋势指向。很多庄家也利用$BTC和$ETH的价格变动来调整他们在CEX和DEX的替代币调配。因此，$BTC下降25%对替代币的价格也造成了影响，市场不稳定时更甚。链上和CEX上都出现了恐慌性抛售、清算（永久合约、保证金、借贷协议，如Compound、Aave）等等。这里值得注意的是，由于市场不稳定，CEX和DEX上所有的币都有很大的价格差异，因此套利bots利用其自身优势，在CEX和DEX之间进行大量的MEV交易并获利，进而推动了DEX交易量的上升。

为了进一步证明，我们可以回顾一下2021年5月19日的那次暴跌，当时DEX的交易量随着市场的波动而激增，但随着市场的稳定，DEX的交易量瞬间下降到之前的水平，大约为每天20~30亿美元。类似的模式也出现在$BTC的交易中，有近100%的相似性和关联性。

最后，我们需要确认是否只有DEX交易量激增，因为无法证明上文的关联性和波动性与交易模式改变是否相关，所以我们需要对比交易量的趋势来确认。

根据CoinMarketCap的历史数据，$BTC的交易量在11月8日到10日之间达到了新高--日均1000亿美元（DEX的交易量约为120亿美元）。之后，交易量稳定在300亿美元左右，这与DEX交易量从120亿美元到20~30亿美元的变化类似。由此可得出结论，DEX交易量激增的原因在于市场波动、价格相关性、套利、清算，最重要的是恐慌性抛售。不幸的是，尽管我个人很看好DEX，但整体看下来DEX没有大的变化。

综上我们可知DEX不是赢家，那么谁才是那个赢家？到底发生了什么？让我们继续深挖！🐧

不浪费任何一场危机，Binance如何利用危机获利？

Churchill曾说过，千万不要浪费每一场危机。今年$luna~$ust的暴跌，接着3AC的覆灭，给这个行业到来了毁灭性的打击。最明显的变化就是许多散户投资者对这个行业失去了信心，随之而来的就是交易量和流动性的下降。交易量减少意味着交易所的收入减少，特别是二级和三级交易所。然而，作为领头交易所，Binance却有不一样的动作。

Luna和3AC暴跌后，Binance很快宣布针对比特币现货交易实行零费用计划（Zero-fee trading）。公告中可见，Binance立即对$ETH和其他几个trading pairs实行了零交易费。零交易费计划看起来是对交易者的慷慨解囊，但本质上，该策略是为了从其他交易所获取用户，并在熊市时期给其他交易所带来又一次巨大的打击。试想，如果能在Binance享受到零交易费带来的最佳流动性，散户何必要在其他交易所交易呢？而如果其他交易所效仿这一举措，他们的收益肯定会减少；如果不效仿，就很可能面临用户流失。如此一来，Binance进一步地扩大了市场。而且我们必须注意到，尽管加密货币交易所被戏称为赌场，但赌场本身也有运营成本（服务器、营销、工资等），如果无法从交易费中获得足够的收入，交易所本身也可能面临亏损。

Binance同时也计划收购$BUSD稳定币(stablecoin)。这个故事听起来很熟悉，交易BUSD永久合约时提供折扣，在他们做Binance Launchpad的时候，提供BUSD赌注池，比如最近的$HFT。最重要的是，除了USDT外，Binance将所有其他的稳定币交易对退市，并自动将它们转换成BUSD进行交易。也就是说，除了$USDT和$BUSD之外，所有其他稳定币用处都不大，以此来扩大$BUSD的市场份额。

最后，CZ在公开市场出售$FTT，并叫嚣其他交易所可能不安全这件事给FTX带来了致命的打击。关于FTX破产的其他消息，我相信大家都很了解。然而，为什么CZ会在这个时间点上做这件事？如果你看过Voyager的资产负债表，那么答案呼之欲出。从9月份报道的新闻看： 

** ***“根据周一的文件，Voyager将归还支持贷款的1.6亿美元抵押品，包括FTX的465万个加密货币FTT和6375万个SRM（Serum）代币。.”* 

FTX是Voyager破产的最高出价人，因为Voyager持有大量的$SRM和$FTT，如果FTX不收购Voyager，Voyager将不得不自己或由其他买家清算资产。尽管当时$FTT和$SRM代币只值9位数左右，但由于在熊市中流动性枯竭，一旦这些代币被抛出，至少会蒸发掉10位数的价值。所以FTX不得不收购Voyager以保护$SRM和$FTT价格。他们保护$SRM和$FTT的原因很明显，用$FTT和$SRM作为抵押进行借贷。如果$SRM和$FTT价格下跌，他们就必须支付大量贷款，引起借款人的担忧，如此一来，FTX估计会比我们想象中的要破产得更快。. 

Binance也是Voyager的潜在买家，他们可能刚从Voyager的资产负债表中发现SBF的花招。Biance通过公开出售$FTT并指出FTX的漏洞，警告用户小心其他交易所；这样一来，用户就会把资金转移到自己的钱包，或极有可能放到最大的交易所--Binance中。

** **让我们看看这些举措的成果：Binance的市场份额已经从6月的60%左右上升到现在的85%，并于10月再次上涨，从原先的80%涨到11月的85%，而DEX的交易量则保持在同一水平；BUSD的市值和交易量也在稳步增长，从今年5月的10%跃升至目前的16%，成为唯一一个在熊市中市场份额仍然增长的稳定币。

此外，Glassnode的数据显示，所有主要交易所在最近一个月都经历了大量的BTC流出，但Binance是一个例外，这一期间它的BTC储备依旧在增长。

当熊市来临，四面危机时，Binance正在抓住机会收购市场，他们也的确抓住了机会并实现了从其他流入Binance的完美范式转移。 

结语:

Binance就像是没穿衣服的皇帝，在熊市中获得市场份额不一定是件坏事。一方面，虽然代价很大，但Binance在情况恶化之前就阻止了可能让更多人受害的骗局，而且它在整个市场爆跌之前就去杠杆化了。另一方面，它将资金流动集成在一个user-friendly的市场平台上，避免价格因市场无效而失真，特别是在资金退出和流动性危机出现的熊市中。对于一个以盈利为目的的企业来说，这些措施的确很成功。

本文旨在指出：即使是市场低迷时期，也总有机会可以抓住，我们也可以从中吸取教训。从风险投资的角度来看，当机会出现时，估值将从FOMO模式中得到纠正并被合理化。你会更加专心，且有更多的时间去寻找有才华的团队，真正的强者会留下来并继续磨练。而这个周期得到的最大教训是，所有庞氏骗局都是在误导，当潮水退去时才知道谁在裸泳。

尽管从CEX到DEX的范式转移还没有发生，但我看好Defi，并认为它将继续蓬勃发展，并在某一天彻底推翻CEX。我期待能在以下方面看到新的项目: 

     高度复合，或无缝解决方案从而对链上零散的流动性实现价值最大化

     提供信贷或部分抵押的借贷方案

     现实世界资产代币化解决方案，包括虚拟资产和非流动性资产，如不动产. 

以上内容均为本人对所观察到的信息的推断，希望您能喜欢。若您有任何意见或看法，请联系我 或者 @ofrfund，我们可进一步探讨交流 🐧🐧🐧! 

English Version, A paradigm shift from CEX to DEX as FTX goes bankrupt?

** **

Author: @bigfatpenguinQ (Analyst of OFR)

Advisor: JX (Partner of OFR)， Kathy (Partner of OFR)

Key Takeaways

1. A surge in the DEX volumes usually happens when the market becomes volatile and causes more transactions from bots arbitraging between on-chain and CEX, liquidation in different lending & leveraged protocols, and panic selling. This usually will only last a few days and will stabilize when the market solidifies. It doesn't necessarily mean users are turning to DEX.

2. Binance takes over 85% market share by seizing the opportunity in the crisis, through the $BUSD stable coin, Zero-Trading fee program, as well as call-out for industry scams. And it doesn't mean a bad thing as it helps to deleverage the crypto space and aggregate the market liquidity.

3. Even when the market is bearish, there is always some opportunity to seize, and some lessons for us to learn from.

Let's recap:

The past few weeks were filled with shock, disbelief, and betrayal. FTX crashed and went bankrupt. The mismanagement, the lack of transparency, and the ugliness of it all became extremely sarcastic in an industry where ‘transparency’ is the main narrative. Are we down bad?

Though in the short term this is a net negative for the industry, some investors have a different take. Let's dig in! ⛏️🐧⛏️

DEX Volume Surged? Fad or Real Deal?

Confidence in CEX has reached an all-time low following the FTX fallout. Massive funds pulled off from CEX like Crypto.com and Gate.com due to insolvency concerns. Those funds either moved to safer exchanges like Binance or moved to their personal own-chain wallets to protect their funds from being misappropriated. The different take from some investors is that the DeFi narrative is always about trustless, permissionless, and transparent. Based on this narrative, people are betting on a paradigm shift from CEX to DEX. Some DeFi tokens were not harmed by the recent market plunge but even remain intact after it. For example, both $DYDX and $GMX gained around 25% after the incident.

In addition, DEX trading volume spikes again further confirming the trend, especially on the 8th, 9th 10th of November, DEXs reached their trading volume at $12b.

But let’s dig into what was really going on on the 8th~10th. If we looked back, we could see that just the time that $FTT was still defending at 22. Then, it crashed due to the massive selling pressure. And it plunged like water fell from $22 to $16, then from $16 to $3 within 2 days. In fact, there was a price correlation between $BTC and $FTT, when $BTC dropped around 25% from $20k to $16k in 2 days at the same time. From the chart, we could see a nearly 100% movement correlation.

Furthermore, $BTC is still the dominator in the market cap, so its movement will act as a trend indicator for other altcoins. Lots of market makers also use $BTC and $ETH price movement to adjust their alternative coin position in both CEX and DEX. Hence, this 25% drop in $BTC price also impacted altcoins price especially when the market condition was volatile. There was panic selling, liquidation (Perpetual contract, margin, lending protocols like Compound, Aave), etc happened both on-chain and CEX. Last but not least, there was a great price difference for all coins between CEX and DEX as the market turned volatile so arbitrage bots also took advantage to do lots of MEV transactions and profit between CEX and DEX, hence driving the DEX trading volume higher.

To further prove the theory, we can look back to the crash on 5/19/2021, when DEX volume surged as the market became volatile, but as the market stabilized, the DEX volume instantly dropped to the previous level, at around $2~$3 billion per day. A similar pattern appeared in the $BTC trading volume, with a nearly 100% correlation.

Lastly, we want to know whether this is only the DEX volume surging because of the paradigm shift and not about the correlation and volatility, so we need to check the trading volume trend to confirm this.

According to the historical data from CoinMarketCap,  $BTC transaction volume displayed a new high at a daily average of $100 billion between Nov 8th and 10th (DEX’s volume was around $12b). After that, the trading volume stabilized at around $30b, which is similar to the DEX volume movement from $12b to $2~$3 b. We can conclude the reason for the DEX volume surge is market volatility, price correlation, arbitrage, liquidation, and above all, panic selling. Unfortunately, though I am a DEX believer myself, the DEX fundamentals haven’t changed.

Now that DEX isn’t the winner, then who is it? What happened? Let’s dig deeper!🐧

Never waste a crisis, how did Binance leverage the crisis in its favor?

Like Churchill said, never let a good crisis go to waste. This year we had $luna~$ust crash, followed by 3AC’s demise, and both left a devastating hit to the industry. The most obvious change is that lots of retail investors lost confidence in the industry, hence the fall in trading volume and liquidity. Lesser trading volume means lesser revenue for exchanges, especially for tier 2, and tier 3 exchanges. However, Binance, as the leading exchange, reacted differently.

After the Luna and 3AC crashed, Binance soon announced Zero-fee trading for Bitcoin spot trading pairs.  From the announcement, we can find out that Binance subsequently applied zero-trading fees on $ETH and several trading pairs. The zero-trading fee program seems like a treat to traders,  in fact, this is a tactic to acquire users from other exchanges and give other exchanges another deep hit in bear market conditions. Imagine, why would retail traders want to trade in other exchanges if they can enjoy the best liquidity with zero fee at Binance? If other exchanges follow this zero-fee move, they will surely have less revenue, if they don’t follow it, then they’ll likely lose users from Binance. Then Binance further gains traction in the market. Crypto exchanges, though often teased as casinos, have operational costs including server, marketing, payrolls, etc, and even casinos would bear a loss if they couldn’t gain large enough earnings from transaction fees.

Another market Binance plans to acquire is their $BUSD stablecoin. The tactic is pretty similar, offering discounts when trading in BUSD perpetual contracts. Offer BUSD staking pool when they are doing Binance Launchpad like the recent $HFT one. Most importantly,  Binance delisted all other stablecoin trading pairs, except for BUSD and USDT, and automatically converted other stablecoins to BUSD into trading. This means that all other stablecoins besides $USDT and $BUSD are less useful and the $BUSD market share will be magnified.

Finally, CZ’s open market selling $FTT, and calling out other exchanges might be unsafe brought a fatal blow to FTX. For the rest of the FTX bankruptcy story, I believe everyone is well-versed. However, why would CZ do it at this time? If we take a look at the Voyager balance sheet, the answer seemed pretty clear. From the news reported in September,

*          “According to the Monday filing, Voyager will return the $160 million in collateral           that backed the loan, including 4,650,000 of FTX’s cryptocurrency FTT and           63,750,000 SRM (Serum) tokens.”*

FTX is the highest bidder for the bankruptcy of Voyager, since Voyager holds massive amounts of $SRM and $FTT, if FTX doesn’t acquire Voyager,  Voyager will have to liquidate the asset they own for bankruptcy by themselves or by other buyers. Even though $FTT and $SRM tokens were only worth around 9 figures at that time, as in the bear market liquidity dries up, once those tokens were dumped it would wipe out at least 10 figures of value in the paper. So FTX had to acquire Voyager to protect $SRM and $FTT price. The reason for them to protect $SRM and $FTT is obvious they use $FTT and $SRM as collateral to borrow money out of thin air. If $SRM and $FTT prices drop, they will have to pay lots of loans, as it might raise the borrower's concern, and probably FTX will go bankrupt sooner than we think.

Binance is also a potential buyer to Voyager, and they might just find out SBF’s tricks from Voyager’s balance sheet. Through openly selling $FTT and pointing out the FTX hole, warning users to be careful about other exchanges, the other user would pull their funds out to either their own wallet or very possibly put it into the biggest exchange, Binance. ** ** Let’s see the result of these moves. Binance’s market share has already gone up from around 60% in June to 85% as of now, and also a drastic surge from October's 80% to November’s 85% while DEX volume remained at the same level.  The measure has resulted in a steady increase in the BUSD market cap as well as transaction volumes in the stablecoin market, jumping from 10% in May this year, to 16% today, becoming the only stablecoin that still grows its market share in the bear market.

Also, according to data from Glassnode, all major exchanges experience massive BTC outflow in the recent month. However, Binance is the exception that still grows its $BTC reserved during this period.

While the crisis surrounds the bear market, Binance is seizing the opportunity to acquire the market, and they nailed it, completing the paradigm shift from everything else flowing into Binance.

Clothing thoughts:

Binance pointed out that the emperor was without clothes, and acquiring the market share in a bear market isn’t necessarily a bad thing. For one thing, painful as it is, Binance stopped scams involving more people getting hurt before it worsens, and it deleverages the whole market before it explodes worse. On the other hand, it aggregates liquidity in one user-friendly marketplace and that will keep the price from distortion due to market inefficiency, especially in a bear market where funds exit and liquidity crises arise. For a profit-driven centralized corporation, these measures have proven successful.

The purpose of this analysis is to point out that even during a market downturn, there is always an opportunity to seize, and the lessons we can learn from it. From a VC perspective, the opportunity appears in that the valuation will be corrected from FOMO mode and be rationalized. And there will be less noise, and more time to seek out talented teams, as the real builders will stay and keep grinding. The biggest lesson from this cycle is that every Ponzi will be proven wrong and will not survive (dies in a sudden way) when the tides fade away.

Even though the paradigm shift from CEX to DEX has not yet happened, I am expecting the whole Defi continues to thrive and overturn CEX someday, and looking forward to seeing projects building in the following segments:

• Highly composable, or seamless solutions to utilize on-chain fragmented liquidity.

• Credit offering, or lending in partially collateralized solutions.

• Tokenized real-world assets solution, including virtual and physical illiquid assets like real estate.** **

The above content is my observation and deduction based on the information found, hope you would enjoy it. Feel free to reach out to me or @ofrfund for discussion, all ideas are welcome 🐧🐧🐧!

[Recap] OFR Talk #16 - Ultimate #SAFU Crypto Wallet Guide After the FTX crash 

🎙Recording https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1BRJjZaadQQJw

Follow us on Twitter

OFR Intern @ofr_intern https://twitter.com/ofr_intern

Old Fashion Research @ofrfund https://twitter.com/ofrfund

OFRTalk is a Twitter Space series supported by Old Fashion Research. Its vision is to become a community-oriented open interview, bringing audience sharing of each sector of the crypto industry from different angles, as well as in-depth blockchain content research, project dialogues under its investment, and discussions on hot topics, to help everyone develop a deeper understanding of the industry.

All contents of OFRTalk only represent the opinions of individuals and guests. The contents sometimes include the introduction of our investment projects, which do not constitute any investment advice. Please follow OFR Intern and OFR's official Twitter to get the updated information in time.

Guests

JX, Partner @OFRfund // @jx_block

Veronica Wong, CEO & Cofounder @iSafePal // @V_SafePal

Wei Zhou, CEO @coinsph // @thedaoofwei

Lee Hsuan, CEO & Co-founder @BloctoApp // @hleetw

Minh, Head of Growth @coin98_wallet // @hominh95

Time & Date

Wednesday, Nov 16 @1:30 pm UTC

—————————————————————————————————————————

Host: It’s been a crazy week. What’s your take on the FTX “bank run”? Do you think it’s good for your business? Any significant growth in your user base recently? 

Veronica: We’ve seen crazy growth recently and the traction is roughly 10x. We’re seeing a crazily high conversion that is basically one of the top levels compared to last year in the bull market. It’s surprisingly good but also quite sad to see that because it was not until this moment that people are losing money that they finally learned the lesson of why decentralization and owning their money matters. 

Partially it’s good for our business, and for everybody who joins tonight’s chat. It’s also good for other exchanges and decentralized platforms like DEXes and wallets. But overall for the industry, it’s quite bad because people outside the ecosystem are losing faith and confidence. And there will be a painful cleansing process of the market right now. Good thing is that the silver line is we are going to see more transparency and decentralized focus and narrative on the market, which is great and what it was meant for. It’s a double-sided thing here. Overall, it’s crazy. Until this moment we just launched a campaign like 2 min ago for this specifically because we want to bring some light and confidence in. We want to encourage the new crypto users to gain their confidence back by walking them through the decentralized journey. 

Minh: We do see quite a significant growth in the active user base. It definitely happens especially when people are trying to withdraw from centralized exchanges like FTX to non-custodial wallets like us. This may have a negative impact on the industry, but in the long run, we have a positive effect. It will help drive the industry forward with transparency and we view this as DeFi’s endgame. This is how we see it. As for the token price, for us as builders it’s fun to see the price going up and down, but the price shouldn’t be one thing that we care about right now. We should focus more on serving the users which have been increasing a lot lately.

Wei: Historically, most of the assets in the crypto space stayed on regulated exchanges. On the left hand, we have regulated exchanges like Coinbase and Kraken in the U.S that are leading the way. On the other hand, we have decentralized wallets whose custodies are looking at the users and are acting on the interface, with MetaMask and so on. Most assets sat in the middle, in the gray area. The gray area has a lot of mishaps and criminal activities that have occurred. 

Right now, from the user’s perspective, both the institutional users and individual or retail users, start to move their assets to both sides of the equation. I don’t think the Philippines is a country that has been impacted that much by FTX recently, compared to some of the more developed countries where their messages in their region are probably bigger. 

Holistically, we’ve seen people moving their assets either to regulated businesses, where we have clear regulations on how assets are custodied. We also see assets moving to the decentralized world. We originally have the assets in the middle, but now they are dispersing onto the two sides. This trend will continue.

Hsuan: For this particular incident, we’re sitting on the sideline because Blockto is more for using applications than trading. Our users focus more on playing games, using social apps, and NFTs. These are not the most affected people in this incident. But we do see quite some growth in assets stored with us. 

We’re afraid that at least the short-term impact or mid-term impact will be negative towards the market in general, especially on their perception of crypto and blockchain. The industry spent quite some time building up trust in these newer kinds of assets. Now, everyone including my family members is asking me if my business was affected or not. If they have read about the incident, which I’m sure that many of the population have, it’s hurting the trust in the space quite a lot. It will take some time for us to rebuild trust again and get more users into crypto and blockchain.

Host: The FTX crash has rung an alert on the non-transparency and insecurity of all centralized trading platforms. What would be a more secure and practical way for each investor to store their crypto assets?  

Minh: Most of the non-custodial wallets have definitely been the hot topic recently due to this incident. We can see people guiding the users to withdraw their funds to non-custodial wallets. There is also a trade-off. It can be quite technical for the new users since they might not know about the seed phrase, the keys, etc. We have to strongly focus on user education right now, along with telling them that they should be using wallets. Maybe they want to do this but it’s too much for them. Once you get through non-custodial wallets, I would definitely suggest you use a hardware wallet, like Ledger and Trezor. If you’re using such wallets already, it’s much better in security. By then, you can just use the hardware wallet to connect with any hot wallet as a UI. That will be the best and most secure way I can think of right now if you don’t want to store your funds on a centralized exchange. 

I only put my holdings in a hardware wallet, while all my regular assets are in a hot wallet. Before, I put them on an exchange, too. It depends on what type of user you are.

JX: I don’t use hardware that often but I do recommend everybody use one instead of a hot wallet. Only put those valuable assets in your hardware wallet or cold wallet. I’m expecting a better solution, being either regulated or abstract account dual, etc. 

Hsuan: I do use a hardware wallet. I stored the majority of my assets or the assets I don’t really have to use every day, like NFTs and other FTs. But I do have a portion of assets stored in hot wallets, and a smaller portion in exchanges. Personally, I don’t trade much. The time I put assets into exchanges is when I want to withdraw my bank. Although we’re focusing more on newbie users, in our App and newsletters, we always educate users that once they have more assets stored in your Blockto wallet, you might need to look into hardware wallet solutions, like Ledger, Trezor, and SafePal. If you are storing a large amount of assets, hardware wallets are definitely the way to go.

