Nakamoto Games is a one-stop Play-to-Earn gaming platform deployed on the Polygon network, launched in December 2020. It currently hosts over 200 games and has more than 500,000 registered users. Additionally, Nakamoto Games plays a role in the Web3 gaming infrastructure. The platform caters not only to gamers but also to game developers. Firstly, it allows anyone with a cryptocurrency wallet and internet connection to access a variety of play-to-earn games. Secondly, it provides developers with a software development kit (SDK) to develop and deploy their own games on the platform.

Project Website: https://www.nakamoto.games/

1. TEAM

Nakamoto Games has a team of highly skilled professionals with diverse industry experience, including the gaming industry, Ethereum Blockchain development, and web development. The team is focused on both Eastern and Western markets and is led by Nakamoto's CEO, Chawalit Rugsasri, who has previous experience as a project manager at Sublime Solidity. Additionally, he has established meaningful relationships with the Thai government and Thai banks, further expanding the project's influence.

2. Advantages and Features

• A diverse range of game types

Currently, Nakamoto Games platform offers over 200 games, spanning various genres, from AAA games to super casual games.

• Based in Thailand, Expanding Across the Whole Asian Market

Leveraging the founder's background, Nakamoto Games has successfully established partnerships with various Thai government agencies to drive crypto policies in sync with blockchain incentive mechanisms. Most recently, Nakamoto Games has formed a strategic partnership with Mahidol University, one of Thailand's most esteemed institutions for technology and machine learning. By integrating its platform into the curricula of top Thai institutions, the company aims to cultivate new talent and foster innovation in blockchain technology.

With approximately 20 million students in Thailand, Nakamoto Games anticipates attracting at least 2 million new users to its platform. This surge in users is not only expected to strengthen the company's community but also position it as the first platform in Web3 gaming with several million regular users.

• Extensive partnerships network

Nakamoto Games has partnered with several renowned game developers to jointly release a series of innovative and unique blockchain games. These collaborations have not only enhanced Nakamoto Games' visibility and influence in the gaming market but have also provided strong support for the promotion of NAKA tokens.

3. Tokenomics

NAKA token is the native token of Nakamoto Games, and it's a deflationary cryptocurrency that was launched in October 2022. According to CoinMarketCap data, as of November 6th, the circulating market capitalization of NAKA token is $85.48 million, and the token price is currently at $1.38, representing an 80% increase in the past two weeks. Since the beginning of this year, the token's value has grown by over 7 times, which is quite impressive. With the platform's development and the stimulation of new projects, the demand for NAKA token is expected to rise.

NAKA token plays a crucial role in the Nakamoto ecosystem, enabling players to participate in Play-to-earn games, allowing developers to create web3 games using the SDK, accessing NAKAVERSE, and minting assets for users within the games. It serves as the link connecting players, developers, advertisers, and retail users. Specifically, the token has the following use cases:

• Play: The NAKA token is necessary to participate in the Nakamoto Games ecosystem. The native digital currency will provide the necessary “fuel” to participate in games, similar to the gas fees encountered on the Ethereum network. One of the first games on the platform, Duck Hunter, will require NAKA for in-game ammunition.

• Earn: All the NAKA tokens used in-game become part of a prize pool which is immediately distributed to gamers after each game. A part of each prize pool is “burned” as a deflationary mechanism. The highest-ranked gamers in each game will receive the greatest share of the rewards from the prize pool.

• Governance: Finally, the NAKA token will allow gamers to participate in ecosystem governance. This governance activity may include voting on proposals to burn tokens or the structure of prize pools.

• Incentive: The NAKA token also serves as an incentive mechanism, motivating developers to further expand within the Nakamoto Games ecosystem.

Basic Information about the NAKA token:

a) Total Naka Supply: 180,000,000

b) NAKA contract address (POLYGON): 0x311434160d7537be358930def317afb606c0d737

c) Token allocation and unlocks schedule:

• Investment: 30.18%, TGE release 10%, lockup for 1 month, then linear release over 9 months.

• IDO: 0.37%, TGE release 50%, lockup for 1 month, then linear release over 2 months.

• Play-to-earn Vault: 22.22%, released based on demand.

• Game development fund: 5.56%, released based on demand.

• Player Sponsoring: 8.33%, released based on demand.

• Developer Sponsoring: 5.56%, released based on demand.

• Operational Reserves: 11.11%, released based on demand.

• Team and advisors: 13.89%, locked for 18 months.

• Salaries: 2.78%, released based on demand.

4. Project Outlook and Opportunities

It is estimated that approximately one-third of the world's population plays games online. With the advent of blockchain games, people can earn income while gaming, and many "traditional gamers" may find their way into the world of blockchain gaming. The Play-to-earn game model will attract more young people to participate. As the Web3 gaming industry continues to grow, more traditional companies and entrepreneurs will enter this field. Nakamoto Games is undoubtedly at the forefront of this field and continues to leverage its influence and creativity. Nakamoto Games has been featured in leading global news media, including Bloomberg and Yahoo Finance Singapore.

In the future, Nakamoto Games' partnership with TON will bring NAKA into the world's largest social platform, Telegram. Additionally, the upcoming groundbreaking Web3 mobile app and NAKAVERSE 2.0 metaverse reality are exciting milestones. They are expected to bring a transformative change to Thailand's gaming industry and provide additional income and job opportunities to millions of people. This will solidify Nakamoto Games as a true leader in the Web3 gaming space.

Currently, the HTX has launched PrimePool #6 on November 6, allowing users to participate by locking TRX and sharing rewards now worth 450,000 USDT worth of NAKA!

More details:  https://www.htx.com/support/en-us/detail/94953319293392

Nakamoto Games是一站式 Play-to earn 游戏平台，部署在Polygon网络上，于2020年12月推出。目前已经拥有200多款游戏和超过50万的注册用户。此外，Nakamoto Games还承担着Web3 game基础设施的角色。平台不仅仅服务于游戏玩家，还有游戏开发者。首先，它允许任何拥有加密货币钱包和互联网连接的人访问各种各样的玩赚游戏。其次，它将为开发者提供一个软件开发工具包（SDK），用于在平台上开发和部署自己的游戏。

项目官网：https://www.nakamoto.games/

1. 团队情况

Nakamoto Games的团队由拥有不同行业经验的高技术专业人士组成。如游戏行业、以太坊区块链编码和网络开发等。该团队将专注于东方和西方市场，由Nakamoto的首席执行官Chawalit Rugsasri领导，他已经有在Sublime Solidity公司担任项目经理的经验。同时，他与泰国政府和泰国银行建立了重要关系，扩大了项目本身的影响力。

2. 项目优势及特点

• 游戏种类丰富

目前，Nakamoto Games平台拥有200多款游戏，涵盖各种类型，从AAA游戏到超级休闲游戏。

• 立足泰国打开整个亚洲市场

基于创始人的背景，Nakamoto Games该公司已成功与许多泰国政府机构建立合作伙伴关系，以推动区块链激励机制同步的加密政策。近期，Nakamoto Games已通过与Mahidol大学(泰国最受尊敬的科技和机器学习机构之一)的战略合作伙伴关系。通过将其平台整合到泰国顶级机构的课程中，实现培养新人才和推动区块链技术创新的目标。

泰国约有2000万学生，Nakamoto Games预计至少会吸引200万新用户使用其平台。这激增的用户不仅有望增强公司的社区，而且有望使其成为Web3游戏中首个拥有数百万常规用户的平台。

• 多方