Veronica: The majority is still using hot wallets and mobile wallets. Right now, we serve three types of wallets already so we do have a sense of the metrics and geo-distribution. The majority is still using mobile wallets while hardware wallets roughly take up 20-30% of the user base. The geo-distribution of users is quite different and interesting. For example, most of the hardware wallet users are from North America and Europe, whereas users from Southeast Asia favor mobile wallets. Probably they need more flexibility in investing in DeFi or participating in GameFi. We’re seeing different behavior models, and overall as a complete user base like mobile wallets still would be the majority. It’s indeed more convenient to use.

But recently, we are seeing booming sales volume conversion for our hardware wallets. It might be that all of a sudden people realize that it’s quite important to have their physical devices storing a large amount of assets in an offline manner. It’s an educational process honestly. Ever since day 1 in 2018, there was a very small proportion of OG who were using hardware wallets and now it’s becoming a standardized accessory for more people. That’s also the reason why we try to build the most affordable wallets for the crypto users, because we want to make it a standardized accessory for everyone to hold crypto on a daily basis.

Host: When it comes to wallet creation, memorizing and storing seed phrases has been a headache for many users. What’s your thought on this? Are there any easier ways to generate or recover a wallet without using a seed phrase?

Veronica: Right now, there is some new technology that we are looking into. For example, private key sharding and NPC, so that we can do social recovery for the users, and also account abstract as part of the technical elements here. The whole idea is to try to separate your private key into different pieces and store one piece of them on a centralized server, such as connected to your Google or Facebook account so that you can recover a piece of it and then you can shadow or stimulate the signing process of your transaction. You can set up a different logic to authorize different transactions. The overall concept is like this. 

But for now, it’s not massively adopted yet. The seed phrase model is still the most popular thing of all crypto wallets that are being used. Honestly, for onboarding purposes, it’s 100% terrible. I taught so many of my friends that have been using wallets already and some of them are very smart people working in big tech companies, and they can’t really figure out how to use them properly. The onboarding process is a pain point. I believe in the future that seed phrases are going to be killed, and there will be a way better solution to address the issue. There are also a lot of other products or projects, or even GameFi and Metaverse projects are also trying to eliminate the onboarding hurdle of so-called private keys and seed phrases, to make the Web3 experience as seamless and smooth as Web2 products. This would be the next touch point if we are to see the bull market coming. The next bull market will be surrounded by applications and attracting the next generation of internet users into the space.

Minh: There are definitely options like NPC wallets or smart contract wallets. Again, it’s coming back to the trade-off that I mentioned before, between security and convenience. It depends on what type of user you are and you have to choose based on that. Some wallets out there are tightly focusing on NFTs. They started out as a smart contract wallet and the users don’t have to care about seed phrases where they can use social recovery, etc. It’s a good way to import more users for sure. But then again it depends on what type of user you are. 

Hsuan: We are aiming to build an experience for both of the guests described. We’re a smart contract wallet and provide a mixed custodial solution. We guide the users in a more step-by-step approach. We think this is the onboarding journey that makes more sense. When users just started, since they don’t have any assets in their wallet yet, they might not need to worry that much about whether they are holding private keys themselves. They don’t have the incentive or the need to actually do that. If you’re forcing users to do that since day 1 then they might just quit and decide not to use blockchain-based applications again.

We think the journey should start with a more lightweight custodial experience. Once users accumulate more assets in their wallets, they might start to learn more about blockchain and holding their own keys. They should then have the option to switch to a non-custodial experience. With smart contract wallets, you can achieve that, to replace the ownership from the key you manage for them with the key that they generate locally in a similar way as Metamask. Or they can even use their hardware wallets to manage the original smart contract wallet we created for them. From our perspective, this is a more complete journey and step-by-step approach to getting more users on board. Other approaches like multi-party computation or social recovery are the things that we should definitely look into to get this experience as secure and robust. People don’t really need to worry about losing all their assets if they lose their seed phrases.

Wei: Wallet is going to be the next big investment space. For us, we’re actually exploring the possibility of embedding a decentralized wallet within decentralized access. If we look at the Philippines specifically, it hasn’t been impacted that much by the FTX incident like it’s not a very wealthy country. A lot of the user balances are just not that much. What happened in this situation is that the whales got hit because everybody uses FTX as a crypto bank. That’s the biggest use case for Binance as well. 

The biggest takeaway here is that you shouldn’t trust a crypto bank if it’s unregulated. When you’re signing in your users’ terms of use with us, this is an entity that is regulated by a central bank or in different countries such as Singapore. There is recourse. As users of FTX, you realize that they’re signing entities in Antigua. As a user, you have no recourse in terms of going after that entity on your own. That’s the balance that wallets have to figure out how to have a good user experience, but also ensure safety at the same time. For new users who actually don’t have that many assets or they’re just coming in to play games and earn, there’s actually safety and ease of use. A smooth onboarding experience is much more important than just full-on hardcore NPC security and safety. For larger types of assets, where you do actually want custody, there are a lot of unique solutions. I think the subset of users is probably smaller. That’s the fastest growing segment because people realize the importance. This is my second big cycle, and every cycle the usage of decentralized wallets grew because people lost their assets in these offshore centralized businesses. That balance is something that we as builders or entrepreneurs have to figure out, like what’s our target market, and how do we go after them. For Coins, we have to make it easy for you to get into crypto and get out of crypto from a fiat perspective. We’re building products that actually allow you to spend your crypto in the real world. PH is one of the few countries where you can actually just seamlessly move money from your wallets into Coins and purchase crypto. With the ease of use, for larger users with larger amounts of money, we’ll manage them because we have custody and we are a custody provider.

JX: I believe the account abstract could offer a process for keeping the assets safe. For account abstraction, it’s more like the next generation of smart contracts. But basically, you have a lot of advantages like you can restore your password and you can enable any social recovery. Providing this kind of experience seamlessly is very close to what Web2 applications do. But the technology infrastructure is not mature yet, we may need a lot of work. 

Secondly, it requires a lot of gas costs. Nothing is without cost, for AA, it sacrifices its cost-effectiveness, but provides a more user-friendly experience. I’m pretty bullish in this direction, but I also believe that different users will prefer different hierarchies or priorities on how they preserve their assets. Centralized ones, especially the regulated ones, have some advantages over the user experience and customer services. For the decentralized or the wallet ones, there’s a lot of room to improve. If the decentralized wallets can seamlessly be touched base with dApps and payment, I’m really looking forward to seeing that crypto wallets can be massively adopted.

Usually, there are three levels that you have to sacrifice the ease of use of security, such as the seed words, you have to write it down and keep it somewhere, for example, a bank. It eventually goes back to the trust of centralized banks again with bankless crypto.

Host: Some crypto wallets have integrated into CEX’s liquidity using APIs. Are there any security concerns if users connect their self-owned crypto wallets to trade at a centralized exchange? 

Minh: API is used for showing the balance, none of them are being used for the centralized exchange query. If you have a hot wallet and you also have your funds on a CEX, it will be easier to have both joined balances right into one place. We don’t have or integrate any of the API that is going to be used on the liquidity side. We see it as risky. But then I believe that some other wallets have this and it’s actually convenient for such types of users as traders. 

Veronica: SafePal is the first crypto wallet building the Binance trading experience in the wallet but in a very interesting way. If you are a Binance KYC user, you can connect your KYC’d Binance accounts with the Binance mini-program inside the wallet, and then you can start trading. All the terms of service and uses would follow binance.com’s services, so there will be countries that are restricted from the usage. We strictly follow Binance’s compliance process. 

The reason why we built it is simply because people need it. It’s hard to say which one is 100% better than the other because we are seeing users having different behaviors in using these products. Some of them favor the convenience of CEX, and some of them favor the freedom and transparency of DEX. We just want to build something that people want and use, and build them in a nice way that before they use it they are fully aware of the potential risks and gains. We are very careful of the onboarding process, so we have some compulsory steps to make sure that every user who is trying to use this feature is fully aware of the potential risks and terms of use of these platforms and products. And they have to fully understand that. We are even designing some onboarding quizzes to make sure the users can fully digest and understand these details and situations. 

With the careful onboarding process users completed, they would like to use it as we offer it. SafePal is purely based on this product philosophy that we build what people need that we grow into a larger scale community nowadays. We build the way they find most convenient and we are trying to move all the roadblocks in front of the onboarding process. We have fiat un-ramp, aggregating several service providers. We have built aggregated cross-chain swaps which aggregate the CEX and DEX routers so people get to choose whichever channel they would like to complete the swap order. We have aggregated earn as people can straight yield in the wallet. We built a lot of these things to make wallets gradually become the entrance of the universe and they find different purposes and utilities among them. We want to build this into a super portal where everybody gets a chance to get a taste of the decentralized economy, while not sacrificing or compromising the ease of use of the crypto itself.

Host: Do you think wallet providers should cover the loss if users’ assets are stolen/hacked? 

** Veronica: **This is a BlackBox. Binance has a SAFU fund. We’ve talked about whether SafePal should have a similar SAFU fund to cover people’s potential loss. But then the question becomes very hard to know whether people losing their money was due to the wallet providers. Because based on our daily user query, according to our customer support team, 80% of the assets lost are due to human mistakes. Most of the people lose their funds because of the poor management of the private keys and their seed phrases. It’s hard to say if it’s our problem honestly, probably a problem of the technology and we need more evolution and optimization overall to make a fundamental change to that. What we are saying as a daily fact is that most people lose their crypto assets because they don’t know how to keep their private keys and seed phrases secure or they simply miss it with some stupid mistakes. Some of them are scammed by malicious steps which is also hard to say that it’s a responsibility of a wallet provider. There would definitely be some cases where the wallet provider would need to take the blame, for example, like a few months ago, a wallet on Solana was hacked. Private keys are exposed in plain texts. This is obviously an unnecessary mistake a team could have made. It really depends on the situation so the problem is there will be a lot of disputes when it comes to if I lose my money, whether you should be responsible or me should be. There will not be a lot of transparency and there will be people blackmailing you if you have this SAFU fund. All of a sudden people are throwing away their seed phrases and claim that they have 10 Bitcoin in there, you’ve got to pay me back. 

Right now we are trying to educate users on how to properly use it because the majority of time they’re losing money simply because of some personal human mistakes. To this moment we still don’t have a clear answer.

Minh: It’s such a hard thing to do because we really value the users and we want to do right for them. I do believe educating the users is the key here and I try to support them before they could potentially lose their keys and fall into scams. That’s why we put a lot of effort in our customer support, which is something I’m really proud of. We try to provide the best support for users 24/7. 

It reminds me of the Binance AMA, where someone was trying to accuse CZ of the whole thing. You really don’t have to be clear about where the responsibility is. We usually say “your keys, your coins”, but also it should have been more of your responsibility as well. We’re trying to educate our users but they have to take responsibility, especially getting into a new industry like this.

Hsuan: If we are responsible for the loss and hack, we should be paying back to the users. Theoretically, this is ideal. But practically, it’s very hard to execute. Most of the losses come from human error, and most of the time we can explain to the users since we are focusing more on the newbie users, we get this kind of request a lot.

It’s our responsibility to educate the users into reducing the chances of making such mistakes. But if in an event such as the Solana one that has been hacked, the responsibility is definitely on the wallet provider and they should pay back to the users. That’s a rare case where people actually can gather proof that this is due to their software error. But most of the time, it’s really hard to actually dig that out, because it could be running from a jailbroken device or hacked device. 

Host: How do you see the development of crypto wallets? What would be the next big thing for building a crypto wallet? 

JX: The ultimate form of wallets is that you cannot feel the wallets, only the applications when you log in. For example, when you log into some applications, either you are going to do the payments, or you are going to play a game, you do not intentionally want to go to the wallets to make the transaction. It will automatically become the financial application as we do for the bank apps or Alipay. Or we are playing a mobile game, we are actually depositing a lot of money from the App Store, or Google Play, to the application directly. There are wallets within applications to store our assets in a centralized way. For the decentralized version, it will be a very similar experience.

Wei: For Coins, it’s pretty timely because last week within our fiat wallet we had a crypto-purchasing option. And last week in our Android app we actually added a game center. There is a decentralized wallet embedded in there and you can go in and start playing games. Our user base is the Philippines where a significant number of users are the Play-to-Earn crowd. We are looking to partner with additional games. One way to drive adoption is to bring more real content. Trading is a use case that has been proven quite popular, along with DeFi. But I think games are the segment where we can get the next billion users into crypto. 

Once you start playing games, you can actually start earning things and then we allow you to move your assets from your decentralized wallet if you want to convert them into fiat. These microtransaction services will drive a much larger user surface area in terms of adoption. Trading is still going to be one essential option. Hopefully, for the normies to whom trading is just simply swapping tokens, we allow you to swap things back into fiat to support your life.

Minh: The development of wallets will be in two things. One would be multi-chain. We have been believing in the multi-chain future ever since the beginning. That’s why we support such an amount of blockchains. We want to put our users in the most convenient way to switch between chains and go from different chains to another without having to think about switching wallets. 

Another one would be super-app. In the future, just like our everyday app which allows us to do everything now, we want Coin98 to be a super-app to get into Web3. We’re building a thing called Space Gate, which is like a cross-chain bridge. Before, the user flow can be quite tricky. They have to go with different cross-chain bridges to actually convert the tokens or use a centralized exchange for that. With Space Gate, we hope to equalize how the users want to be using a cross-chain bridge, like right within the app.

Hsuan: Gaming and social applications are the major forces to drive the next big wave of blockchain adoption. We focus a lot on making this route seamless. We’re building native iOS, Android SDK, and also Unity SDK that can get integrated into games. The users don’t really feel that they’re using a blockchain or a wallet. The experience is that the users only have to download the mobile app directly and complete the entire journey within the app. With their emails or social accounts, they can create a wallet within 10 seconds and they can also always use that wallet to send tokens or to collect NFTs.

The next step for them would be once they accumulated more assets in their wallet, they might need a place to actually make good use of it. That is when more standalone wallet apps come into place. So we focus on being the 1st and the 2nd step for the users, to get them on board and to help them use their assets once they get them. Those are the big things we see that will be driving the next wave of adoption.

Veronica: What we have been building these days is to support as many chains as possible, which is always the homework that a wallet needs to do. Recently we supported Flare, Aptos, and next up, Sui. Also, we’ve been building a lot of things that will solve the onboarding hurdle. We’ve built a fiat on-ramp to make it easier for people to buy crypto. We’ve built a gas fee station so that people can swap for a small amount of gas tokens to initiate the first transaction. We’ve built an easy-to-use wallet of course.

Next, we are going to study how to eliminate the hurdle of private key and seed phrases. I believe a lot of other founders are also building it. It would be the common topic that a lot of wallets are trying to solve, that is to move private keys and seed phrases away. We are doing technical research on which direction we should be heading. Should it be heading for NPC? Or should it be heading for some other options available on the table? Open source is something that we are also building up to this moment. We haven’t really opened the source of the products, which has been heavily requested by the community. Open-sourcing would be one of the major homework that we’re going to put in the pipeline for the next two quarters.

Host: Do you think the endgame for crypto wallets would be a Web3 operating system?

Minh: The idea is great, but it’s like a moonshot. They’re really trying to build something that is going to take 5-10 years or more, to actually become a thing. Right now, the blockchain can be seen as an operating system already. It’s still too early to say endgame because we don’t even know what’s happening next year. In general, we’re trying to listen to the feedback of the users. The users have a good sentiment in terms of what they need. I think the application we’re building will be surrounding what our users want and what they need.

In the end, crypto wallets could be moving in such a way. The focus would definitely be on the building.

Veronica: We have had a hardware supply chain since day one when we were building the prototype and doing the layout. We were thinking about building a cell phone. What about building something that people can carry around on a daily basis? They can even make calls, and send text messages on it, just like a Web3 version of cell phones. There would be an OS embedded inside it so you don’t need to initiate and call every protocol that is all over the place. There will be a lower level of infrastructure embedded in wallets and cell phones.

It’s actually not that difficult to make. We even had a preliminary prototype ready for that in 2018. But later on, we gave it up. Because building something like that means you have to compete with the existing giants already, like Apple, Samsung, and other big names. One interesting fact is that the frequency of people changing their cell phones is lower and lower because the technology advances. The cell phone I’m using right now already survived 2 years without any problem. 

The frequency of people changing their cell phones is decreasing. So why would people bother buying another so-called Web3 phone and moving around with a so-called decentralization which people cannot see. There would be some setbacks to the idea. At this moment, the context is a little bit different because right now we are seeing a higher penetration rate even though the activeness level of the crypto community is decreasing, but we’re still seeing slow growth of the user audience here.

I believe in the longer term of the future if Web3 is going to become popular and the daily element of people’s lives, it’s highly possible that wallets will become a standalone segment in their own cell phones. But would it be a separate Web3 brand building it, or would it be Apple straight building it? That’s a great question here. I’m not sure of the answer, but I’m keen to see that future coming and it’s highly possible. Now a lot of the tech giants, the FAANG, they’re building Web3 stuff already. Instagram is embedded with a crypto wallet inside. Facebook is now Meta. We are seeing a lot of this magic happen right now, which was impossible four years ago when we first entered space. Even in a market like this, I still have a strong belief in this whole industry. It would also be a very cool concept that people would have a new OS that they can build into their cell phones so that they can straight initiate the transfer within a Metaverse app and a GameFi project without leaving the environment.

Hsuan: Wallets will serve two major purposes in the future. I wouldn’t say it’s an operating system, but more like a nickname for what it actually does. It’s more than a place where you store your crypto assets. It’s also your identity, like a universal passport or bank or entrance to the Web3 world. Once blockchain gains more adoption, people will need a wallet in a way, which could be a hardware wallet or a hot wallet. For anyone who wants to get into the space, they’ll need an identity here. 

Another purpose wallets are going to play is that, since they’re the first interface that everyone gets in contact with when they’re interacting with the on-chain applications, they’re going to become a traffic hub, also where the assets are stored. In the Web3 world, wallets are going to serve a similar role as Yahoo or Google in the Web1 era, and the App Store in the Web2 era. It’s becoming the traffic hub where people just go to discover what is available in this space. Wallets are more like the entrance and the universal passport.

**

**

11月9日，OFRTalk #15 邀请到几位资深业内伙伴一同复盘回顾整场FTX事件，探讨FTX崩盘，行业将何去何从的话题。活动中精彩发言不断，此文为活动的文字盘复盘总结上篇。

🎙部分录音回放 https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1BRJjZaadQQJw

请关注我们的推特

OFR Intern @ofr_intern https://twitter.com/ofr_intern

Old Fashion Research @ofrfund https://twitter.com/ofrfund

OFRTalk是由Old Fashion Research支持的语音访谈会系列活动。其愿景是成为社区导向型的开放类访谈，为听众带来不同角度的对各赛道的分享，以及深度的区块链内容研究，旗下投资的项目对话及热门话题的讨论，以帮助大家对行业有更深的认知。

OFRTalk所有的内容仅代表个人和嘉宾的看法，内容有时会包含我们的投资项目的介绍，不构成任何投资建议。欢迎大家关注OFR Intern及OFR的官方推特，及时获取开播信息。

OFRTalk #15 参与嘉宾

JX, Partner @OFRfund // @jx_block

Joy Lou, Partner @LD_Capital // @CynthiaLou6

Rui, @HashKey_Capital 投资经理 // @YeruiZhang

杏仁, 知名交易员 // @crypto0312

—————————————————————————————————————————

Twitter Space1: https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1BRJjZaadQQJw

JX: 由于准备的话题赶不上行情的变化，所以临时组了个局聊聊，这段行情有很多可以关注的点。我们先来回顾、复盘一下最近发生的事情。FTX这个事件其实在几天前就开始酝酿了，国内外KOL都在讨论。我想先请Rui来聊聊他是怎么发现FTX可能会出问题的，他的判断是什么，整件事情他的心路历程。Rui，整个事件发生之前，你有注意到什么迹象吗？

Rui：在崩盘之前，我一直不觉得FTX给5%的收益率有什么问题，哪怕我现在回头去看也不会觉得有什么问题。FTX存款总额一共50亿美金，每年给5%的收益率也就2亿5000万美金，FTX一年的收入是绝对可以覆盖这个的，这个不是它暴雷的主要问题。现在我们从结果来看，比如FTX提了6亿出来，假设它还有6亿的漏洞，也就是一倍的差额，这肯定不是因为给利息给出来的，所以问题不出在给利息这块。

真的有什么蛛丝马迹，只能说是Sam平时冲矿冲猛了，或者挪用用户资金做了别的事，这也不是一次两次了，但大家对他还是有个偶像包袱，觉得他不会亏，他毕竟扛过了LUNA还有其他几波。事后回头看，真有什么事件比较有趋向性，我觉得Coin Metrics说的是有道理的，FTX把FTT给了Alameda，让他们用FTT来做借贷。我补充一下这个背景，一定要注意FTX和Alameda是两个不同的实体，一定要把它们分开来看。FTX如果想在美国本土，或者新加坡去运行，一定要给当地政府一个交代的。这个交代说明了Alameda和FTX的钱不能混在一起，查账是查的出来的。FTX的钱拿去给Alameda做交易，这个是完全不可能的，这两个是完全分开的东西。既然是分开的东西，这两者就应该是借贷的关系。Alameda的账号也不能做的太难看，全授信是不太可能的，只能通过某种方式去抵押，这个抵押品就是FTT。这就是为什么昨晚FTT一下从15刀到4刀的原因，说白了就是Alameda顶不住了，FTX清算了Alameda。币安可能跟Sam说，你让我收购必须得把这笔账算清楚，算清楚就必须要清算这笔资金，顺带着把一些持有FTT做抵押的机构也被清算了。这个是昨天FTT暴跌的原因，不是什么大户抛售和行情的原因，这个是我觉得能够穿透到最终风险本身的点。

JX：这个事情刚开始发酵的时候是市场披露了Alameda的资产负债表，后面CoinDesk出来说Alameda有资不抵债的可能性。当然FTX真实的资产负债表我们是不知道的，所以这两个不是同一个主体。请问一下Lou，在这个事情发生之前，你们有收到一些预警信号吗？采取了哪些行动？

Lou：我们心细观测了链上地址有很大额的token移动，大概是在爆仓前的40天。当时我们并没有觉得是个很大的问题，我直到前天也不敢相信FTX会出事，我觉得它能扛过去，因为它的操盘手法是典型的美股操盘手法。稍微大一点的美股市值的公司，操盘手法都是跟FTT和SOL这样的。他们在遇到流动性风险的时候，3AC暴雷的时候，他们应该是连带着影响到了。大概40天前，FTT有一点几亿的转账，当时市值40多亿美金，从原来账户转到了一个陌生地址，又转到了FTX。当时我们没有在意，以为是整理钱包，现在回想起来应该是当时的流动性已经不够了。FTT的ICO不知为何解锁了很多，他们拿这个币去抵押借贷了一些稳定币，去补Alameda的流动性。当时这个信号我们是观察到了的，但是当时没有联想到这点，因为他们又把这个币提到FTX的地址里去了，非常难以置信。

我讲一下为什么崩盘，所有的美股公司都是要发企业债的，举个例子年化利率比如说是5-10%。假设这个债投放在公司生产经营上，公司认为没有办法达到这个值的话，就会用于回购自己的股票，所有的大票都是这么做的。公司会一边用发的债加杠杆，一边用现金去做高它的股价。股价上来了，它的评级和质押出来的钱，或是发展出来的可转债等债券类的定向融资又可以变多，又可以拿去回购股票。美股在10年的上涨周期里，有一点类似与LUNA的旁氏属性在的。为什么我们的1/3的团队都是在做宏观分析，格外注意加息/缩表周期，就是因为美国的放水和美股的价格是完全正相关的。它和中国放出来的水不一样，中国放出来的水先到银行，然后通过SA backed mortgage或者是其他的loan分发到城投、水务、地方性的融资平台、房地产企业，之后才会流到其他行业的公司里面，反映到股价上。中国的放水和股价的相关性不是那么高，当然也是正相关。但美股不一样，基本上水放出来，就会放给高信用评级的公司发放企业债。FTT和Solana也是一样的，不断把开始的控盘率先做高，然后再一点点拉高它的市值，再去加杠杆。不管是定向的募资，还是去做crypto企业的定增，还是向华尔街CeFi或者DeFi的公司加杠杆去做一些抵押借贷，都是在不断地用自己的溢价去加杠杆，再拉升自己的币价，所以有一点像庞氏。

遇到流动性问题的时候，FTT为什么要死守22块这个关口。我们当时算出来，22块钱是他们的bleeding price，低于22块钱就会开始引发大规模清仓。它借出来的这些钱在账面上是浮盈的，假设他们没有去炒美股和其他乱七八糟的，就只做提升币价和拉升币价的操作，它应该是挣钱的，因为他们每一步加杠杆的价格都不一样，成本不一样，mortgage又有个百分比（LTV）不断加杠杆会让质押率越来越低。但我不知道海外的风控怎么样，毕竟今年二季度的时候，FTX收购了一些CeFi平台，可能在某种程度上放款。三箭就几乎没什么风控，都是信用贷了。在这个过程当中，有很长一段时间，在那些价格点位上增发的债务和加了杠杆的稳定币或者以法币计价的收益率应该是正的，因为它持有的绝大部分的资产都集中在FTT和SOL上面，在遇到挤兑风险的时候，流动性的问题会导致它一系列的崩盘，大家可以看到一天里面它可以跌60%这样。

JX：我今天听到一个说法，类似美股的高杠杆的玩法，Alameda也是在做。由它主导的一级的项目，都是高估值、低流通的，这样他们就可以把没解锁的token拿去质押，借出新的cash来。从信用等级来说，这些是更垃圾的资产。

Xingren：我说一下从个人交易者的来说我做了哪些措施。我的一些朋友比较少做二级交易，很多是在挖矿或者DeFi，很大部分的资产都放在FTX吃利息。这个事情还没有发酵的时候，他们就有给我反馈过，一个是利息变少，一个是单账号上限，他们说感觉不对。谁也没有想过FTX这个体量的交易所会出问题，但为了规避风险，他们还是把钱撤出来了，同时小所的钱也都撤出来了。我平常做分析，也会看一些链上数据，我注意到了起码大半个月之前，链上稳定币一直都是流出的。我们监控了一下走向，上个月月末之前，FTX就有比较多的稳定币流出。事件开始有苗头后，但当时也没觉得会暴雷，Sam自己也是交易员，可能只是拿用户的钱做交易和抵押之类的行为，没想过说交易所会暴雷。后面发现储备金和稳定币的余额，链上数据显示都是有转移的，我们觉得不对了。前期我们提的比较早，从我们发现限制账号额度的时候就提议了。CZ从6号开始发推特，我们就开始记录舆论面，因为它对大盘的影响蛮大的。当时大盘表现挺好的，以太突破了1600，大饼也站上了120日均线，大家都比较看好后续的行情。币安当时也有谣言说要开IEO，其实大家都没想过后面会有这么大的波动，当时FTT也在25左右稳定。6号凌晨CZ发了推，要清退FTT资产，那时候就已经发现了舆论发酵了，不会有很快的结果，因为后面牵扯的事情很多。从交易所的层面，合规监管的层面，还是政治层面，一旦这个事情发酵了，就会很难收尾。我们当时就开始监控CZ和SBF的推特发言，也去调整了我们的交易策略，当天的波动起码有20个点左右，那个时候我们就已经在准备做FTT的交易了。后面有一波SBF的执行官发了推特，说22左右接FTT，做了个诱多的行为，我们那时候就接了空单，因为那个地方没有特别多的交易量。我们后面一直拿着FTT空单，直到昨天才平掉。从个人交易角度来说，我没有关注太多的宏观角度，就从K线方面分析，那个地方有一个诱多的信号，属于没有交易量的拉升，导致我们选择了这一次的交易。

JX：在事件过程当中，我们看到了CZ和SBF两个人有1-2天的拉扯，行情也有非常大的波动。我想请教各位，在这个过程中，你们有做任何的交易吗？你们做这些交易的判断逻辑是什么？

Lou：我们主要是从宏观的角度分析问题，我们看到了地址的转移，但当时没有意识到是加杠杆融资。我们6-7号确实是减仓了，但主要是因为宏观的信号，3号美联储释放的一些信号，10号又要出CPI。3号那天其实还好，但是发言偏鹰派。CPI出来之前要避险，其他的数据出来以后，鲍威尔FOMC的发言又是先鸽后鹰，市场出现了一个黄金点，我们就在那个地方抄了一点仓位。我们当时预判的时候，FOMC后会涨，10号CPI出来我们要看图减仓，我们不是因为SBF这个事情减仓的。

Rui：我觉得FTX一直都做的挺好的，虽然它现在崩了，但它的产品体验是很好的，尤其是出金这个事情。人在海外的话，你想比较丝滑地出金是没有那么容易的，FTX提供了包括提币在内场内场外出金的服务，做的还是比较好的。我个人也参与了FTX打新赚了一些钱。整体判断还是失误的，觉得FTX没有很大的问题，所以也产生了一些亏损。我周天的时候把很多仓位跑了，当时是觉得以太大饼一波拉升以后，市场已经没有什么能炒的点，走得比较难看。11月5号到6号市场没有什么热点了，在这个环境下，有一个一礼拜级别以上的行情是很难撑得住的，MASK可能是有一些意外因素的影响。那时候虽然市场环境还不错，但我觉得很脆弱，所以就卖了一点仓位。昨天晚上的事情，我的第一反应是：FTT完蛋了；第二反应是：好像这个结局还不错。早上一起来，人傻了。后来我想想这个事，Alameda要和FTX分开看，FTX最终欠下的钱，是要通过平掉Alameda的所有仓位去获得的。在这个禁止提币的过程中，CZ是不可能对FTX有一个非常详细的财务尽调，或者说他预设的财务尽调就是一个很糟糕的结果。就算有收购这么一个消息，提币是很难在短时间内恢复的。大家经历过贝宝这个事情就知道了，贝宝光搞账就搞了两个月才搞清楚。在这么大的交易实体下面，各种盘根错节，复杂的账，高杠杆，多种类投资，可能还不止一个主体，有多个主体，这个账想要搞明白很难，用户想要提出币来，不是那么容易的。在这个逻辑下，可以理解为有很多的钱在FTX里面，包括做市商，这是一个对市场流动性非常致命的事情。

（未完待续, 下篇近期发布）

OFR Insight Sharing is a weekly program session presented by Old Fashion Research, joined by other crypto practitioners of multiple notable institutions and media presses. Every week, researchers of OFR Fund will share their research results in the crypto industry for the past week. Recaps take a look back at the sharing sessions and expose a larger audience to the most discussed topics recently.

This week, we are pleased to feature Brandon Truong, Head of Product @ ZetaChain, to share his introduction on ZetaChain - achieving omnichain interoperability.

The topics of this week’s OFR Insight Sharing include: 

• Web3 interoperability challenge

• Cross-chain communication trends & solution comparison matrix

• How ZetaChain is enabling a new paradigm of dApp development & UX

Progression of multichain

• New Layer 1s and Layer 2s (closed systems)

• Centralized exchanges

• Pairwise bridges with varying security models

• Cross-chain bridge aggregators

• Cross-chain messaging

Current multichain solutions are,

• High-risk: Bridges often lock assets that are risked of exploits, and have varying trust models (often centralized, not trustless)

• Fragmented: Separate products for every chain or asset pair, frustrating UX, siloed users and assets, and complexity beyond comprehension

• Restrictive: With no standard for cross-chain, devs roll their own trust models/solutions or accept being bounded to certain chains/functionality

As of now, there are more than 100 public blockchains, 50+ bridge projects, more than 1000s of wrapped assets, and over $1 billion lost in bridge exploits.

**Many think that interoperability is simply cross-chain swaps and pairwise bridges, support for multiple chains, and all kinds of wrapped tokens. **

But interoperability can be

• Pay from & receive into any wallet/network/asset

• No more wrapped tokens nor related bridge hacks

• Chain-agnostic NFTs + Fungible Tokens (ERC20s, etc.)

• Abstraction of network/chain to end-users

• DeFi, Games, Marketplaces, and more operate across

• Different chains seamlessly (not separately)

• Omnichain portfolio management and accounting

• And much, much more

Thus, Zetachain will empower the progression of multichain with 

• Cross-chain messaging with native value transfer

• Omnichain Smart Contracts

Zetachain is the only public, decentralized blockchain and smart contract platform built for omnichain interoperability.

Zetachain is a truly interoperable L1 with,

• PoS, Tendermint Consensus

• Chain and layer-agnostic

• Single-step transactions

• Unified liquidity, no wrapping

• Omnichain Smart Contracts

  • Manage assets across layers and chains enabling even Bitcoin smart contracts

• Cross-chain messaging

  • Existing smart contracts can send data and value across chains and layers with simple function call

Hyper-connected node architecture

• Nodes observe and reach consensus connected chains’ transactions

• Nodes built on battle-tested Cosmos SDK, Tendermint Consensus

• UTXO-like cross-chain transactions enable safe, chain-agnostic message passing and value transfer

• EVM-compatible smart contracts on ZetaVM can read from and write to external chains.

Externally Managed Assets

• Secured with TSS, ZetaChain can sign and verify transactions on any connected chain

• ZetaChain contracts can thus manage vaults/assets on multiple chains like a normal L1 contract can on a single chain

• This brings omnichain smart contract logic to all chains, even non-smart-contract chains like Bitcoin, Dogecoin

• Cold-wallet level security with hot-wallet level functionality, on every chain

Hardened security

• Decentralized PoS network

• Leaderless TSS keygen and keysign

• Extensive defense against arbitrary and infinite minting via oracle checks

• Funds at rest are never at risk

• ZETA intermediary token minimizes attack surface and simplifies apps

Security example (AMM)

• Continuous total supply checks to prevent infinite minting

• Only ZETA being transferred at a point in time is ever at risk

A simpler, powerful dev experience

• Simple, intuitive cross-chain messaging API

• Docs, SDKs, tooling, and examples that minimize developer time-to-deploy

• EVM-compatible omnichain smart contracts let existing developer skills translate 1:1

• Adding cross-chain to an existing dApp is as simple as: send, receive, handle-revert

So, how does ZetaChain compare to Cosmos, Polkadot, THORChain, Bridges/Messaging?

A new era of interoperability

• Cross-chain messaging enables 1-to-1 chain interactions for existing contracts, but more complex apps are complicated and/or impossible

• Chain-agnostic, interoperable smart contracts let you manage native assets and data from a single space, enabling a higher level of interoperability

What are the opportunities ZetaChain can bring to you?

• Omnichain DAOs: governance, asset management, clubs, that span all chains

• Omnichain NFTs: art projects, memberships, marketplaces, proof of ownership that can span all chains

• Omnichain DeFi: Curve, Aave, Compound, Yearn can be implemented on zEVM and taken cross-chain easily

• Omnichain Identity: universal usernames/domains, decentralized multichain wallets, multichain portfolio management.

• And much more.** **

If you want to build on ZetaChain, please contact brandon@zetachain.com to talk through ideas and opportunities.

Visit ZetaChain https://zetachain.com Twitter https://twitter.com/zetablockchain

Special thanks to Brandon for presenting the content. Neither OFR Insight Sharing provides financial advice, nor researchers represent the final statement of OFR Fund.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO Old Fashion Research

About Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

Follow us Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror

** **

TL;DR

• DAOs are making their impact in the crypto space, but there are challenges hindering their growth; more and more tools/solutions are emerging to help DAOs overcome these challenges and improve the way they are operating.

• In the next bull cycle for crypto, we believe that DAO’s will probably take over the P2E gamefi projects on the responsibility for onboarding non-crypto users for its more diversified core value propositions, which are not as profit driven as P2E games.

• We investigate the most important characteristics of DAOs for which these tools are designed, namely DAO Frameworks, Contributor Incentives (Payment/ Streaming Management & Profile/ Recognition platforms), Treasury Management and DAO Governance/ Voting.

• Despite being a relatively unexplored space, the DAO tooling space is fast growing and there are several useful tools available for DAOs to use; however, why are these products underutilized?

• In reality, the DAO tooling space is oversaturated and too fragmented; the majority of these tools were developed individually to satisfy their specific needs, and there is a lack of synergy between these many solutions

• What we hope to see is infrastructure as opposed to just tools, something that provides cohesion and collaboration amongst all these highly effective tools; a modular hub that pulls these tools together to enable DAOs to overcome all of these challenges and prosper.

Introduction to DAOs

A "Decentralized Autonomous Organization," often known as a "DAO," is an entity that is directed by the community but has no centralised authority. DAOs are completely decentralised and open to public scrutiny at any time: smart contracts establish the basic rules and carry out the decisions that have been agreed upon; at any moment, proposals, voting, and even the code itself may be subjected to public scrutiny.

The purpose of a DAO is to facilitate the management and monitoring of an entity analogous to a corporation. However, a DAO thrives best when there is no single overarching authority figure; instead, the DAO's collective leaders and members serve as its governing body. The members of a DAO are the only decision-makers in all matters pertaining to the organization's future, including but not limited to the issues concerning technological developments and the allocation of funds.

The DAO voting process is documented on a blockchain. Users are frequently compelled to choose between mutually exclusive choices. Users' voting power is frequently allocated based on the number of tokens they own. For example, an individual who has 100 DAO tokens will have twice the voting power of a user who owns 50 tokens.

The assumption behind this method is that users who have a larger financial stake in the DAO are encouraged to operate in good faith. Consider a user who has 25% of the total voting power. This user may commit illicit actions; but, by doing so, the person jeopardises the value of their 25% stake.

Most DAOs also have treasuries that hold tokens that may be traded for fiat. Members of the DAO can vote on how to utilise that money; for example, certain DAOs looking to acquire rare NFTs can vote on whether to trade treasury funds for assets.

Existing problems and challenges

Despite the growing prevalence of DAOs, many of these early adopters are bound to encounter problems and obstacles. As DAOs are still in their infancy due to the fact that the number of people interested is still a small portion of the web3 community, we foresee that it will be a superior framework to the corporate frameworks we encounter now. This section will elucidate a few of the operational and management difficulties associated with DAOs in the Web3 ecosystem.

1) Searching and onboarding

Consider the steps a Web3 participant might take to become involved and give their expertise. The initial stage is to perform comprehensive research to identify DAOs that share their objectives and require their assistance. This obvious first step is quite difficult for the vast majority of individuals. Since the number of DAOs is continually increasing and their purposes vary widely, it is difficult to find the ideal DAO to participate in.

Finding a DAO is becoming more difficult for contributors who want to give it a try, especially when they are unsure if it will work and are likely to abandon their initial attempt. DAO lists such as Messari's are useful, but they do not provide sufficient information for individuals to determine whether they desire to join a particular DAO. Mission statements posted on websites and social media platforms are inadequate for DAOs. 

After individuals locate the DAO, the next crucial step is to provide them with an onboarding procedure and documentation that are straightforward and easy to access. Due to the fact that different DAOs operate in different ways, the onboarding process might range from just purchasing tokens to numerous rounds of interviews and submissions. 

As stated in Avenueplace.eth's article on DAOs, the presentation and execution of the onboarding process and documentation will play a significant part in identifying the ideal member - The Context Problem.

2) Incentives - Personal Growth

When discussing incentives in DAOs, it is natural for individuals to point to tokens as rewards, as people should be compensated for their efforts. However, money should not and will not be the main incentive for DAO members. Unmentioned previously is how people working in a DAO can help them expand not only financially, but also in terms of capability, knowledge base, and resource networks. 

Due to the nature of DAOs, it is easier for individuals to participate in and contribute to several DAOs. If we consider the standard Web2 career path, as employees gain work experience, they become more capable of completing tasks and tend to provide more value; as a result, they receive a better income and are given more challenging assignments. How can we enable people to develop their own verified and DAO-related portfolios while working in DAOs, so that when they apply for other positions in other DAOs, they will have an advantage? 

SourceCred is one of a growing number of initiatives working from this angle, helping to build on-chain records of DAO involvement. Numerous SBT-related applications can also assist with this by distributing non-transferable tokens as proof of certain efforts and accomplishments. DAOs can also learn from practices typically observed in corporations, such as mentoring and member assessments.

3) Development of the DAO systems

How to make a DAO equitable, scalable, and still adhere to the principles of a decentralised governance model is a challenge for DAOs and numerous other Web3 projects. As stated in an article by TheDefiant, many DAOs just replicate the systems of their high-signal predecessors without considering whether such a strategy is suitable for their particular project.

Due to the digital and decentralised nature of DAOs, they often lack the well-developed and efficient infrastructure enjoyed by their conventional counterparts. Many DAOs are required to create their own infrastructure and tools prior to launching, and the majority of these tools are characterized as "quirky." DAOs lack the proper infrastructure for reporting, treasury management, governance, payroll, communication, and identity management, amongst many others. Without the proper infrastructure to manage these responsibilities, many DAOs may lose members and fail to acquire traction.

In terms of scalability, DAOs may expand more rapidly if they are centralized and used as legal entities for specific operations. Some legal institutions, albeit with their flaws, were established to coordinate decision-making among parties with a shared financial interest. The absence of token holders to vote on proposals is an additional significant obstacle that DAOs must overcome. Inactive token holders can impair a DAO's operation. As noted previously, the delegation also raises the problem of centralization, despite the fact that many may swiftly decide to vote in favour of it. Some DAOs are evaluating the use of incentives to address this issue by rewarding active token holders and penalizing inactive token holders.

A Deeper Dive into DAO Tools

As the number of DAOs and other digital collectives continues to grow, so does the demand for infrastructure and technologies that facilitate and accelerate the development of DAOs. DAO tools enable DAOs to overcome some of the obstacles outlined in the preceding section.

The expanding selection of DAO technologies enables us to efficiently organise DAOs, manage funds, align incentives, vote, and compensate contributors. In an effort to facilitate the growth of these project ecosystems and unlock the true potential of DAOs.

DAO Framework

A key idea and principle when it comes to DAO development/building are to create a minimal viable community (MVC) that can evolve. When it comes to constructing a DAO, there are sometimes so many works and design-related considerations that it gets incredibly intimidating. In the past, numerous technologies have helped to simplify the procedure of constructing a DAO. However, as the DAO evolves, the tools will not be able to keep up; hence, product iteration will become slow and cumbersome.

We all know that the advantage of small organisations like startups is that they can adapt quickly and act quickly. In the area where no rules and standards are really settled, the concept of MVC in the DAO landscape can really help people experiment with this format while remaining fluid and seeing results fast.  

Syndicate recently launched the Collectives which is a social network protocol that allows people to easily start their own collectives in the no-code platform and because it is built with ERC-721M (an extension from ERC-721 built by Syndicate, M stands for modular ), it is highly composable and interoperable throughout the space and it even allows people to customise the metadata, etc that evolves with the need of each collective. Modular, customizable, evolvable, and programmable is one of the core principles when they build Collectives, which pretty much aligns with our vision for future DAO toolings as well.

Another project that focuses on the MVC concept is Metropolis (previously Orca Protocol), where they phrase each MVC as a pod. They rebranded the whole project to emphasize how each working pod (a wrapper of muti-sig) connects and works together to form complex and powerful digital cities

Aragon is an extensive DAO launchpad that simplifies the creation and management of DAOs for organisations. Aragon offers a spectrum of products ranging from the creation of simple DAOs to scaling with a variety of other DAO apps to the provision of expert assistance from a pool of building professionals suited to your specific requirements. Platforms like Aragon have made it simple for creators to set up a DAO that meets their specific needs. Another excellent feature is the ability to continuously grow their community and operations using the range of different DAO tools with which Aragon has collaborated to scale DAOs built on their platform.

With the concept of developing an MVC-first DAO, it is critical that DAO infrastructure and framework tools enable their DAOs to gain that building block experience in order to continuously evolve and adapt the necessary tools they use with their present stages. Although there are or will be numerous DAO launchpads, it is crucial to realise that speed is not necessarily the most significant criterion when building a new DAO. I believe that adaptability and fluidity will be the distinguishing factors between a good launchpad and the optimum one on which people wish to build.

Contributor Incentives

In terms of incentivizing individuals within the DAO, token distribution according to contribution level has always been the most straightforward method of rewarding contributors. However, to take this a step further, we should also consider personal development, as described in our problem statement. Although there are numerous DAO tools that aid with treasury management and pay-streaming, there is a scarcity of DAO solutions that recognize individuals for their contributions.

First, let's take a look at some of the aforementioned treasury management and pay streaming tools, like Gnosis Safe, Utopia, Superfluid, and Zebec Protocol.

Treasury Management Layer

Gnosis Safe is a multi-signature treasury management platform for DAOs. Multi-signature vaults are not uncommon for DAOs, as they enable simple flexibility in how DAOs manage the digital assets of their organizations. Treasuries, being one of the most important aspects of the foundations of the DAO, it is important that the funds within the treasury are secured and appropriately managed. Gnosis Safe prevents unauthorised access to an organization's assets by requiring multiple team members to confirm each transaction before it can be executed.

Other features of Gnosis Safe include DeFi integration, increased privacy, and the inclusion of other digital assets like ERC-721 tokens (digital art, ENS names, game assets, etc.). 

DAO tools like Gnosis Safe have enabled DAOs to conduct on-chain transactions more efficiently and securely. There are other multi-sig treasury management applications, such as Exponent, Domo, and Multis, that strive to achieve similar goals; yet, after interacting with these various platforms, they are seemingly comparable. Most have multi-chain compatibility, a great UI with detailed dashboards of assets and transactions, and accounting analytics. 

Payment/ Streaming Management

Due to the decentralised nature of DAOs and the large number of contributors who are continuously giving value to the DAO, the distribution of rewards, payments, and salaries can quickly become highly chaotic. Utopia and SuperFluid are both DAO tools that help DAOs more efficiently manage, streamline, and automate their payment processes. These tools are compatible with a wide range of multi-sig vaults, such as Gnosis Safe, and are effortlessly integrated into the DAO's processes.

Utopia allows you to generate a list of payees (contributors)/recurring payments/requests before initiating a bulk transfer (gas is covered by Utopia). DAOs can also arrange recurring payments to whoever is required, organise contributors based on their roles, and maintain a record of their past contributions and total compensation awarded, while ensuring compliance with tax regulations, particularly in the United States.

Superfluid, which in essence does something similar to Utopia, introduces the concept of stream payments. Stream payments are continual payments based on a predetermined time (e.g. annual payments, monthly payments, weekly payments, or even payments every second)—continuous token circulation on the blockchain with no capital lockup. Transfers of funds will continue indefinitely unless canceled or until the sender's account balance is depleted. The rate of cash flows may also be altered at any time.

Now that we've discussed multi-sig treasury management, payroll automation, and stream payments, as well as the many tools that facilitate these operations, let's discuss the Zebec Protocol. Zebec is an all-inclusive DAO fund management platform that includes the above functions. Zebec has collected the most advantageous characteristics of these tools and made it possible for DAOs on the Solana Chain to perform all of their financial operations on a single protocol. In addition, Zebec permits direct on- and off-ramping from fiat, eliminating the need for frequent swapping. 

Zebec has demonstrated functional superiority in comparison to other products, but I believe it is just a matter of time before the majority of these different platforms adopt the same concept and increase their service offerings. 

Contribution/ Recognition

In addition to monetary benefits for contributors, we have emphasized the significance of recognising the contributions of different DAO contributors. This sense of identity within the DAO can be incredibly effective in uniting the community and encouraging other DAO members to strive to provide more to the DAOs. In this section, we will take a look at task management/contributor recognition platforms, like DeWork and CharmVerse.

Dework is a Web3-native project management platform that incorporates token payment, credentialing, and bounties for work done. This platform enables DAOs to clearly define their project roadmap and the tasks that must be completed. DAOs can also give context to ongoing initiatives and make it simple to engage new contributors. DAOs can easily screen applicants' profiles for various tasks and select the most appropriate individual/team for the job. After the task is completed, bounties can be rewarded to contributors in any form of on-chain tokens. In addition to collecting monetary benefits, all tasks that contributors accomplish will be stored on-chain on their profile, allowing them to construct a resume and help others to recognise the work they have done for the DAO. 

Similar to Dework, Charmverse is a Web3 workflow operations platform that includes task listing, bounties, documents, and voting. Teams can create token-gated groups for either their token/NFT holders or invite members using the Moloch DAO protocol. CharmVerse also provides DAOs with a governance tool that guides them through the various stages of a community proposal process in a seamless manner. This tool aids DAOs from the earliest stages of developing a proposal through the community discussion and vote phases.

The look and feel of Dework remind me of a combination of the Web2 DAO tools, Discord, and Notion. It is user-friendly for both project leaders and contributors, but I particularly liked that contributors could earn achievement badges for their contributions. CharmVerse and Dework both promote the importance of recognising contributors of the DAOs through a “Proof-of-Work” badge/POAP. This enables contributors to effortlessly create their professional on-chain identity, particularly within the DAO space, making them more visible and helping others to recognise their achievements more readily.

DAOU is also another interesting new project that uses Soulbound Tokens (SBTs) and a Social Oracle to convert activity data in DAOs into on-chain verifiable data. They recently won the third prize in the ETH Shanghai Hackathon. They use a "Social Oracle" to incentivize DAO members to validate data generated by fellow DAO members, thus increasing the credibility of this data. With this, they will assign each member a score based on their social activity, involvement, and overall contribution, granting them a reputation within the DAO, which can then be used for DAO benefits such as airdrops, whitelists, etc. This concept is quite intriguing to watch, as it functions as a social aggregator that helps DAOs discover their key members and contributors across the board. In principle, it would be impossible to distinguish between quality social activity and quantity of messages, i.e. people who spam Discord with "GM" every hour and those who periodically contribute quality content.

DAO Governance/ Voting

The governance and voting process of the DAO is another crucial aspect of the DAO when it comes to decision-making. Initially, tokens and shares were the primary forms of voting rights. Several DAO voting techniques have since been developed to ensure that voting and governance remain decentralised and to encourage more community members to participate in decision-making. Snapshot, Commonwealth, and Tally are some examples of DAO governance and voting tools that are more commonly utilised in active DAOs now.

Snapshot is a gasless off-chain multi-governance client with easy-to-verify and difficult-to-dispute results. It gives flexibility in calculating voting power for a vote. Snapshot supports a variety of voting methods to meet the needs of various organisations. Creating proposals and voting on Snapshot is simple and gas-free because the process is executed off-chain. 

Snapshot is user-friendly from the perspective of both DAO owners and members. With the space creation process requiring less than 5 minutes, DAO owners can construct their governance model quickly and easily. For voting tools, members can compose their proposals on Snapshot, set a start and end date, and publish them for voting. Proposal creators can additionally select supporting voting systems, e.g. single-choice voting, approval voting, quadratic voting, etc., making Snapshot more adaptable to the different scenarios that DAOs could encounter.

DAO members can also easily search for their favourite DAOs and join the space to participate in any proposal voting process that they are eligible for. There are currently over 10,000 different DAOs from across different chains that are onboarded to Snapshot, including some of the bigger ones like Uniswap, Aave, and ENS.

Tally.xyz is another DAO governance platform that works similarly to Snapshot, with an off-chain voting mechanism. The interesting feature that Tally has is their “Governor Contract” - This is essentially an open-source smart contract that allows token holders to control a DAO with fully on-chain voting. The Governor Contract is in charge of how DAO proposals are handled. It keeps track of how proposals are progressing and counts the votes to see if they are approved. If a proposal is approved, the Governor executes the action on-chain. Proposals can do anything on chain, like transfer funds from a treasury, change the parameters of a DeFi protocol, change the permissions of sub-DAOs, mint NFTs, or change the rules of the Governor.

The greatest benefit of the Governor pattern is that the DAO makes all of its decisions on-chain. Since the smart contract does everything on-chain, voters don't have to trust a third party to count their votes or carry out their transactions. DAOs can interact with Governance via any application interface(s) they choose, as anyone can call the smart contract.

This concept of a governor is something I believe is already, and if not, the next logical step. This decentralized and autonomous approach will help eliminate possible manipulation within the DAO and maintain complete transparency, although being primitive and still vulnerable to smart contract risks.

The Advent of DAO Infrastructure

Compared to many other facets of Web3, the DAO Tooling space is still relatively unexplored and underdeveloped. To operate the majority of their operations, the bulk of operational DAOs now rely on traditional platforms like Discord, Twitter, and the occasional Web3 tool such as Gnosis (for multi-sig) and Snapshot (for voting). Web3 DAO tools initiatives have not made a compelling enough proposition for larger existing DAOs to migrate their complete workflow.

The DAO Tooling landscape is fragmented, with initiatives concentrating on specific problems and use cases. The apparent lack of cohesion and composability between these projects is, in my opinion, one of the primary reasons why DAO tooling initiatives are underutilised. Certainly, all of these efforts are beneficial to DAOs, but could the execution be improved?

We believe that as the quantity and quality of DAOs begin to increase at an exponential rate, creators and members of DAOs will require more management, scaling, and contribution mechanisms. Consequently, this creates an imperative need for more sophisticated DAO tooling applications, potentially leading to the rise of the next DAO tooling narrative.

Although we believe in the long-term success of DAO tooling projects, we advocate for a narrative change from making the next great DAO tool to creating THE DAO Infrastructure that all DAOs will utilize. In this next part, we will discuss some key takeaways that we feel will contribute to the expansion of the DAO tooling space and serve as a model for future ventures, as well as what we mean by building infrastructure instead of tools. 

What kinds of tools are still needed?

In general, we believe some problem areas have better tools to support and increase their functions than others. In terms of treasury management, for instance, projects such as Gnosis Safe, Multis, and other multi-sig treasury management platforms and payment streaming platforms suffice for the effective management of DAO assets. Similarly, apps like Snapshot, Tally, and Commonwealth have solved efficiently and expedited the voting and governance processes of DAOs, albeit not entirely.

In terms of community participation and DAO discussion platforms, for example, greater innovation is undoubtedly required. Currently, the majority of DAOs carry out the bulk of these activities on Web2 applications like Discord, Telegram, or even Slack. We have not yet seen any Web3 systems that satisfy this essential DAO criterion. It would be great to see a Web3 solution designed to manage, engage, and reward DAO communities that is superior to its Web2 counterparts. Many have suggested, however, that it may not be necessary to design an alternative for discord/telegram since "if it's not broken, don't fix it."

We seek a chain-agnostic DAO hub that enables DAOs to perform anything from on-chain voting and analytics to off-chain community involvement and communication. I am not suggesting that we require a "one-size-fits-all" solution, but rather something that enables integration and collaboration between different DAO tools. Imagine a more modular version of the AragonDAO onboarding process. A solution that is suitable for both seasoned Web3 natives and novice, space-exploring creators. I think it would be great if there was a method to unify all of these resources and allow DAOs to construct their platforms like Legos.

From DAO tools to DAO infrastructure

Based on the findings from researching and experimenting with all these different projects, we have compiled some of the most important insights and ideas for the future generation of DAO Infrastructure.

DAOs should prioritize a modular design, aiming to be as flexible, adaptable, and open-source as possible so that they may be integrated into existing DAO tool stacks in the same way Legos can. We expect that DAOs will be able to perform modular upgrades, comparable to upgrading a PC, rather than needing to replace their entire system. We want to see builders building DAO infrastructure rather than just tools.

There will be no all-encompassing or universal solution; therefore, DAOs must explore procedures and frameworks with their members while learning from the experiences of other DAOs and organisations. We think that each community has unique and developing infrastructure needs, hence bespoke and flexible solutions are required.

Communities ought to be infinite and mobile collectively. Guilds, for instance, are the polar opposite of integrated platforms. Our goal is to provide total interoperability between all of a community's platforms for sharing, collaboration, and interactions.

DAO tooling will always evolve alongside DAOs and DAO frameworks, through tool development and use cycles; when individuals detect tool gaps, more tools will be created. In light of this, OFR is searching for people building in this direction. If you know of a project that is aligned with this narrative, please send us a direct message on Twitter or drop us an email.

Cheers to the future of DAOs.

9月24日，OFRTalk #13 以NFT基础设施及流动性解决方案为讨论核心，与嘉宾一起展开了关于当下NFT设施建设的阻力、NFT流动性解决方案赛道的新探索等话题的讨论。活动中精彩发言不断，此文为活动的文字复盘总结。

🎙录音回放 https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1djGXlBMPVeGZ?s=20

请关注我们的推特

OFR Intern @ofr_intern https://twitter.com/ofr_intern

Old Fashion Research @ofrfund https://twitter.com/ofrfund

OFRTalk是由Old Fashion Research支持的语音访谈会系列活动。其愿景是成为社区导向型的开放类访谈，为听众带来不同角度的对各赛道的分享，以及深度的区块链内容研究，旗下投资的项目对话及热门话题的讨论，以帮助大家对行业有更深的认知。

OFRTalk所有的内容仅代表个人和嘉宾的看法，内容有时会包含我们的投资项目的介绍，不构成任何投资建议。欢迎大家关注OFR Intern及OFR的官方推特，及时获取开播信息。

OFRTalk #13 参与嘉宾

凯叔, XCarnival 运营总监 @Uncle_Kai_CN

Goku很Cool, $CVNT Founder & NFTFi赛道运动员 @gokunocool

Shier,  NFTScan 联合创始人 @shier_eth

愉悦yuyue，Crypto Researcher @yuyue_chris

蓝星, Element 中文社区总监 @lanxing4

—————————————————————————————————————————

主持人：目前NFT市场交易数据低迷，配套设施自然受到不少影响。聊聊大家目前都在打造什么样的产品，解决哪方面的需求？为什么选择打造这样的产品？有充足的信心和现金流支撑你们度过这个难关吗？

蓝星：Element的用户数量在逆势上涨，主要得益于域名类和功能类的增长。近期，我们跟BSC的第二大日活用户的Era7合作了，后面用户数应该还会涨。我认为在一个熊市里，头像类的NFT项目经过了一波大炒作，现在也确实受到影响。另外，拉新这一块也受到了影响。如果一个产品没有炒的比较热的话，整个市场反应还是比较熊。

我们在熊市里一直在做事，产品开发人员也处于一个三班倒的状态，用户特别多的功能需求我们也在抓紧开发。另外的话，我们正在做新手玩家的教学，为下一轮牛市培育用户。资金这块我们不用太担心，因为我们A轮就拿到了红杉、IOSG、Dragonfly的总计1500万美金的融资，资金撑过这轮熊市问题不大。

主持人：域名交易最近还蛮火的，域名交易在整个NFT市场的交易活动中占了大概多少比例呢？我们有请Shier来分享一下NFTScan上面的数据。

Shier：**从NFTScan的数据上看的话呢，过去24小时的全网NFT交易额达到了17000个以太，ENS是达到了300多个以太，占比的话是比较小的。**但这个里面存在一个问题，就是总的链上成交额是有一定的水分的。有几家交易市场是有交易挖矿的，每天都有大量的刷单活动存在，水分可能要达到90%以上的。ENS的交易额水分则比较小，一方面没有刷单的必要，另一方面链上数据也看的很清楚。

从整个NFT Colletion交易额排行榜上看的话，ENS是排在前十的，基本每天都是，前十其他的都是一些单价比较高的蓝筹，比如BAYC和Azuki，每天有个几笔交易额就上去了。ENS常年稳居在前十的状态，前几天更是冲到了前五，市场占比的话还是比较大的。

Yuyue：除了ENS以外，Space ID的.bnb做的也是挺火的。在这方面的话，Element做的比其他的交易所更好的一点是，在实际的使用过程中，可以方便域名交易的人进行一些条件的筛选，确实更加优化了，域名条件的筛选对于炒域名的人来说是一种刚需，比如一些赝品的数字，或者符号类似的，可以排除掉。

现在的NFT市场成交量低迷，除了域名外，就只有土狗项目比较多。这里的土狗指的是一些不是运营的特别好的项目，价格低，量大，free mint的一些项目。因为本身它成本低，很大程度上市场成交量低迷是因为大部分fomo进去的人，剩下的只有那一小撮专业的，天天盯盘的用户。对于这些用户来说，他们可能会更加专注于交易市场本身能够给他们带来的体验。

凯叔：XCarnival是一个时间比较久的项目了，从去年10月份主网上线开始，差不多一年的时间，不算一个新的项目。从稳定性、现金储备、赛道准备、技术产品的准备，我们都算是做好了准备功夫。

目前来看，我们还是专注于NFTFi的这个赛道。无非是现在市场走熊，整个NFT赛道遇冷。但实际上从free mint，或者是每天群里冲土狗和free mint的消息来看，加上Solana和新的公链，其实还是有很多新的项目，也不乏冲项目的小伙伴们。从成交量来看，热度肯定是受影响的，但是新的东西一直在出来。我们也在时刻关注这个市场，调整下一步产品未来的场景。虽然是NFTFi，但是我们也在看除了lending以外的其他的机会，比如说Sudoswap出来了以后，我们也看了下AMM，我们也在推动这一块，和社区一起参与NFT AMM的一些新的项目的启动。从我们的角度来说，**NFT lending激活了NFT内在的流动性，那么NFT AMM就更进一步了。从流动性的角度来说，AMM相当于给NFT开了一个二池，大大加速了NFT的流动。**其实Sudo这次做的特别棒，但我站在第三方的角度来看，Sudo前面做得很好，后面做的有一些令人诟病的地方，特别是社区这个环节上，包括空投还有代币模型都没有兼顾到。这里面当然有项目方自己的考量，但这并不是完全推翻了AMM和Sudo在这个事情上面做的先发者的贡献，有很多东西是值得我们学习和尊重的。这是我们XCarnival目前在参与的，我们觉得在NFTFi这个赛道里面非常有意义的一个方向。

Goku很Cool：先从团队开始说吧，我们团队可能跟大家理解的创业团队不太一样。我们大部分人都入行比较早，不怎么做投资方面。身在一线，我们更多地是以项目方的身份在这个市场里面活跃。我们是一边学习一边创造。刚才主持人提到，NFT市场交易数据很低迷，配套设施受到影响。我觉得正好是反过来的，从最近的融资信息来看，配套设施非常积极，无论是投资方还是项目方。在基础设施层面，有很多的创业者，可能我们之中的某一个项目方刚好就是下一轮牛市的推动器。

我们团队一直以来都是站在项目方的角度去思考行业推动的问题的，在创意落实到项目的过程中，我们更在乎的是市场的声音和痛点。我们之前就已经关注到了Sudoswap，之前他们做的是OTC，避免版税的问题。在Sudo产品上线以后，从热度方面，我们是感到非常欣慰的。在熊市里面，能调动这么多的KOL和投资人，对它的整体模型进行分析，发教程教大家交互。新的NFT交易模式，是值得让人兴奋的。但最后，最大的问题，还是在运营策略上差了一些。从项目方的角度来讲，他们没有打算把Sudo打造成一个具有垄断地位的基础设施，他们本来有这个机会的，到后来浪费了这个先发优势，不管是从市场热度还是投资方资源。

这个后来衍生出了一个痛点问题，所有人都在研究Sudo调写版税的问题，让市场变得更博弈。一大部分人认为，版税的存在抑制了市场的交易热情。如果取消办税的话，可以反向刺激交易。但是，对于项目方而言，如果减少了版税收入，是不利于项目方努力做事的，这是个先有鸡还是先有蛋的问题。如果项目方不努力做事，那么谁去接盘？没有版税收入，项目方是否会继续愿意努力做事？这个问题是需要站队的，**而我们是站在Sudo的对立面，我们认为项目方必须要有版税，而且版税非常重要，只不过取决于版税从哪里收取，从哪里来贡献，羊毛出在谁身上，这是关键。**所以我们团队基于版税本身，在AMM结合NFT上面，我们做了自己的一套模型，我们认为版税部分要有新的创新。

为什么我们团队把产品称为NFTFi的“一站式”的解决方案？在推动整个项目研发的过程中，我们发现，高流动性的NFT，也就是地板级的，它对流动性的需求更大。对于高稀有度的NFT来说，借贷的需求更大。这两个板块，作为NFT资产的两个重要方向，我认为是未来盘活整个NFT用户、高净值用户，非常重要的两个方向。**NFTFi不仅仅是个独立的赛道，更需要更方便持有者、web2进入的新用户的一站式解决方案。**我们考虑到如何做一个更透明的流动性，通过AMM做到更好的价值发现机制，包括创新的版税规则，launchpad，以及未来针对高流动性的NFT，帮他们内置交易市场，开放SDK，包括帮助已有的NFT项目方发一些自己的ERC20代币，这都在我们的迭代范围内。我们先去发现市场的问题，再做出对应的解决方案。

主持人：有些人把NFT定义成一个ETH本位的杠杆合约，这个那么在最近图币双跌的情况下，是否意味着更大的流动性危机？目前市面上常见的NFT流动性解决方案，尤其是借贷，对于ETH的单边下跌，有哪些应对措施？

凯叔：图币双跌的危机我们已经发现了，市场上做借贷的也不止我们一家，这是大家都不同程度上发现和面对的问题。特别是当你使用一个点对池的协议，发生这个问题以后，直接会引发清算。如果你的产品没有考虑到这样极端的情况或者单边的情况的时候，你就会发现，整个基础协议多了很多不良资产，用web2的话说就是，借出去的没有人来赎回，变成一个烂尾资产，最后导致合约里全部都是NFT，流动性会被耗完。

从我们的角度来看，我们认为这是一个产品往前迭代的一个节点，一个必然会碰到的极端情况。为什么一个产品需要迭代，就是因为会碰到一些必须要解决的问题。比如说发生风险资产清算的时候，用户也不赎回，项目方能怎么处理不良资产？那么项目方就要配一个资金去把不良资产买下来。既然我们评估NFT资产的时候把它们定位成蓝筹，也就是说，项目本身认为这个资产是有价值的，只是现在超跌了，或者短期价值被共识抛弃了，未来还是相信它起得来的。这个时候项目就应该做出一个决定，把这些资产买回来。未来的一段时间内，图或者币往上走的时候，不良资产是可以在市场中获得高倍的溢价的，反而这个就变成了另一个专门的处置风险资产的一个获利方式了。

在做抵押借贷的时候，必须要有一个保险和再保险的关系，有一个风险金，用于cover你的风险敞口。因为本身做的超额抵押借贷，就会有清算的情况。还有另外一种情况就是当发生清算的时候，第一时间把资产给处理到，这个就和合约的设置有关系。如果没有处理到，是不是应该有一笔风险资金可以去把自己合约中被清算的不良资产给买断下来，在市场往上走的时候获得一个超额的收益。这是我们对NFT抵押借贷发生单边情况的时候，针对蓝筹的解决思路。

Peer to Peer的话会好很多，时间不会拖的太长，用户挂单，由另一个用户去接单。它并不涉及到特别大的风险敞口，最多是一个个人的坏账。但是因为用户直接对用户，对基础协议来说，类似于撮合交易的执行方，情况相对简单一点。这是另一种解决思路。

Yuyue：我对题设有一些观点，我并不觉得NFT资产和以太坊的价格是直接相关的，我之前也看过这两者价格之间的相关性的报告。我们不从数据的角度来看，直观来说，图币双跌的情况并不是完全成立的，NFT虽然是加密资产的一个小分类，但这个小分类里面品种也是非常丰富。今年在向下的趋势中，也不乏有一些造富效应很强的NFT项目，比如说猴地、月鸟、DigiDaigaku，都跟市场并不相关。我并不觉得图币价格有必然的相关性，在不同的时期和情况下相关性是不稳定的，受到环境的影响。

蓝星：蛮多团队在尝试不同的方法来解决流动性的问题，比如我最近听到的**分期购的产品。这个分期购结合了DID，根据你链上的信誉情况，可以做到零抵押，直接贷款，分期购买BAYC，这就类似于信用贷的感觉。**这一块我感觉未来也可以成为流动性解决方案之一，资金端来承担风险，依赖用户的信誉来完成这一笔分期购的交易。

Goku很Cool：我认为现在借贷的主要问题还是出在预言机上面。如何给NFT本身做定价，是一个非常重要的问题。借贷这个模式本身，不管是点对点，还是点对池，逻辑都是自洽的。预言机没有办法给到地板级别以上的NFT一个更加合理的借款金额，离地板价越远的NFT也不愿意去使用借贷。还有一种是经过一年的市场活动，以超低成本，自己积累的一些高价的筹码。我不在乎你是否会清算我的资产，我就抱着拿不回来的心态去使用借贷。核心问题出在定价的问题上，所以当时为什么我觉得NFT+AMM可以往借贷方向转的原因就是它的价格发现能力。在经济学的角度上来说，价格是由买卖双方的需求来决定的。有了池子本身，再去做借贷，它的价格会更有参考性。市面上用各种模型，甚至用上AI，分析社区规模等乱七八糟的给NFT定价的平台，目前都没有让我满意的。

Yuyue：现在市场上对NFT的定价很大程度上是比较主观和中心化的，定价的过程并不是由买卖的过程决定的，中间夹杂了很多做市的因素。这个价格锚定的过程其实很难，没有一个标准。刚才提到的用AMM的池子来做价值锚定的过程还是很有潜力的。

凯叔：我对两位嘉宾说的有点保留，可能有点反了。我觉得预言机肯定要在做NFT借贷的开始就要解决掉，否则没有办法去定价。第一点是去中心化的部分，比如说我用一个不定周期的时间维度去参考地板价的构成。这里面需要先拎出来的是高稀有度，前20%或者10%，超高价值的，或者是稀有度独特的。这些NFT其实并不适合放进借贷池去做抵押借贷操作，而更适合点对点的借贷。比方说BAYC现在地板价是70以太，超高稀有度的我可以挂到170以太。当有一个特别喜欢这只猴子的人，就会make an offer。这个不涉及到预言机的部分，预言机针对的是剩下的80%，抵押进去了以后希望能够快速借出钱来。这个需要去中心化的部分，帮助这个合约给到一个参考值，也就是所谓的价值锚定。这个部分不会是纯中心化的，因为操作太复杂，还是要有一个预言机的部分在前端去捕捉不同窗口期的地板价。

这里涉及到两个问题。第一个是作恶的问题，所以为什么蓝筹NFT抵押借贷只针对某些品类的，比如说地板价在10个以太或者20个以太往上的，是因为作恶的成本非常高。现在主流的点对池的抵押借贷协议都会有价格的准入，只对这些系列的NFT作出支持。预言机在这个环节是起作用的。有没有中心化的部分？确实也有。项目方会去评估社区热度，看看创始团队，包括holder的鲸鱼指数，钻石手的比例等等。但总体来说的话，点对池借贷只针对几类NFT系列的话，预言机还是有迹可循，有标准的。第二个是做NFT AMM，做市这个事情本身不是坏事，因为是一个热度的问题。价值发现不仅取决于买和卖，也取决于买卖过程中的获利情况。只要有热度在，做市对项目方来说是有利的。AMM的自动做市可以帮助项目方和用户去判断项目是否有热度。NFT借贷这块是依托于预言机再去做一个价值铆定，而NFT AMM，反而有很多的人为因素参与在里面。无非是说NFT AMM比一般的marketplace用起来更方便，因为是自动做市，仅此而已。我们要提出一个观点，未来出来一个新的NFT项目，散户怎么去判断是否要去参与呢？要看他们会不会做市，如果他们会做市，那就值得早期进入。我认为至少在前期，懂的做市的项目会是好项目。

主持人：NFT的做市是否有Alpha机会，对专业的做市商吸引点在哪？我们需要区分一下NFT做市商的需求和NFT做市需求。比如说，项目方有NFT做市需求，是为了营造交易行为繁荣，是一种运营手段。但这不是做市商的需求，做市商需要有利可图和高资本利用率。

蓝星：项目方找到做市商做市，是要付费用的。具体要看地板价和总量，一般一万U以上是需要的，因为要cover掉成本和手续费、版税。套利机会的话，做市商肯定是有的，这个就跟股市里一样。我一个操盘手要拉盘，肯定会逐步释放一些利好。但也有一些失败的，也要做市商自己承担损失。能否从NFT做市中赚到钱，还是要看每个操盘手的水平和技巧，这里就不方便透露了。

凯叔：做市是需要的。我们从token来说，散户最希望看到的就是拉盘，说再多也就是这么回事。项目方往上做市那么就是拉盘。熊市也好，牛市也好，项目方怎么样运营，包括PR、Marketing、团队这些套路，包括roadmap，后期赋能，在项目真正启动以后，肯定是要对二级市场和社区有个交代，有一个常态化的运营。当然，一个热度好的社区运维是很必要的，那么接下来是不是就要对市场价格做一些保护，大范围做一些做市的动作，让市场共识维持在一定范围内。

做市是很有必要的。大家都买过不少小图片，就躺在那不动了。现在有很多NFT工具都是帮你去分析项目后面的数据和资金，以及热度。这些到最后就体现在做市的节奏当中。如果要完全抛弃做市这个东西，那就跟你去买了一个艺术品放在家里，打进黑洞一样，没有区别了。

Goku很Cool：据我所知，从今年开始还是有不少传统的加密做市商加入进来NFT做市的。操作上还是偏手动化，基于自己的投资分析策略，更多层面上跟我们普通人冲土狗没有多少区别。我认为这些做市商的方式是不可取的。未来有没有机会？一定有的。现在市面上有很多NFT的交易聚合器，包括有Sudoswap和NFTX等存在资金池的项目，这些项目一定是有套利空间的。虽然OpenSea现在是寡头，但其他的产品也有蚕食它市场份额的趋势，不会一家独大。大家都在自己的流量池中去操作，而只要有不同的流量池，就会有套利空间的存在。包括链上的一些套利团队，依然在尝试写出更厉害的套利的工具。这个不管是ERC20的市场，还是NFT的市场，都是通用的。

主持人：常见对于NFT流动性解决方案的探索，比如借贷、碎片化、质押挖矿、AMM等，从市场表现来看受众依然比较小。大家认为基于非同质化的NFT特性，流动性解决方案是否是伪需求？NFT是否真的需要这么高的流动性？

Goku很Cool：这个问题我们需要区别对待。首先我们要看的是什么类型的NFT资产需要高流动性，比如说P2E项目的资产装备，权益类的会员卡，PFP类的，等等。需要高流动性的NFT资产，更多是赋予了工具和实用的属性，需要人们之间快速换手。有了高流动性，才能满足这些NFT资产的价值支撑和实际使用意义。如果没有高流动性，那么这几类NFT的价格和交易量都没有办法支撑项目走完一个完整的叙事。高流动性的NFT更需要新的流动性解决方案。

什么NFT不需要这么高的流动性呢？或者说流动性越好反而更有利于它的价值支撑呢？比如说1比1的艺术品，线下艺术品的资产的证券化、NFT化，稀有度非常高的，和现实社会存在一定的商业连接和捆绑的。这类的NFT不需要那么高的流动性，更有利于它的存在。市场会越来越碎片化，不同的团队满足不同的使用场景。未来，NFTFi会基于更碎片化的独立场景去服务不同的受众。

主持人：举个例子吧，集换式的卡牌也是满足刚才嘉宾所提到的不同流动性的级别的，比如说万智牌或者游戏王，部分卡牌也需要在玩家内部的二级市场中拥有流动性的，特别稀有的除外。因为涉及到组牌组的需求，很多卡是要在二级市场和玩家之间流通的。厂家并不会发行很多这样的卡牌，而是让卡牌在玩家中流通。那么有了实际对战需求的卡牌，就需要比较高的流动性了。但是一些退出流通或者退出环境的卡牌，比较稀有的，就可以卖出一个天价，因为一般人也不会拿出去打牌，都是收藏用的。

凯叔：我们回头看，当流动性需求没有被大范围讨论的时候，话题基本集中在Lending。当AMM出来以后，大家才开始讨论做市。不同层级的NFT，比如说收藏级别的，就不需要参加流动性，买来就收藏了。我们回到Sudo本身，为什么它被人诟病，或者是它空投方案一发布以后，整个项目的热度，holder，参与人数，都断崖式的下跌。这个现象告诉我们什么？就是因为Sudo没有办法让大家参与进去获得收益。我们在说流动性的时候，一定要关注到用户撸羊毛的习惯和参与机会。交易挖矿是一个很好的案例，在token和NFT上都是非常合理的存在。

**在NFTFi或者NFT市场还没有长大的时候，量级和token相比不具备可比性。我们要做的是先提量，其中TVL是一个很重要的数值。**在这里面，流动性才是把整个市场做热做大的基础。我们在谈NFT市场的时候，要面对的第一个问题不是解决方案，而是数量。这个数量里面包括了用户数、交易数据、项目数，这些是核心中的核心。当市场足够大的时候，才会有一些边际效应，让大家发挥的可能性，催生出更多新的东西出来。量不够的话，很多事情都很难做。而AMM或者做市都是一个很好的快速提量的方式。从生态和市场的角度，做市还真的是有这个必要。

蓝星：站在一个交易市场的角度来说，我们当然认为任何NFT都需要有流动性。没有流动性我们就没有手续费收入。站在用户的角度来说，目前的用户需求都是奔着赚钱来的。没有流动性的话，那只是账面财富。现在很多普通玩家为什么休眠了？因为买完以后过几个小时就没有流动性了。现在剩下的都是一些用机器人打土狗的。所以我认为目前阶段流动性是非常有必要的。

收藏级别的NFT，到最后，就不需要退出吗？很多ENS域名，很多人买了不卖。随着他们要退出的时候，如果市场有充足的流动性，那么就是一个健康的市场。如果没有充足的流动性，对于新老玩家，都不是特别好的现象。无论是普通的NFT，还是藏品NFT，都需要有流动性。在传统的藏品市场，也会有拍卖场，或者是藏友之间的私下聚合场合，就直接转手了。

Goku很Cool：我们当时分析Sudoswap为什么没有做到独树一帜，而不是和大家一起报团取暖呢？主要是因为它本身和项目方没有形成一条战线。首先产生争议的部分就是版税，这有一个先后顺序的问题。当项目方在有版税的平台，可以非常好地按市场基础逻辑去做项目的时候，平台应该优先服务用户和持有者，降低他们的交易成本，让他们薅到羊毛。为什么Sudo在发币以后成为众矢之的？就是因为大家本来觉得通过在你这交互可以撸到羊毛的时候，对你抱的预期就是来白嫖、赚钱。Sudoswap并没有像其他项目方一样，舔用户舔到底，同时还得罪了项目方，没有让项目方在版税上获得尊重。反过来，项目方需要什么？现在NFT市场的做市规则会更简单，叙事会更短，节奏会更快。在过去的半年到一年的时间内，NFT市场随着疯狂的造热，又到达了疯狂的谷底。主要的原因就是现有的项目方没有办法在现有的规则里创造更多的庞氏，更多财富机会给到NFT炒作者。大家资金是绝对有的，并不是没钱，而是看透了现有的套路和叙事，大家需要新的玩法和规则出来，让项目方赚钱的同时，市场也有炒作的空间。至于流动性解决方案来说，我觉得相对来说没那么重要，是有点伪需求的。重点在于，这个赛道需要新的叙事，能同时让项目方和用户都能从中获益。

Yuyue：Sudo交易量骤减的还有一个原因就是，它刚出来不久，没火多长时间，它可以运营再久一点，哪怕跟OpenSea一样不发币，它在这个领域都能占据垄断的地位。它现在没有形成用户习惯，在节奏把握上还是有点欠妥。如果它的机制能让大家习惯，让更多人接受，它未必不能成为一个巨头。

蓝星：为了交易挖矿或者撸羊毛其实并不是一个交易市场真正需要的用户。用户习惯是很重要的。如果我习惯了在淘宝上买东西，你要我在京东上买，我是很不习惯的。除非说有什么特殊情况，我需要使用京东。我用完以后体验还不错，我就会注意到京东这个平台。

虽然我也是NFT玩家，我到现在还没有体验过Sudoswap。想让用户长久使用一个平台的话，要么就是用户第一次使用的就是这个平台，要么就是来揽用户。现在X2Y2，Element的交易手续费都是0.5%，但是最活跃的，流动性最好的平台，依然还是OpenSea，用户习惯太难改变了。为什么我们在做新手学院这个事情？如果以前的老用户争取不过来，那我们就去培养新用户。对于大部分老用户来说，他们是不知道怎么去使用AMM这个机制，除非是用过Uniswap这种。NFT这个圈子对于DeFi和币是不太懂的。这个是其中一个原因。

主持人：围绕着NFT及其配套设施，各位嘉宾可以从个人喜好的角度推荐一些值得关注的项目，以及推荐的理由。

Goku很Cool：需要关注的蓝筹项目的融资和发币情况。举个例子作为一个NFT创业者，我花了很大的气力和精力去做一个NFT项目，我通过做NFT项目也赚到很多钱了，但我的持有者需要有更多的故事去支撑项目走下去，走到更大的估值。我认为未来所有的蓝筹项目都要走到发币这一步。市面上有一些项目正在尝试通过一站式的服务帮助NFT项目方，特别是运营了一段时间，有一定基础粉丝和持有者的项目方，去进行发币的。这是一个方向。a16z也投了这样一个类似的项目。

蓝星：我在刚入职Element的时候，产品还是比较难用的。但经过了两个月的迭代以后，现在已经非常好用了，我们确实有在开发，在做事情。一个团队，如果说它的产品一直在迭代，还是相当不错的。

NFTFi的话，先发优势比较重要。比如说NFTX，BendDAO这些，如果这轮熊市没死掉，等到将来市场变大了，都会有很大的市场。现在大家比较注意的是商用类型的NFT，或者PASS卡，还没有大规模的出现。如果以后连锁店、餐饮店、影院的权益都可以用NFT去支撑的时候，你会发现这个数量会大的惊人。以后对于数据的需求，借贷的需求，都会很大。

凯叔：NFTFi肯定是下一波叙事里很重要的组成部分，有几个方向我们在看。一个是流动性解决方案里面的两块，AMM和借贷。从我们团队的投研来看，这个方向是可以去关注的。

一些新公链也是有机会的，像Aptos这些非常热，这是一个很好的方向。另外可以去关注一些有很好的基本面去支撑的超跌的标的。

Yuyue：之前的Blur可以看看，其他的不作推荐了。

** **

OFR Insight Sharing is a weekly program session presented by Old Fashion Research, joined by other crypto practitioners of multiple notable institutions and media presses. Every week, researchers of OFR Fund will share their research results in the crypto industry for the past week. Recaps take a look back at the sharing sessions and expose a larger audience to the most discussed topics recently.

This week, we are pleased to feature Phillip, the core developer and co-founder of 0xScope, to share his insights and understandings on Web3 data and analysis.

____________________________________________________________________________

The topics of this week’s OFR Insight Sharing include:

• Current trends in Web3 data

• How to avoid catastrophes and risks

• How 0xScope is helping build the future

Current trends in Web3 data

• Market Cycle：Why is data the future of Web3?

  • first cycle: Asset cycle (2008-2015), with the birth of Bitcoin

  • second cycle: Finance cycle (2015-2020), with the increase of crypto assets

  • third cycle: Data cycle (2020-now), the paths of assets and finance eventually precipitate data

The state of Web3 data

• On-chain data is public and verifiable, but It is hard to process and consume.

• The data between Web2 and Web3 has not been efficiently communicated, and the Web3 data is currently thin. We need to commute more data from Web2 to Web3.

• Data silos form between organizations and lack of interoperability measures

Web3 has more and more data, but less and less knowledge.

Web3 data has the ground to flourish

• On-chain Financial Data is the New Gold.

  • Building a decentralized reputation system through multidimensional data vectors is one of the next most important use cases in the Web3 data market, and based on the reputation system, unlocking various financial scenarios such as credit lending and financial risk control.

• Data Open Source and Interoperability

  • Effectively break the information barrier. The emergence of data analytics platforms can effectively dissolve the information gap and allow users to make better use of data, in essence, to achieve better information matching results

How to avoid catastrophes and risks

Security incidents are frequent and pose a "significant threat" to the credibility of blockchain technology.

Financial risk control is imperative.

Cross-Chain Crypto Bridge Hacks Hit $2 Billion

Blockchain sleuths Chainalysis estimates that more than two-thirds of all stolen funds across the crypto space have come from cross-chain bridge hacks this year.

These sorts of attacks refer to exploits or hacks that occur on so-called bridging protocols connecting different blockchains.

Theft on bridges has amounted to $2 billion worth of stolen funds, posing a "significant threat" to the credibility of blockchain technology.

U.S. Treasury Sanctions Widely Used Crypto Mixer Tornado Cash

Tornado Cash is a tool that allows users to privately transact on Ethereum and hide their ETH transaction history.

According to analysis by TRM Labs, North Korean cyber actors used Tornado Cash in all ten of its most recent cryptocurrency heists. Tornado Cash helped North Korea more easily “cash out” to traditional currencies, which its government uses to fund weapons proliferation and other destabilizing activity. Since launch, Tornado.cash has received 3.5M ETH in deposits, worth approximately $7.6B USD. Across all tokens, it has received $8.5B in total deposits.

Analysis of Recent NFT Discord Hacks Shows Some Attacks Are Connected

In the past two months, Chainabuse has received over 100 reports of hacking attacks on the Discord channel, while the NFT community has lost approximately $22 million since May 2022.

The image shows the schedule of Discord attacks against NFT project servers between June 2, 2022 and June 10, 2022.

A review of more than 15 notable Discord compromises targeting NFT servers and analysis of on-chain and off-chain data by TRM investigators suggest that dozens of these recent account compromises are likely related. Some of the linked compromises include well-known NFT Discord project accounts such as BAYC, Bubbleworld, Parallel, Lacoste, Tasties, Anata, and a dozen others.

Why 0xScope/Watchers are the inevitable future

• Technical logic and functional architecture

  • Through a brief review of 0xScope's technical roadmap, you can better understand our product function architecture and implementation logic

• Watchers instructions and user scenarios

  • Start with a series of operation tutorials to show you how to use Watchers to better seek the truth from the entity level

• B2B Data Services and Cooperation Case

  • 0xScope-B2B data service is divided into three parts: standard products of financial risk control and anti-money laundering, customized full-process marketing services, and one-stop solutions for data docking and governance.

0xScope is a protocol created to standardize Web2 + Web3 data by building a Knowledge Graph.

What is a knowledge graph?

A knowledge graph, also known as a semantic network, represents a network of real-world entities - i.e. objects, events, situations, or concepts - and illustrates the relationship between them. This information is usually stored in a graph database and visualized as a graph structure, prompting the term knowledge “graph.”

Watchers is the first product powered by the Scope Knowledge Graph. Watchers works by creating real-time profiles with meaningful connections.

Watchers reveals deeper truths about crypto: structure, behavior, and association. Visit https://watchers.pro/

____________________________________________________________________________

Special thanks to Phillip for presenting the content. Neither OFR Insight Sharing provides financial advice, nor researchers represent the final statement of OFR Fund.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO Old Fashion Research

About Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

Follow us Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror

OFR Insight Sharing is a weekly program session presented by Old Fashion Research, joined by other crypto practitioners of multiple notable institutions and media presses. Every week, researchers of OFR Fund will share their research results in the crypto industry for the past week. Recaps take a look back at the sharing sessions and expose a larger audience to the most discussed topics recently.

This week, we are pleased to feature Scott, Web3 Researcher of ResearchDAO, to share his insights and understandings on Zero-Knowledge Proof (ZKP).

Scott is a Master of Finance at Fudan University and a crypto enthusiast since 2016. He primarily served as a Semiconductor Analyst Intern and IoT Engineer and has been a CFA Level III Candidate. Follow Scott on Twitter @CryptoScott_ETH

____________________________________________________________________________

ZKP(Zero-Knowledge Proof) is currently a popular black technology, but its technical details are more difficult to understand. This article is to sort out the relevant data in the field of zero-knowledge proof and discuss the application in the industry, hoping to provide non-technical researchers with guidance on ZK research and helping them understand zero-knowledge proofs from the simple to the deep.

Understand ZKP from the story of Alice & Bob

This chapter is a summary of The Incredible Machine published by Aviv Zohar in 2017. It helps readers to understand the relevant characteristics of zero-knowledge proofs more intuitively from a comprehensive story.

Alice and Bob are both Sudoku lovers. One day, Alice said to Bob, "I designed a very difficult Sudoku. Would you like to challenge it?" Bob accepted the challenge, but he was unable to fill the blanks, so he questioned Alice that her design has no solution. In order to prove that the problem has a solution without revealing the answer itself, Alice thought of a way.

• The Commitment: Alice takes 81 (9x9) blank cards and puts them on the table, writes a number from 1-9 on each sheet, he turns Bob around and closes his eyes, then puts the 81 cards placed on the table according to the arrangement of the solution. The cards representing the solution are placed on the table with the numbers facing down; the cards representing the riddle are placed on the table with the numbers facing up.

• The Random Challenge: Bob randomly selects the row, or by the column, or by the 3x3 nine-square grid to test the solution. Then put the selected 9 cards away and put them individually in a bag. All cards were collected and placed in 9 bags. Alice then shook each bag, breaking the order of the cards inside. She returns the 9 bags to Bob.

• Verification: Bob opens the bags and verifies that each bag contains number cards from 1 to 9

• Repeat: According to the rules of Sudoku, the numbers in each row and column of each nine-square grid will not be repeated. Only one random experiment is performed, and the probability that Alice does not lie is only 1/3. Repeat the experiment several times, and the result of each experiment will not be repeated. Repeating numbers proves that Alice really knows the solution to the problem.

• Non-Interactivity: Alice and Bob's selection arrangement is interactive, and there is a possibility that the two parties may join forces to deceive a third party. So Charlie designed a machine to select the row and column blocks to achieve the non-interaction of random experiments. Alice just puts the card on the conveyor belt, the machine will automatically choose to collect the card by row, column, or grid, put it in the bag to shuffle the order, and then send the bag through the conveyor belt.

• Trusted Setup: The extraction order of row and column blocks is set by Charlie, so this machine cannot verify whether he can solve Sudoku or not. Others can also bribe Charlie to know the extraction order. Alice then proposes to have Charlie turn the control panel back on, and a multi-party set up the test sequence on the control panel. This process is called a "trusted setup ceremony". The machine is placed in a dark room, the first person enters the room and turns the dial to any random position, the second person and the third person add one and two cells down in the order randomly selected by the first person. In this way, it ensures that each dial will not be known to any of them. After this setup ceremony is completed, they will weld the control panel of the machine.

Such a machine can realize the three characteristics of zero-knowledge:

• Completeness - as long as the "statement" is correct, the prover can convince the verifier

• Reliability - if the "statement" is false, there is no way for a cheating prover to convince a verifier

• Zero knowledge - the interaction of the protocol only reveals whether the "statement" is correct and does not reveal other information other than public information

Understand ZKP from a mathematical perspective

This chapter is about the mathematical proof process of ZK-SNARK (the mainstream ZKP). It mainly refers to Quadratic Arithmetic Programs: from Zero to Hero published by Vitalik Buterin in 2016. From a mathematical point of view, it helps readers to further understand the implementation process of zero-knowledge proof.

Preliminary knowledge

• Complexity

  • How fast the length of time the procedure takes grows as the problem scales up.

  • No matter how big the data is, the time it takes to process the program is always that much, we say that this program is very good and has O(1) time complexity, also known as constant-level complexity;

  • How big the data size becomes, and how long it takes, the time complexity of this program is O(n).

  • O(1), O(log(n)), O(n^c), etc. We call it polynomial level complexity.

  • O(c^n) and O(n!) type complexity, which is non-polynomial, and the complexity of which computers often cannot afford.

  • When we are solving a problem, the algorithm we choose usually needs to be polynomial-level complexity, and non-polynomial-level complexity requires too much time and often times out, unless the data size is very small.

• P problem and NP problem

  • P problem: a problem solvable in polynomial time, such as

    • Knowing the private key sk and the elliptic curve generator G, the public key pk = sk * G can be quickly calculated

    • Knowing the original image x and the hash function SHA256, you can quickly calculate the hash value Y = SHA256(x)

• NP problems: problems that cannot be solved in polynomial time (difficult to solve), but can be verified in polynomial time (easy to verify), such as:

  • Knowing the public key pk and the elliptic curve generator G, the private key sk cannot be calculated in polynomial time such that pk = sk*G

  • Knowing the hash value Y and the hash function SHA256, the preimage x cannot be calculated in polynomial time such that Y = SHA256(x)

• Polynomial

  • Polynomials have a very nice property that if we have two unequal polynomials of degree d, they will not intersect at more than d points. It is impossible for us to find two different curves, they will coincide in a certain area (they will only intersect at some points).

  • For example, to check whether two vectors of length 1000 (the information provided by the prover and the correct information) are equal, be sure to check 1000 times, and two polynomials of 1000th degree have at most 1000 points the same, in a large take for a range of values, such as 1 to 100 million, the probability that two different polynomials are the same at the same point is only 1 in 1 million. Checking if two polynomials are equal is much faster than checking if two vectors of equal size are equal.

  • (Ax, s) * (Bx, s) - (Cx, s) is a quadratic algorithm polynomial, referred to as a QAP polynomial (Ax, Bx, Cx are d-order polynomials, s is a d-order vector, and QAP is a 2d-order polynomial) . a1,a2,…,an is the solution of the QAP polynomial equal to 0, let Z(x)=(x-a1)*(x-a2)*…*(x-an), then the QAP polynomial can be calculated by Z(x) Divisible.

  • If the vector s is not known, it takes exponential time to violently search for the vector s, so that the constructed QAP polynomial can divide Z(x).

  • Divisibility relation of QAP polynomials, constituting NP problems.

• Arithmetic circuits

  • In terms of writing programs with circuits, it is relatively mature. For example, CPUs, various chips, embedded devices, ASIC mining machines, etc., are all circuit designs. At the same time, the structure of the circuit is simple enough not to cause too much trouble to construct the ZKP. It's just that ZKP commonly uses arithmetic circuits (left), and Boolean circuits are common in hardware (right).

• Codes for polynomial-time operational relationships can be represented by arithmetic circuits. The arithmetic circuit consists of addition gates and multiplication gates.

• Continuously smooth functions can be infinitely approximated by Taylor expansion, which consists of addition and subtraction and exponentiation, and the power function consists of multiplication. Bitwise operations such as AND and XOR are not smooth and are more difficult to represent by addition and multiplication.

• Basic knowledge of linear algebra

  • Vector inner product operation

• As shown in the figure on the left, if the input is known and the verifier wants to verify whether the result given by the prover is correct, the final result can be compared with the output through the value of each node in the arithmetic circuit. However, this process cannot achieve simplicity, that is, the calculation time used by the prover and the verifier to draw a conclusion is the same, so the value in the operation process can be used as an unknown variable and verified by zero-knowledge proof. To achieve the simplicity of the verification process; as shown in the figure on the right, in order to maintain the privacy of part of the input, the prover can use zero-knowledge proof technology to make the prover believe that the prover knows the correct solution.

• The information known to the Verifier is Statement (shown in green in the figure below), and the knowledge that the Prover knows but the Verifier does not know is Witness (shown in blue in the figure below).

**

The mathematical proof process**

1. In order to achieve simplicity or zero-knowledge, the algorithm needs to be converted into an NP problem (easy to verify, difficult to solve)

2. The answer known by the verifier and the information data contained in the correct answer can be represented by a vector. To determine whether two vectors are equal, a vector length operation is required. For example, to determine whether two vectors of length 100 are equal, 100 comparisons are required. conclusions can be drawn later. Conciseness and zero knowledge are not achieved.

3. Judging whether two polynomials are equal is easier than judging whether two vectors are equal, because two different n-order polynomials are at most compared to n points, as long as the range is large enough, the point where the two functions intersect will be collided. The probability is extremely low, an unlikely event. For example, two different 100th-order polynomial functions have at most 100 identical points. If the value range of x is set to [-1,000,000, 1,000,000], a random point is selected so that the probability of the intersection of the two polynomials is 100/ 2,000,000=1/20,000, if two points are taken uniformly so that the probability of two polynomials intersecting is (1/20,000)*(1/20,000), it is an impossible event.

4. Converting the problem of verifying whether two vectors are equal to verifying whether two polynomials are equal can greatly reduce the computational complexity. SNARK converts the vector comparison problem into a natural NP problem that divides the target polynomial by the QAP polynomial as a verification method.

5. In order to construct the QAP polynomial, the program needs to be converted into an arithmetic circuit to construct the R1CS.

6. SNARK proof process: the program is transformed into a polynomial time operation relation -> R1CS -> QAP -> QAP divisible relation -> elliptic curve discrete logarithm.

ZK-SNARKs and ZK-STARKs

The current mainstream ZKPs are zkSNARK and zkSTARK. SNARK, STARK, and ZKP are all proof systems. The intersection of SNARK and ZKP is called zkSNARK, and the intersection of STARK and ZKP is called zkSTARK.

The meanings of SNARK and STARK

SNARK

• S: Succinctness. Prover and Verifier implement this proof system, which saves communication bandwidth compared to Prover sending w directly to Verifier. Occasionally, succinctness may also require Verifier to be less computationally expensive in the proof system than to verify w. In summary, succinctness requires proving that the system has an advantage in terms of efficiency.

• N: Non-Interactivity means that the entire interaction of the proof system is only a message sent by the Prover to the Verifier, which is called a proof. Non-interactivity can bring many conveniences and bring more application scenarios to the proof system. For example, in a blockchain system, a non-interactive zero-knowledge proof can be attached to a transaction for anyone to check at any time, without requiring the author of the transaction to interact with the validator online at any time. Any NP language naturally has a non-interactive proof protocol, that is, the Prover sends the proof directly to the Verifier, and the proof is a knowledge proof.

ARK: Argument of Knowledge. If the Prover is required to "know" some information in order for the Verifier to pass verification, the system is called Proof of Knowledge. Proof of Knowledge can be seen as an enhanced version of reliability. The computational version of a Proof of Knowledge is called an Argument of Knowledge.STARK

• S: Scalability, which requires the Prover complexity to be at most Quasi-linear, ie O(n log n), based on succinctness. The proof time has a quasi-linear relationship with the complexity of the proof content, while the verification time has a multi-logarithmic relationship with it. Therefore, when the complexity of the proof content increases significantly, although the off-chain proof time also increases quasi-linearly, the on-chain verification time does not increase much.

• T: Transparent, STARK does not require a trusted third-party setup.

• ARK: Argument of Knowledge.

Similarities and differences between SNARK and STARK

STARK and SNARK are only one word apart, but there are many differences. Let's compare these two concepts.

Common ground:

• Both are arguments of knowledge (ARK), i.e. reliability in the computational sense only, and proofs are knowledgeable

the difference:

• SNARK's "S" is Succinctness, while STARK's "S" is Scalability, which requires Prover complexity to be at most quasi-linear (Quasi- linear), which is O(n log n).

• Transparency: STARK does not require a trusted third-party setup, so it is resistant to quantum computing.

• Non-Interactivity: SNARKs must be non-interactive, while STARKs do not have this limitation. It can be seen that the only limitation of SNARK over STARK is non-interactivity. Nevertheless, STARKs can generally be transformed into non-interactive proofs, and the result of the transformation must be a SNARK. In this sense, STARKs can be thought of as a subset of SNARKs.

• Most of the current zkSNARKs are based on circuit models, STARKs are based on RAM models, and the construction of RAM models is extremely complex.

• The size of cryptographic proofs generated by zk-STARKs is much larger. Additionally, Ethereum has precompiled for specific zk-SNARKs, so the gas cost of validating cryptographic proofs for zk-SNARKs is lower than for zk-STARKs.

ZKP Applications

ZKP is mainly used in the two directions of expansion and privacy, and the privacy direction includes privacy applications and privacy public chains built on Layer1 or Layer2. Before DeFi broke out, ZKP was mainly used in the direction of privacy. After the outbreak of DeFi, the high gas fee was the biggest obstacle to the large-scale use of Ethereum. Therefore, everyone began to turn their attention to Layer2 expansion, and in the Layer2 scheme, zk-Rollup has the best performance in terms of security and gas cost savings.

Layer 2 expansion

Before discussing the Layer 2 expansion, let's have a general understanding of the gas composition of Ethereum.

Layer 1 Gas Composition

The calculation method of gas fee on Ethereum is gas price (gasPrice) * gas cost (gasUsed).

• The gas price (gasPrice) is a quotation method, you can choose the quotation level by yourself, and the gas price (gasPrice) is related to the transaction speed. The gas price (gasPrice) has a positive correlation with the priority of the transaction, when the transaction demand of the same level of complexity and the higher the gas price (gasPrice), the miners will be more inclined to give priority to processing, and the transaction speed will be faster.

• The gas cost (gasUsed) is positively related to the complexity of the transaction. The higher the transaction complexity, the higher the gas cost (gasUsed); otherwise, the lower it is. For example, if you perform transfer operations and leverage operations separately, generally speaking, the cost of the former will be lower than that of the latter, because leverage operations are more complicated.

Rollup transfers the transactions that need to be calculated on the mainnet to off-chain, and then feeds back the calculated results to the mainnet, thereby reducing the complexity of transactions and reducing gas costs; the solution of ETH2.0 is to reduce the unit price of gas fuel on the mainnet, thereby reducing the gas cost.

Optimistic Rollup vs ZK Rollup

The Layer 2 expansion scheme can be divided according to the data storage method and the proof system. The specific division method is shown in the following figure. The current mainstream solutions are Optimistic Rollup and ZK Rollup.

• Optimistic Rollup

  • The method of interactive fraud proof is used to ensure security, that is, when the calculation result of Layer 2 is returned to Layer 1, when the Verifier believes that the result may be fraudulent, the Verifier initiates a challenge, and then the mainnet freezes the assets, conduct transaction data and record verification, and finally prove whether it is a real transaction or a fraudulent transaction. When no validator doubts this result, the mainnet defaults that these results are true.

  • Advantages: good compatibility;

  • Disadvantages: low security (there is no fundamental guarantee of the control of assets, that is, the security of assets is threatened); assets will be frozen; the withdrawal cycle is long.

• ZK Rollup

  • Pack a large number of transactions into a Rollup block and generate a compact proof of the block off-chain. Subsequently, the smart contract on Layer 1 can directly apply the new state by simply verifying this proof, without re-executing these transactions. This saves an order of magnitude in gas costs, since the cost of proof verification is much lower than the computational cost of re-execution. Another benefit is that storage space can be saved through data compression (i.e., only a minimal amount of data is stored on-chain for verification).

  • Advantages: high security, short withdrawal period, low gas fee

  • Disadvantage: poor compatibility

Privacy

Privacy applications

• Tornado.Cash

The transaction records on Ethereum are public, you can see all the historical transaction records of an address on Etherscan, and know the asset balance of each address. In traditional financial payment, people are often reluctant to let others know how much money is in their account, and they are also reluctant to let anyone at random check their own transaction records. ZK technology can solve this problem very well.

Tornado.Cash, as the hottest decentralized privacy solution on the Ethereum network, uses zk-SNARKs technology to break the on-chain link between the addresses of depositors and withdrawers, achieves transaction confidentiality, and protects user privacy. Anonymous token transactions are realized. Simply put, it is a contract. When you want to transfer tokens anonymously, you throw a certain amount of coins into the contract (Deposit). At this time, you will get a note. Note is a string of characters. The person with this string can withdraw (Withdraw) the token just passed into the contract. Holding a note means having the right to withdraw money, so once the note is known to others, others can withdraw the money.

• Dark Forest

At present, GameFi basically only has assets on-chain, and the asset value of the game depends to a large extent on the game itself. After the centralized operation of the game is closed, the value of the assets on-chain no longer exists. A game that has on-chain assets only is not decentralized enough. A game that deploys the entire game on the blockchain can be called a true decentralized game.

https://trapdoortech.medium.com/dark-forest-one-interesting-game-with-zk-snark-technology-47528fa7691e

The universe is like a dark forest, and the civilizations that exist in the universe are like hunters with guns. If a civilization is the first to discover another civilization in the universe, then it will attack like a hunter shooting a prey, Eventually a civilization is always wiped out. Due to the existence of this law, every civilization is very careful in its activities in the universe, but it is inevitable that some civilizations will expose their whereabouts and be attacked by other civilizations.

Dark Forest is a real-time strategy game and the first fully on-chain game to run on the Gnosis chain. The movement and capture of planets is the strategic focus of the entire game. Since it is a mobile attack, each planet has a coordinate. In order to increase the strategic experience of the game, the exact coordinates of the planet are not disclosed. It's a bit like in the vast universe, you can only observe (enumerate) the limited space around (hash collision) to find other planets. In order to prove the correct movement of the planet without disclosing the coordinates of the planet, zero-knowledge proof technology was introduced.

Privacy public blockchains

• Zcash

Zcash was born on November 9, 2011, its full name is Zero Cash, or ZEC for short. Most of Zcash’s code is very similar to Bitcoin, with a total of 21 million tokens, but it further improves the lack of Bitcoin’s anonymity function. Zcash is the first blockchain system to use the Zk-SNARK zero-knowledge proof mechanism to completely solve the problem of transactions being tracked and exposing user privacy. Zcash transactions automatically hide the sender, receiver and amount of all transactions on the blockchain. Only those with the viewing key can see the contents of the transaction. Users have full control, and they can choose to provide viewing keys to others. Currently, Zcash transactions are divided into two categories: transparent addresses (starting with "t") and hidden addresses (starting with "z"). If the user wishes to verify the details of the hidden address, a special access key must be shared with the relevant parties. Users can also "selectively disclose," which also comes with an encrypted memo field that allows institutions to securely attach sensitive data to transactions and make that information visible to authorized parties.

• Iron Fish

Iron Fish is committed to providing strong privacy guarantees for every transaction. Transaction information, mining information, and wallet information are all hidden, and cannot be viewed by any second party except the private key owner. To achieve this, Iron Fish has built a new PoW network that uses zk-SNARKs and the Sapling protocol to provide the highest level of privacy protection for every on-chain transaction.

One of the highlights of Iron Fish is that the network wants to preserve privacy without compromising the accessibility of on-chain transactions, so Iron Fish equips each on-chain address with an additional view key. The address holder can grant others read-only access through this key.

Currently, Iron Fish is still in the testnet stage and has launched an incentive program. Active participants can earn corresponding points through various contributions, and these points will be exchanged for mainnet tokens when the mainnet is released in the future.

• Mina

Mina is a lightweight public chain. Through recursive zero-knowledge proof, the size of the blockchain is maintained at about 22 KB, which allows nodes to participate with low requirement of hardware conditions, even for mobile terminals with relatively weak computing power, similar to mobile phones, tablet computers, etc., can also verify the Mina network synchronously. The requirements for running a node is lower, the nodes are more distributed, and an ecosystem that can protect data privacy is built around zero-knowledge proof.

Recursive zero-knowledge proof means: at each block production, the block is compressed into a single proof using zk-SNARK technology, and each new SNARK proof contains the past SNARK proof, and the node only needs to detect the proof. This eliminates the need to examine the entire transaction history, and the proofs can be recursively combined to achieve constant block size.

Compatibility - ZK EVM

The Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) is blockchain-based open-source software that allows developers to create decentralized applications. It is the global virtual computer that records the state of every smart contract that the Ethereum network stores and reaches consensus, and Solidity is its programming language. EVM was the first software to provide developers with smart contract capabilities and has grown into a thriving ecosystem with valuable developer network effects that extend beyond the Ethereum blockchain itself.

A protocol is EVM compatible if its smart contracts can be executed on the EVM, which means that the protocol's contracts must either be written in Solidity, or be able to compile its contract code into words that can run on the EVM section code. If a new public chain or Layer2 wants to rapidly expand its ecosystem, EVM compatibility is essential, and applications written in Solidity on Ethereum can be quickly deployed to their own chains. The Solidity language has many ZK-Unfriendly syntaxes, which makes the implementation of ZK-EVM face great challenges. Which protocol can achieve better EVM compatibility will achieve network effects faster.

• Solidity source code → compiler → EVM executable bytecode → EVM → EVM interpreter → machine executable binary file → program execution.

• Solidity source code → compiler → zkEVM executable bytecode → zkEVM → zkEVM interpreter → machine executable binary file → program execution.

• Non-Solidity source code → compiler → EVM executable bytecode → EVM → EVM interpreter → machine executable binary file → program execution.

This chapter is a generalization and summary of The different types of ZK-EVMs published by Vitalik in 2022 and zkEVM published by Ye Zhang in 2022. From the perspective of the classification and technical evolution of ZK-EVM, it helps readers better understand ZK-EVM development status.

Design challenges

• First, EVM has limited support for elliptic curves. Currently, EVM only supports BN254 pairing. EVM has difficulty implementing proof recursion due to no direct support for cyclic elliptic curves. With this setup, it is also difficult for us to use other proprietary protocols. The verification algorithm must be EVM friendly.

• Second, the word size of the EVM is 256 bits. The EVM operates on 256-bit integers (like most common virtual machines that operate on 32-64-bit integers), and zero-knowledge proofs operate "naturally" on prime fields. Doing "mismatch domain arithmetic" in a circuit requires range proofs, which in turn add about 100 constraints to each EVM operation. This increases the EVM circuit size by two orders of magnitude.

• Third, EVM has many special opcodes. Unlike traditional virtual machines, EVM has many special opcodes, such as CALL, and error types related to the execution environment and gas. This brings new challenges to circuit design.

• Fourth, EVM is a stack-based virtual machine. The SyncVM (zkSync) and Cairo (Starkware) architectures define their own IR/AIR in a register-based model. They built a specialized compiler to compile smart contract code into a new zero-knowledge proof-friendly IR. This method is language compatible, not native EVM compatible. Whether it's proving a stack-based model, or directly supporting native toolchains, it becomes more difficult.

• Fifth, the Ethereum storage layout brings high costs. The Ethereum storage layout is highly dependent on Keccak and a giant MPT4. Neither is zero-knowledge proof-friendly and incurs high proof costs. For example, the circuit size of Keccak hash is 1000 times larger than that of Poseidon hash. However, if you replace the Keccak hash with another hash, it will introduce some compatibility issues with the existing Ethereum infrastructure.

• Sixth, machine-based proofs come with high costs. Even if you can handle all the above problems properly, you still need to find an efficient way to combine them to get a complete EVM circuit. As I mentioned in the previous section, even a simple opcode like add can potentially cost you the entire EVM circuit.

Categories

• Type 1 (exactly Ethereum equivalent)

Strive to be completely and uncompromisingly equivalent to Ethereum. Proofs are generated without changing any part of the Ethereum system.

Advantages: Perfectly compatible, this type of ZK-EVM is what we need most, making Ethereum layer 1 itself more scalable, and ideal for rollups as it allows rollups to use a lot of infrastructure. (The consensus level can also be implemented with ZK)

Disadvantages: Proving time is long. Ethereum was not originally designed around ZK friendliness, so many parts of the Ethereum protocol require a lot of computation to be ZK proofs. Type 1 is designed to replicate Ethereum exactly, so it cannot mitigate these inefficiencies.

Builders: privacy-scaling-explorations

• Type 2 (exactly EVM equivalent)

Type 2 ZK-EVM seeks to be fully equivalent to EVM, but not fully equivalent to Ethereum. That is, they look exactly like Ethereum "from the inside", but they have some differences on the outside, especially in data structures like block structure and state tree.

Pros: Perfect equivalence at the VM level, you won't be able to execute clients using Ethereum as-is, but you can use them with some modifications, and you can still use the EVM debugging tools and most other developer bases facilities.

Cons: There are improvements but still need to provide faster proof times than Type 1, mostly by removing parts of the Ethereum stack that rely on unnecessarily complex and ZK-unfriendly cryptography, but they don't solve everything .

Builders: Scroll's ZK-EVM project is heading towards Type 2 ZK-EVM, as is Polygon Hermez. That said, neither project is complete yet. In particular, many of the more complex precompiled are not implemented yet. So both projects are better considered Type 3 at the moment.

• Type 2.5 (EVM equivalent, except gas cost)

One way to significantly improve worst-case prover time is to greatly increase the gas cost of certain operations in the EVM that are difficult to ZK proofs. Changing the gas cost may reduce developer tool compatibility and break some applications, but it is generally considered less risky than a "deeper" EVM change.

Benefit: Speeds up proof time

Disadvantage: Partial incompatibility

• Type 3 (almost EVM equivalent)

Type 3 ZK-EVM is nearly equivalent to EVM, but makes some sacrifices in exact equivalence to further reduce verification time and make EVM easier to develop, possibly removing some that are extremely difficult to implement in ZK-EVM implementations function.

Advantages: Easier to build, faster verification time

Cons: More incompatibilities. These types of ZK-EVMs aim to be compatible with most applications and require minimal rewriting of the rest. That said, there will be some applications that will need to be rewritten.

Builders: Scroll and Polygon are both Type 3 in their current form, although they are expected to improve compatibility over time. Polygon uses some different internal logic to do it. Type 3 is just a transitional phase until the complex work of adding precompiles is done and the project can move to Type 2.5.

• Type 4 (high-level language equivalent)

Type 4 works by taking smart contract source code written in a high-level language (such as Solidity, Vyper, or an intermediate language that both can compile) and compiling it into some language explicitly designed to be ZK-SNARK friendly.

Pros: Very fast verification time by not doing ZK proofs for all the different parts of each EVM execution step, and starting directly from higher-level code, you can avoid a lot of costs.

Cons: more incompatibilities

Builders: ZKSync is a Type 4 system, although it may increase compatibility with EVM bytecode over time. Nethermind's Warp project is building a compiler from Solidity to Starkware's Cairo that will turn StarkNet into a de facto Type 4 system.

The future of different ZK-EVM types is not about which one is "better" or "worse". Instead, they are trade-offs that are spatially different: lower-numbered types are more compatible with existing infrastructure, but slower; and higher-numbered types are less compatible with existing infrastructure, but faster.

It can be seen that in order to achieve better compatibility, not only the ZK project party needs to work hard, but also the improvement of Ethereum itself and the development of hardware.

Possibilities of zkEVM Implementation

• Use of polynomial commitment. For the past few years, most compact zero-knowledge proof protocols have used R1CS, with PCP queries encoded into an application-specific trusted setup. This tends to increase the size of the circuit, making many custom optimizations impossible because each constraint must be of degree 2 (bilinear pairing allows only one exponential multiplication computation). With a polynomial commitment scheme, you can raise your constraints to any order via a universal setup or even a transparent setup, greatly increasing the flexibility of backend selection.

• Lookup table parameters and appearance of custom widgets. Another important optimization is the use of lookup tables. This optimization was first proposed in Arya and then implemented in Plookup. For zero-knowledge proof-unfriendly primitives (ie, bitwise operations like AND and XOR), lookup tables can save a lot of work. Custom widgets can efficiently implement higher-order constraints. TurboPlonk and UltraPlonk define an elegant program syntax that reduces the difficulty of using lookup tables and defining custom widgets. This goes a long way towards reducing the cost of the EVM circuit.

• Recursive proofs are getting more and more feasible. In the past, recursive proofs were expensive because they relied on special pair-friendly cyclic elliptic curves (i.e., MNT-curve-based structures). This incurs a high computational cost. However, a growing number of techniques enable recursive proofs without sacrificing efficiency. For example, Halo does not require pair-friendly curves and can also use a special inner product parameter to amortize recursion costs. Aztec demonstrated proofs that can directly aggregate existing protocols (lookup tables can reduce the cost of non-native field operations, thereby reducing the size of verification circuits). The same circuit scale can now achieve more functions.

• Hardware industry is accelerating and improving proof efficiency. As far as we know, we have built the fastest GPU and ASIC/FPGA accelerators for the proof program. Our paper on ASIC proof procedures was accepted this year by ISCA, the top academic computer conference. Our GPU prover is approximately 5 to 10 times faster than Filecoin's implementation, which greatly improves the computational efficiency of the Prover.

Conclusion

Before DeFi broke out, ZKP was mainly used in the direction of privacy. After the outbreak of DeFi, the high gas fee was the biggest obstacle to the large-scale use of Ethereum. Therefore, everyone began to turn their attention to Layer2 expansion, and in the Layer2 scheme, zk-Rollup has the best performance in terms of security and gas cost savings. The reason that hinders the large-scale outbreak of zk-Rollup is that due to its poor compatibility, many Layer 1 protocols need to be modified to deploy zk-Rollup. With the development of zk-EVM, this problem will be solved. The combination of ZK-Rollup and ETH greatly reduces the Gas fee while ensuring security, further hindering the development of Alt Layer1. At that time, Ethereum will further realize its vision of becoming a global settlement layer.

Discussions about the Future of the ZK Industry

• ZK Rollup P.K. Optimistic Rollup

• ETH + ZK Rollup P.K. Alt Layer 1

• The estimate market potential and commercial value of ZK Rollup

• Is it necessary to build an entire privacy chain?

• Other future applications

____________________________________________________________________________

Special thanks to Scott for presenting the content. Neither OFR Insight Sharing provides financial advice, nor researchers represent the final statement of OFR Fund.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO Old Fashion Research

About Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

** Follow us Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror**

🎙录音回放：

https://twitter.com/i/spaces/1RDGlaEkeAVJL?s=20

OFRTalk #12 参与嘉宾

安仔Clint, y2z Ventures 研究员 @AnClint

红军大叔, IBCL 发起人 @alexwanng

Dr.ATOM, In Cosmos Community & Block Oracle Capital 创始人 @feelingking8

Jeffrey, Tech Lead of HashKey Capital @hu_zhiwei

—————————————————————————————————————————

主持人：除去最近大热的Aptos/Sui/Linera的Move军团，也有一批基于Cosmos SDK的新公链项目备受一级市场的投资机构青睐，比如Celestia，Canto，Kujira等。Cosmos生态作为以太坊强有力的竞争对手，具备哪些以太坊生态不具备的优势，又有哪些不足？

安仔：Cosmos生态和以太坊生态对比的话，不足可能会比较多。优势的话，它现在能做到的链间互操作性要比以太坊更丝滑。现在IBC已经开放了，资产之间的互转几乎是无缝的。但是在以太坊上你从主链到各种不同的rollup之间时间成本以及摩擦会高很多，像OP之类的乐观Rollup回来主网就需要等7天。在它的路线图里面未来的跨合约调用是一个比较大的里程碑，这条链的愿景未来实现跨合约调用以后，资本效率会有很大的提升，比较值得期待。

不足的话，马上以太坊就要转POS了，经过漫长的POW的筹码分发，它筹码已经做到了足够的离散，共识可以接受上万个节点。但是像Cosmos，无论是Cosmos Hub还是基于Cosmos SDK的其他链，它们的验证人节点和集合都不够200个。

优势是链间互操作性，现在已经可以体现了，未来实现跨合约调用更值得期待。不足的话就是与以太坊相比共识和筹码分布过于集中。

红军大叔：大的Cosmos生态整体上来说，它的架构上是一个水平面或者是横向扩展。一个应用一个链，这个大家都知道的一个链一个zone的概念。一开始兼顾的就是性能的问题，有分片的效果。接入IBC协议是一个互操作性，**有些团队把这个称为城邦模式，而把以太坊称之为帝国模式。以太坊的扩展方式像往上扩展的方式，有点像搭建摩天大楼。**我认为IBC协议是cosmos生态一个非常重要的亮点，我把它看的很高，是它的灵魂。跨链是通过IBC才能实现的，有了IBC以后和各个Zone之间起到了隔离和组合的效果，达到了安全性的保障。从架构上是可以看到它的去中心化和抗打击能力。比如一个Zone出问题的话是不会影响到全局的其他链。之前在69号提案中也提到了这一点，当时提案是把CosmWasm这个智能合约部署到Cosmos hub，最后提案被否决了，最后达成社区的共识：hub的功能尽量少一点，把有风险性的尝试的东西在一个其他的zone里面来做，达到风险隔离的效果。

另外，IBC是比跨链桥更可靠的跨链实现方式。虽然大家也提出和以太坊互通，但是很多与以太坊互通后的基础设施和项目，总的来说，还是需要依靠跨链桥来交互。相比起IBC来说，安全性上是有挑战的。目前也有一些外围异构的项目接入到IBC来，包括Near，Harmony，波卡都有这样的计划接入。所以我个人认为，跨链桥在cosmos生态里不太受欢迎，大家更希望基于IBC的方式，安全性有一定程度的保障，也运行了一定的时间。

Cosmos生态的调性或者文化上和其他的生态相比有一个特点，更去中心化一点，更开放。没有带头大哥，也没有高调的市场宣传活动。就像主持人所说的，Cosmos在推特上是没有什么存在感的，这个也是之前大家诟病cosmos模式的一个地方。但是如果我们从了解cosmos架构的这个特征来说，我觉得这个现象是很自然的。

我最后说一点不足吧，就是说cosmos生态总体在应用方面还不够多元或者不够丰富。我们之前IBCL上出了一篇文章，说的就是cosmos现在的发展还在第一阶段，有点类似于以太坊的去中心化兼容、DeFi这块。后面的步子可能也是按照新的类型逐步出来，比如说元宇宙、NFT、GameFi。这是一个缺点，也是一个潜力。

Dr.ATOM：**从优势来说的话，cosmos生态的拓展性更好，因为它每一个生态都是layer 1，都是一个独立的公链，不会受到cosmos hub性能的限制。每条链都能达到1000以上的TPS，再通过跨链协议IBC融合在一起。**以太坊作为layer 1，TPS只有十几，就是说所有的以太坊生态加起来只能共享这个速度。layer 2也只能提高10倍，处理能力还是比较弱。Cosmos在这点上比较有优势。

第二个我是觉得它的自主性和可组合性比较强。Cosmos SDK可以根据自己的需求定制化自己链，可以更自由地开发，不会受到母链的限制，也是最近dydx迁移到cosmos的原因。迁移到cosmos，它的性能有极大的提高，而且可以作为layer 1，一条衍生品的公链，不会受到以太坊或是starknet性能的限制，从而开发出更好的DeFi产品。

Cosmos最重要的一个特点就是它属于应用链，那么它的安全性是可以定制化的，不像以太坊、波卡一样共享安全性，这是非常不公平而且浪费的。比如说DeFi，它需要很高的安全性。但是社交，NFT，游戏，这些并不需要安全性特别高。它们在竞争链上资源的时候，只有金融属性很强的dapp才能承受这样的成本。比方说前段时间NFT很火的时候，很贵的NFT可以承受以太坊的gas，但是其他的dapp肯定是要避开这个高峰期。Cosmos生态之间每条链相对独立，可以自行利用自己的计算资源。cosmos2.0到来以后，大家共享安全，不同的应用也都可以选择不同的安全性，而不需要每个应用都承担同样的安全性。我觉得安全性可定制化也是一个非常好的特点。

但cosmos相对中心化，节点比较少，这是由tendermint的共识所决定的。tendermint的共识是节点数的平方，那如果节点太多的话，网络会变慢，tps会下降，现在的cosmos hub的节点也就100多个。

第二个cosmos需要努力的是点是增强异构公链的跨链能力，现在有很多桥在做，希望未来有更大的突破，可以把IBC和异构公链融合在一起。

**第三，IBC作为应用链之间连接的很好的方式，但目前cosmos大规模使用的dapp却还没有诞生，**我很期待衍生品、游戏类应用的诞生。

Jeffery：我简单补充一下，我同意刚才王博士所说的几个观点，里面比较重要的就是应用链，是另外一个叙事。cosmos里面的应用可以作为一个layer 1去定制自己的底层的基础设施和上层的应用，所以整个思路和原来开发的思路不太一样，这算是一种优点吧。最近看到一些比较有意思的有做订单簿的Sei Network，还有Canto，Kujira等等，都是在应用层做了比较有意思的事情。如果想要定制一些底层的东西，也可以像Celestia这样，在cosmos生态里面做了DA层，和cosmos hub有一个比较好的互补。从各个角度和层次上面，链与链之间有很多可以定制的空间，更加灵活，给到开发团队比较大的自由空间。

不足的话，目前明显的就是开发者的数量赶不上以太坊。

主持人：在Celestia，Canto，Kujira当中，有主打模块化并鼓励rollup的Celestia，也有专用应用链比如Canto，Kujira。为什么一级市场上比较受欢迎的项目和精英团队都选择在cosmos上面开发而不是用户数量更多的以太坊？是因为以太坊太卷呢还是因为cosmos上有一些比较吸引开发者的点？

**红军大叔：cosmos的核心优势就是包容性和多样性。**前面大家从安全的角度来说，是有不同的安全性适配，其实从开发的角度也是类似的。如果开发者选择一条完整的链，从0到1的过程去构建也有这个方案，可以从共识到应用，从底层到上层，都可以自己来做。这个比较适用于实力比较完整的团队，比如dydx这样的团队，可以做到主权独立，满足了对灵活性的要求。

**现在cosmos生态里其实有三套不同的应对需求的“套餐”。**第一种是完全的定制化个性化，第二种是我不想做验证人，需要共享安全，类似于Polkadot或者以太坊那样，把验证节点托管给Cosmos Hub，这种方式降低了一部分团队开发的难度。

那么对于只在以太坊上做过智能合约开发的人员，在cosmos里也有这样的。cosmos生态的智能合约的发展还是挺快的，主体来说，有这个CosmWasm为基调。但现在其他项目里也有很多新的玩法，像cosmos创始人之前创了个新项目叫Gnoland，它是基于Go语言的合约。还有基于javascript、rust等语言的智能合约。Juno、Secret、Osmosis、Terra也有自己的智能合约。设计的灵活性是非常好的。语言的灵活性让开发者有不同的选择方式。

和以太坊智能合约不一样的是，cosmos生态在不同的zone里面**，开发语言不同会导致它的组合性可能会有点分散、碎片化**。这算是一个缺点和折中的地方。

安仔：做dapp和做DeFi到一定程度就会受限于原本这条链的吞吐量和价值捕获，可以看到一些协议愿意迁移到cosmos上。对于一个原本做协议的团队或者做智能合约开发的团队来说，cosmos提供了一些比较完备的开发套件，帮助开发者很快地开发一条自己的链，不用关心很多细节。而且有很多现成的模块可以重用，比如Canto就是直接fork的EVM OS，它的智能合约也是完全用的Ethermint这个模块。别的链要接CosmWasm智能合约的话，那个模块最开始是Stargate开发的，后来是Juno把它当成主打。开发团队可以不用做很多二次开发的工作，可以专注于自己的协议开发。

另外，就是单纯的EVM兼容链可能大家有点审美疲劳了。之前在DeFi summer的时候，借贷协议、稳定币都上一上，NFT仿盘出来几个，就把公链的生命周期从一个月到几周到几天压榨完了，就像火币之前那条链CUBE。现在有一个新的概念，能够定制化地做一些新的特性，那对用户来说也是比较好的卖点。

Dr.ATOM：**定制化一直是cosmos这一块的一个特点，可以做定制化主权区块链。**现在以太坊2.0的开发或者其他的公链开发还是太慢了，大家没有很多选择。虽然以太坊马上要转POS，layer 2的进展离大规模使用也比较远。所以现在能选的不多，也是dydx前段时间匆匆忙忙很急就要转来cosmos的一个原因。

Cosmos的组件非常好用，对开发团队来说也是一个非常好的选择。

主持人：说到Celestia，能否讲解一下区块链的模块化和可组合性？分别可以对应目前公链的哪些例子？用户端的体验感区别在哪里？哪个是更优解？

红军大叔：可组合性的话，cosmos生态的IBC跨链协议和后面提到的跨链安全、账户、查询，它们会很大程度上推动可组合性。现在直观的效果就是可以在一条链上操作另一条链的功能，至少从用户端的角度来说，它的体验就是比较完整的，不需要切来切去。

跨链安全也是一种可组合，就是把ATOM的价值共享给别的应用，我认为这也可以叫一种可组合。另外，我们之前说到可组合性更多是说到合约层面的，今天的各种聚合类的应用可以说是这个体现了。现在cosmos生态里说的这个概念实际上是放大了，放到了不只是一个链或者一个合约内部了，是扩展到链与链之间或者是应用与应用之间的。以前的以太坊组合，类比一下相当于一个国家内部的共享，cosmos就像城邦之间的共享。

关于模块化，我对这个技术细节了解不多，但概念上的理解就是方法论的具象化。在历史上我们解决performance问题的时候，我们有个简单的方式叫分解，或是分层。以前在IT的技术上有一个说法，一个复杂的问题解决不了的时候我们再加一层，这是我们当作一个梗来聊的。但是今天在架构上其实这个说法也不为过。比如说我们在早期IT的技术上是从SOA，面向服务的架构，然后到云计算，再到后来的微服务，serverless。把一个整体切割得更加细粒，更加精细化，让它们有更垂直的分工，从而实现更好的性能。那么模块化，实际上是专指区块链的共识、DA、执行，做了一个细分。这个确实是Celestia第一次把这个概念大规模推热的。有很多的别的区块链也说自己是模块化，我觉得可能还不是一个概念。模块化的软件开发方式是很早就有的，不属于某个区块链。

Celestia出来以后我觉得眼前一亮，这个是送给cosmos生态的一个礼物，至少cosmos在拼高性能这个话题的时候也有的聊了。目前模块化发展的其实也很快，包括Evmos，他们也有自己的Cevmos模式这个一个项目。我基本上可以把它跟以太坊的rollup，Near的分片放到一个大的类别。这个类别目前来说还不是很成熟，还在比较早期的探索之中，处于验证阶段。甚至我保守一点说，rollup现在还不能说终极被验证了，可能还处于验证的过程中。

Dr.ATOM：区块链的模块化是一个趋势，只有模块化以后可组合性才会更强，而且能大规模地降低开发成本和运营成本。特别像Celestia，它几乎可以免费提供像以太坊L2那样的结算服务，数据服务，共识服务。Celestia基于Cosmos，却又跟Cosmos很像。Cosmos的SDK，Tendermint共识，还有IBC，它也是模块化，让大家更好地一键发链，更好地开发。当然它跟波卡的平行链和以太坊的L2也有类似，但那不太一样。

Celestia这个项目可以给接入它自己的生态项目提供安全性，包括数据的可用性、共识，还可以通过Evmos的合作，用Cevmos提供结算层，那我们的应用链只要做执行层，好好做应用。这样

我们开发的成本还有难度都会大幅度下降。

这个项目有点介于cosmos和波卡之间的区块链服务，它在共享安全和主权独立之间取得了一个相对的平衡。它也不像cosmos那样让开发者自己弄，也不像波卡那样很多东西都固定死了，你在上面用，它是有个平衡的。

主持人：有人认为ATOM作为公链币，其价值捕获能力并没有其他公链那么强，因为Cosmos上所有的应用都在自己的链上面进行，很少会用到Cosmos Hub。但同时，ATOM的质押作为Cosmos大生态发空投的标准，似乎又弥补了其价值捕获能力。请嘉宾分析对ATOM这个代币的看法，非财务建议。

安仔：UST崩了之后，像支持人刚刚说的，Cosmos一直没有自己的稳定币，最近才有USDC接进来。但是社区和生态也看到了稳定币这块的缺位，原本这么多的流动性都配在Osmosis和其他的AMM上，社区现在有开始做很多稳定币的尝试，像Comdex，Agoric，Kujira的USK，这些稳定币的发行模式大部分都是超额抵押，类似MakerDAO。我觉得UST之前那么大的体量没了，现在需要有这些稳定币出来，这么多协议需要用。从DeFi拓展的角度来讲的话，ATOM作为Maker里面的以太坊那样去捕获这部分的DeFi协议的拓展价值。

**未来的话，可能是IBC生态更丰富以后，链间可组合性，链间合约调用，跨链资产转移这些部分，ATOM也可以作为一个类似gas token的角色去捕获价值。**ATOM和别的SDK链对比的话，它的通胀已经减过很多次了。像Juno、Evmos这些链刚出来，它们第一年的通胀都是20%以上的，甚至更多。我对于ATOM的价值捕获上还是非常乐观的。

JX：Cosmos上有个现象就是生态项目比较火，但是ATOM本身不火，它跟以太不一样。以太坊生态火的同时，以太也火，或者它独领风骚。Cosmos上涨得多的都是生态项目，比如说LUNA，JUNO, OSMO等等，最后发现ATOM涨幅远远不如生态项目，这个是什么原因？

红军大叔：这个问题社区也非常关注，有一句话叫成也萧何败萧何。我们先想想价值捕获的本质是什么？好听的叫价值捕获，不好听的叫什么呢？**假设古代有个国王，他发现了一种货币，如果他要价值捕获这个货币，他该怎么做？他可以收重税，可以想出条目繁多的各种方式来收老百姓的钱。你说这个价值捕获能力强不强？我觉得挺强的。但是他对于这个国家的子民和生态来说，是一个正向关系还是负向关系？**虽然这个例子比较极端，但我觉得确实可以跟cosmos生态能够做一个类比。**cosmos生态目前确实是国王没钱，但是老百姓过得挺开心的。**我认为这个方式应该是个常态，值得被推崇，但是从这个现状来说大家好像有点还不太适应，这就是比较有意思的地方。我个人认为，价值捕获的能力多，但它是不是真的能带来价值？从以太来说，它是必然的，因为它就是一个生态，其他人都是寄生的。而Cosmos里面，ATOM实际上是正在做的基建，有点像我们国家不计成本地做基建，这个基建就是大投入还没产出。但是你的经济在使用这些基础设施后确实还是有利于这个生态，目前的现状确实是这样的。短期来说ATOM可能捕捉不到价值，但是长期来说，整个生态起来以后，ATOM本身价值捕获会更加明显。

Dr.ATOM：ATOM的价值捕获能力是不会有问题的，只是现在时间没到。**cosmos2.0和版本升级，如果共享安全上线以后，ATOM可以通过共享安全捕获大量生态的价值。**现在整个生态的安全性和cosmos hub/ATOM没有太大关系，但是共享安全上线以后，它可以用ATOM和节点来为生态项目赋能，ATOM的网络价值就变成了整个Cosmos生态的安全保障。共享安全以后，Cosmos里面的生态项目通过IBC进行跨链通讯，就会变得更加容易，更加安全，更快。

另外一个从生态繁荣的角度来说，**现在接入IBC的项目只有四十几个，还没有大规模的应用链到来。当以后大规模的应用链到来，大家都希望以比较低的成本去开发，Cosmos的模块化或者是共享安全是一个更好的选择，开发者可以选择开发自己特性的应用链。**那他们也可以把一部分的主权独立性交给cosmos，让它来维护安全。未来如果有很多应用链接入，对于ATOM和它的节点服务的需求量是很大的，保证了ATOM这个币的价值捕获。这个可能需要去等共享安全，还有更大的生态繁荣出来。

安仔：我想补充一个有点相反的意见。现在我们看IBC的数据的话，Cosmos里面是不单有一个hub的，所有的链其实都可以叫hub，Osmosis的IBC交易量是要比ATOM要高很多。

Dr.ATOM：你说的非常对，现在大家没有通过某一个固定的hub来共享安全，包括现在的IBC它都得通过回母链来实行通讯。如果以后大家都用cosmos hub来维护大家安全，我要跟任何一个链通讯，我可以先跟cosmos hub通讯，就可以跟其他链交易了。那这样的话IBC会更快，去信任程度也会更强，现在的IBC其实还是一对一这样的安全性。以后如果我们以cosmos hub为核心的话，IBC跨链会更繁荣，更快。目前的话没有hub可以做到这个地位。

安仔：IBC现在最多的是Osmosis，它的链间共享安全，shared security的表现形式就是可能我质押一个链的币，我可以收到不止这个链的质押奖励，也可以帮别的链去提供这个共识服务，也可以收到另一个链的质押奖励。但这个服务应该不会是cosmos hub这个链独享的，Osmosis也可以做这个生意。

Dr.ATOM：是的，大家都会做这个生意，但谁会成为最大的捕获，这就是个问题。我是觉得从生态的角度，cosmos hub是大概率要胜出的。Osmosis现在的IBC用例为什么那么多，是因为我们要用到DEX，它的应用比较多，但是我们后面做了很多交易和很多事，它需要安全，那我们可能会更相信cosmos hub或者是ATOM。

安仔：从历史上看，要做这个链间的交易所Gravity DEX的时候，其实是cosmos先提出来的，但是Osmosis赶在它之前做了这件事，然后导致了Gravity DEX也就是Emeris半死不活。我觉得在这个生态里不能迷信某一条链吧，需要他们相互竞争出来。

Dr.ATOM：我们刚才说的模块化，功能分散化，cosmos hub只要维护共享安全就行了，DEX可以主要由Osmosis做，或者其他的链。Cosmos接下来发展很重要的一块是衍生品，比如说dydx，它做衍生品以后，某一天V4出来，衍生品的IBC转账协议就非常多了。然后接下来，比如说有一些游戏的案例，那么马上游戏的某一个hub的用例就会多起来了。所以，Osmosis在IBC的领先是非常短暂的，只是说现在DEX是整个生态里面需求是最大的，不代表未来它也是最大的。衍生品、借贷协议、游戏，都有潜力。不同的hub肯定有它擅长的地方或是营销的卖点。

红军大叔：cosmos hub的地位是什么呢？虽然它在整个生态里是第一个hub（第二个是IRISnet），它仅仅是历史产生的问题。如果你理解cosmos的架构和推崇去中心化的话，cosmos hub不需要太过去看重。我的建议是不要盯着ATOM来看，要盯着IBC为中心去覆盖整个cosmos生态。**cosmos hub如果类比的话有点像英国的女皇，是名义上的地位，但并不需要占用很大的权力。现在社区的共识是希望cosmos hub的功能最小化，更安全，更多的功能让别人的来做。**Osmosis可以自己做个hub，JUNO也可以自己做个hub，我觉得这个思路是对的。包括将来共享安全，多签路由，不管怎么样，把所有功能更加分散一点。这个共享安全可以在cosmos hub上做，也可以在别的链上做，我个人也非常推崇这种方式，跟目前cosmos生态整体的价值观是一致的。

主持人：Cosmos系的NFT和GameFi等末端应用还比较少，嘉宾有知道哪些赛道和项目是值得大家发掘的？可以推荐一下各自喜欢的Cosmos项目。

安仔：前段时间Cosmos投票，应该它会成为第一个共享安全的链，叫Neutron。它是 P to P validator 这个GR服务商发的一条链，主打链间互操作，应该是在23年第一季度发行，前面应该会有一些测试网的机会。

有一些正在开发的GameFi，比如Strange Clan，它也会有自己的链和币，是一个做了比较久游戏的团队做的项目，

链上交易所的话，Crescent最近出了区间流动性，和Uniswap V3有点类似，资本效率比较高，挖矿收益还可以。未来的话也可能会有一些比较旁氏的玩法，因为毕竟它和原来的那种xy=k的曲线不一样了，可以做一些新的玩法的。

红军大叔：我关注的是一些跟IBC相关的项目，尤其是外部的一些项目要介入到IBC生态的。前段时间Harmony的Datachain要打算接入到IBC，还有波卡那边的Composable Finance，它好像是EVM、IBC、XCMP三个生态的联通，我从那个架构图上看着挺炫的。

另外一个章鱼网络开发的Substrate，跟IBC的操作我觉得可以多关注一下。个人感觉目前IBC被开发者采纳和后面的可能创新的点，这个背景主要是现在的跨链桥太不让人放心了。所以说基于IBC用原生的方式，相当于是不需要各种漏风，更加安全。我觉得IBC将来潜力会更大一些。

还有稳定币赛道。前面我们也提到了，UST崩了以后，这块是一个非常大的短缺，以至于我们在cosmos生态里面跨链和别的资产互操作其实还是挺麻烦的，至少目前为止我觉得不丝滑了，在内部丝滑，但在外部不丝滑。以前有UST的时候和EVM随时打通，直接交流。现在不行了。稳定币这块现在还没有一个真正的王者出来，Agoric的IST，Comdex的CMST，Kujira的USK，Juno的Ultra，Canto的NOTE，大家可以关注关注。

Jeffrey：Datachain它会做很多跟其他链的轻客户端，包括但不限于Near。它未来自己也在做一个叫LCP Network的项目，也是非常早期，但值得去关注。

EVMOS未来表现可能还是不错，会有一些比较有意思的玩法，比如做一个EVM Hub。

Dr.ATOM：我比较关注三块，第一个是基础设施，比如ATOM、EVMOS、Celestia，Datachain。第二个是DeFi，更多的是衍生品吧，dydx的迁移，Osmosis，还有SEI Network，还有主打隐私的DeFi，像Secret Network。第三个是GameFi，有个日本的项目叫GAME，我很看好在cosmos上做应用链，特别是游戏链这块。那它作为游戏的基础公链，是很有机会的。

其实好的项目非常多，我只是稍微举几个例子。

—————————————————————————————————————————

请关注我们的推特

OFR Intern ：@ofr_intern

Old Fashion Research： @ofrfund

OFRTalk是由Old Fashion Research支持的语音访谈会系列活动。其愿景是成为社区导向型的开放类访谈，为听众带来不同角度的对各赛道的分享，以及深度的区块链内容研究，旗下投资的项目对话及热门话题的讨论，以帮助大家对行业有更深的认知。

OFRTalk所有的内容仅代表个人和嘉宾的看法，内容有时会包含我们的投资项目的介绍，不构成任何投资建议。欢迎大家关注OFR Intern及OFR的官方推特，及时获取开播信息。

OFR Insight Sharing 是由 Old Fashion Research 提供支持的每周心得分享环节，由多家知名机构和媒体的加密行业从业者分享有关行业的心得。 每周，OFR Fund 的研究员都会分享他们过去一周在加密行业的研究成果。以下是本次分享会的回顾文字版，让更多的观众了解近期讨论最火热的话题。

本周，我们很荣幸地邀请到了迷之境传媒科技 COO Keren，以及 OFR 研究员 Eraince 进行心得分享。会议围绕着 「数字藏品：是被忽视开垦的"新大陆"，还是被疯狂炒作的"资本陷阱"」此话题展开。

____________________________________________________________________________

本周 OFR Insight Sharing 讨论的话题如下：

1. 数字藏品 VS NFT；

2. 数字藏品 1.0 沉淀；

3. 数字藏品制作流程；

4. 数字藏品项目案例；

5. 行业现状；

6. 数字藏品 2.0趋势** **

数字藏品 vs NFT

从定义上来说，数字藏品是是指使用区块链技术，对应特定的作品、艺术品生成的唯一数字凭证。在保护其数字版权的基础上，实现真实可信的数字化发行、购买、收藏和使用。

NFT则是存在于区块链上，且无法被复制的具有独特性的加密代币。

** **

数字藏品1.0

据 01 区块链、Forechain 不完全统计，2022 年初至6 月，国内已发行数字藏品达 1536.92 万件。

从已发行的数字藏品单价上看，在过去的一年中呈现上升趋势。2022年5月，这一数值达到50.37 元。6 月，该数值下降为 34.77 元。

在 1274 万件透露出转赠功能具体要求的数字藏品中，约72.75%需要持满180天后才能转赠。另外有 303.62 万件数字藏品支持持有 1-30 天后转增，占比约为23.82%。

公链&联盟链

在透露出具体底层区块链约 1761 万件数字藏品中，94%均发行在联盟链上，这说明大部分已发行的数字藏品基于联盟链。超百万件数字藏品发行在公链上，占比约为6%。由于发行在公链上的数字藏品公开程度较小，这一比值在实际中或将大于6%。

其中，主流的联盟链有蚂蚁链，百度超级链，至信链，Conflux树图链等。

数字藏品项目流程

此外，开发项目流程包括：

• 对接：IP方对接（如有），平台方对接，相关宣发渠道对接

• 运营：社群运营维护，相关活动举办（如直播、艺术家分享会）

• 合作：联名产品开发

以下为一些数字藏品项目的案例展示：

行业现状

1/ 平台与项目层出不穷

• 据不完全统计，截止今年7月，国内数藏平台已超500家

截止今年4月，全平台市场日均发行额已突破1000万元水平

2/ 监管逐渐完善

• 国内对于“NFT”的定义逐渐明晰，监管严控金融属性

• 以技术为核心，本质是为实体经济提供新的探索增长点

市场乱象仍然存在（技术原因、法律原因）

3/ NFT成为企业品牌营销法宝

• 元宇宙和NFT带来巨量眼球效应，帮助实体企业找到新的消费增长点

• 老品牌拓宽渠道，打入年轻的消费群体

NFT助力会员体系建立、细分用户群体

4/ 泡沫淡去，市场回归理性

• 企业：发展初期，大量企业通过挤压式无序竞争抢夺市场份额，市场进入假性存量竞争局面；

• 藏家：部分藏家追求价值增长，少量现象级项目却有投机炒作如影随形，消耗艺术创作者及收藏者的热情和关注度

数藏平台2.0

数字藏品2.0将会围绕着NFR (Non-Fungible Rights) 展开。其中包括会员权益，体验权益，实体经济相关权益等。

而数藏平台2.0的可能性则有元宇宙社交+数藏平台、文交所+数藏平台等。

数藏实体化？请申请来查看以下短视频：

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zUlb7VXTExi1j4SVPPKxdZr8-LAaIjKT/view?resourcekey

____________________________________________________________________________

特别鸣谢迷之境传媒科技 COO Keren，以及 OFR 研究员 Eraince 分享此次关于数字藏品的内容。OFR Insight Sharing 内容仅作为学习交流，不作为投资建议，分享嘉宾的观点亦不代表OFR基金的最终观点。

Old Fashion Research 保留对该内容的所有权利

关于 Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

关注我们： Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror

想加入我们每周的 OFR Sharing Session?

申请入口：

https://forms.gle/sF3sLX6g6hkmHNDd6

订阅消息：

https://t.me/ofrportfolionewsletter

OFR Insight Sharing is a weekly program session presented by Old Fashion Research, joined by other crypto practitioners of multiple notable institutions and media presses. Every week, researchers of OFR Fund will share their research results in the crypto industry for the past week. Recaps take a look back at the sharing sessions and expose a larger audience to the most discussed topics recently.

This week, we are pleased to feature Kevin Kim, COO of Genopets, to share his insights on **Web3 & GameFi’**s outlook and design from a builder’s perspective.

Prior to joining Genopets, Kevin had 8+ years’ experience running operations and customer engagement at FanDuel, one of the world's leading mobile gaming brands, helped to grow the company from startup to $30B+ valuation.

The topics of this week’s OFR Insight Sharing include: 

1. Growth of GameFi;

2. Why Web3 and Gaming;

3. Assessment of What Will Drive Success;

4. The Genopets Approach

Market environment aside, GameFi observed a continued growth to be a dynamic space in 2022.

We saw $4.1B+ in Total Capital Investments in 2022 H1, and 1,551 distinct projects growing worldwide as of June 2022, with brand-name VCs laying down big bets. For example, a16z established a $600 million gaming-focused fund in May 2022, and Immutable established a $500 million Web3 gaming fund in June 2022.

The gaming market is estimated to be around $175B. GameFi currently accounts for 4-5% of the total gaming market. At the same time, some of the biggest established studios in the industry are entering GameFi. 

• Epic Games raises $2B for metaverse gaming

• Square Enix sells $300M worth of IP (including Tomb Raider) to fund blockchain efforts

• Tencent continues to develop and invest in NFT games

So, why Web3 games?

Games have always been the on-ramp to new technologies. We have Pong, Pokemon Go, Oculus, etc.

Meanwhile, Games can give (non-crypto-native) players a reason to want to learn Web3. We saw the start of this with NFTs.

The Appeal of GameFi

GameFi offers players the chance to own the digital assets they play with, whether in the form of decentralized game currency or NFTs. 

Ownership means monetization in many cases, allowing gaming projects to share the value created within these community-driven games–with the very community that spurred their success.

Onboarding players onto these systems means teaching them about the basics of Web3 in an organic way. For example, a player who enters the private beta test of Genopets is exposed quite naturally to the following:

• Setup and use of a token wallet

• “On-chain” versus “off-chain” activity

• Interoperability of tokenized assets

• Importance of community (as a source of news, truth, and alpha)

• Anatomies of marketplaces and exchanges

What does it mean for builders?

Developing a GameFi project is far more than an exercise in minting NFTs. Savvy builders must navigate all of the customary pitfalls and risks of developing a traditional game, while embracing the unique challenges that face those who seek to build the Web3 way.

Namely:

• “Cooking in an open kitchen” with transparency and communication with the community. 

• Rampant and constant involvement of speculators, hustlers, and other “extractor” types.

• Decentralized systems, where player-related data is far more limited.

• Steeper learning curves for onboarding, payment, customer support

What will drive success? 

While many things are different, some things remain the same. What will allow a project to successfully overcome challenges, increase adoption, and (of course) establish a sustainable business model? 

Building the best game in GameFi.

But what makes a game GREAT? A search of critics’ and fan reviews on the best-selling games of all time reveal these most commonly used terms:

• Immersive

• Challenging

• Visually Unique

• Great Art Style

• Story

• Memorable

• Cohesion

Let’s take Minecraft as a case study, which has 238,000,000 units sold, 738 million players, and onboarded millions of children into the digital world.

• Critics have praised Minecraft's complex crafting system, commenting that it is an important aspect of the game's open-ended gameplay. 

• Graphics described as "instantly memorable.”

• Includes adventure elements, creating a good balance between exploring and building.”

• Popular multiplayer feature supporting friendly play and viral growth.

“Intuitively interesting and contagiously fun, with an unparalleled scope for creativity and memorable experiences.” - PC Gamer

To make a meaningful game where players can own the value they create in game, here are the fundamentals of game design, according to Genopets

• Meaningful experience: Create quality content players are willing to pay and trade for.

• Reward skill: Recognize players for dedication and skill rather than how much they are willing to invest and when. This creates value.

• Value exchange: Allow players to transact freely with one another with the value they’ve created.

“Invite the Right People to the Party”

Straddling the gap between product and growth is the idea of the customer proposition. 

Every business has a value proposition they offer to their customers - the core justification why a customer should choose their product or service. For a manufacturer, the prop may be that their products are cheaper or higher quality versus competitors. In some industries, the proposition is the product for sale, such as sports wagering where a made bet by the customer is an acceptance of the firm’s offered odds at that price.

Because Web3 gaming is at the intersection of so many different forces, gaming projects in this space must be careful about who they “invite to the party” and what it says on the invitation. A proposition centered on the Fi aspect of GameFi will attract customers who are primarily interested in exactly that. These customers’ expectations are usually more in line with those of a financial services client; something most gaming projects are ill-equipped to handle. 

Flipping the P2E Model, price ≠ value!

From meaning, comes value. And from value, comes earning.

Paying a ton of money for a NFT does not make it valuable to the buyer. As a result, dumping is all too common.

On the other hand, when the right players come in under the appropriate proposition, all of the benefits of Web3 can be enjoyed for what they are: additive value that enriches the player experience.

How does Genopets do? - Creator Economy

About Genopets

Genopets is the first Free-to-Play and Move-to-Earn NFT mobile game that makes it fun and rewarding to live an active lifestyle. 

• Genopets evolve based on real world actions - as players grind, they are increasing the rarity of their NFT

• Steps power players’ journey: craft, customize, battle, and evolve — earning crypto while they play.

• Nostalgia of proven model - “pet care, training and battle” are the motivating force for players to stay active and enjoy the game.

“Passively played, but actively rewarded.”

Team members

Special thanks to Kevin Kim for presenting the content. Neither OFR Insight Sharing provides financial advice, nor researchers represent the final statement of OFR Fund.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO Old Fashion Research

About Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

Follow us Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror

** ** **

**

OFR Insight Sharing is a new weekly program session presented by Old Fashion Research, joined by other crypto practitioners of multiple notable institutions and media presses. Every week, researchers of OFR Fund will share their research results in the crypto industry for the past week. Recaps take a look back at the sharing sessions and expose a larger audience to the most discussed topics recently.

This week, we are pleased to feature two guests from Mercurius Crypto, Orlando Telles & Rafael Castaneada, who shared their insights on understanding how the main bottlenecks in the crypto market came to be, and how they can be solved from the perspective of smart contract platforms. 

[Orlando Telles](https://Twitter: https://twitter.com/orlandoincrypto) is the Research Director at Mercurius Crypto, Brazil's leading crypto-analysis firm.

Rafael Castaneada is a Mercurius Crypto analyst and software engineer Masters with over 20 years of experience.

Mercurius Crypto is a reference in crypto analysis in Brazil, having a base of more than 300 thousand people that follow its contents daily, besides being one of the first regulated Asset Management firms in Latin America (LATAM) (Website: )

The agenda of this week’s OFR Insight Sharing include: 

1. Current Impediments of Crypto Infrastructure;

2. Relevant Updates in the ETH Network;

3. Evolution of the Rollup Ecosystem (L2);

4. Evolution of the Omnichains Ecosystem (L0);

5. Impact on Crypto DApps

In 2008, Bitcoin was born as a decentralized and permissionless “accounting system”, which (up to debate) may or may not settle in the future as an “exchange medium” and/or a “store of value”.

In 2015, Ethereum was born as a decentralized and permissionless “virtual computer with built-in accounting”, which (certainly) brings full power programmability to tokens and gave birth to several phenomenons such as DeFi, NFT’s and GameFi.

From the pictogram of Ethereum GAS Cost Evolution, we can tell that each time a mania occurred in Ethereum, its lack of scalability was made evident by slowly and costly transactions, namely CryptoKitties in 2017, DeFi Summer in 2020, NFT Summer in 2021.

Ethereum scalability issues arise from two main bottlenecks,

1. Execution Throughput. i.e. how many TPS constrained by consensus security

2. Data Storage/Availability. i.e. block size + on-chain data constrained by total blockchain size

Failure to promptly address scalability led to the emergence of new blockchains nicknamed “Ethereum Killers”. Meanwhile, the Ethereum community kept experimenting with scalability solutions, eventually converging on Layer-2 as the gold standard of scaling and the “Ethereum Rollup-Centric Roadmap”.

** **

** **

The “Killers” took market-share from ETH, but failed to replace it, and eventually renamed to 

“Layer-1 Alternatives”, in accordance with L1-L2 nomenclature from ETH.

Alternative L1’s are adapting to particular use cases and need to bring new competitive advantages to survive.

Most L2’s are still under heavy development, and although they show a lot of promise, there are no clear winners so far.

As the competition for users, developers and capital intensifies, we believe Ethereum is on the right track to not only keep but to regain some of its dominion.

The next topic of this Insight Sharing session kicked off around the ETH Updates, which brings in the Second Wind for the Ethereum Ecosystem. Discussions involve,

1. The Merge, which improves token efficiency;

2. Rollup-Centric Roadmap, which solves execution bottleneck;

3. Dankshardings & Pruning, which solves storage bottleneck.

The Merge involves,

• Changes consensus from PoW to PoS.

• ETH Token - less issuance & less incentive to sell (“Ultra-Sound Money” theory).

• Today’s staking is at 10% TVL, common target in PoS networks is 50% - 75%.

• Fee reduction is not an objective, nor an expected side-effect.

In terms of Rollup Centric-Roadmap, L2’s are already scaling Ethereum AND generating top-tier revenue when compared to Alt-L1’s. Share of revenue makes its way to Ethereum, in rollup transaction costs. Also, ZK-L2’s on the rise: StarkWare, ZkSync, Polygon ZK’s and ScrollZKP.

Future EIP’s are rollup-friendly.

In terms of Dankshardings & Pruning, Not ALL nodes shall need to be FULL nodes anymore.Data will be stored in fractions (shards), divided between several validators. Old data may be pruned (deleted) when not required to assure consensus. All these lead to lesser node requirements and lesser total blockchain size.

Layer-2 & ETH - All or Nothing?

So, if Ethereum is reliant on rollups to leverage itself as the de facto settlement layer for the future, how are rollups developing? 

As a whole, L2 rollup protocols have raised approx. $1.5B in VC. Most of the biggest rounds took place right before the bear-market.

TVL in L2’s is steadily increasing, accounting for $6B as of today. Put together, the L2 ecosystem rivals BSC and TRON.

There are different strategies competing in the rollup scenario. All of them have pros & cons, but the overall diversity brings better odds to the ecosystem.

New solutions come with new problems! Rollups are not “solving” the Trilemma, they are “circumventing” it. And the price to pay is: Fragmentation.

Bridges are the current attempt to solve fragmentation, but…

1. They only tackle the liquidity issue.

2. They are insecure and prone to exploitation.

Here comes the L0 Emergence. Layer-0 protocols are rising to the challenge of fragmentation. They provide shared and (hopefully) neutral commonground where L1/L2 blockchains can share liquidity and compose contracts.

Let’s talk about Tailored-Chains. Developer Experience (DX) is still poor in the Web 3.0. 

DApps are in need of a solid and friendly infrastructure. Chains that leverage developers and abstract settlement and scalability issues may play a decisive role in the near future.

Also, for more robust use cases, app-chains may be deployed, in which case the best platforms will be the ones to provide good SDK’s and ease of cross-chain interoperability.

Special thanks to Orlando Telles & Rafael Castaneada for presenting the content. Neither OFR Insight Sharing provides financial advice, nor researchers represent the final statement of OFR Fund.

ALL RIGHTS RESERVED TO Old Fashion Research

About Old Fashion Research

Old Fashion Research (OFR) is a multi-strategy blockchain investment fund founded in late 2021 by former executive and investment teams from the leading cryptocurrency exchange in the world.

OFR adopts a multi-strategy approach to capture the underlying value of Web3.0 and to build a full-cycle ecosystem to support new-generation crypto native entrepreneurs. OFR incubates promising startups, follows up with traditional venture capital investment and scaling support, and finally supports the projects if they wish to exit through a merger or acquisition.

Follow us Website | Twitter | Community | Mirror

** **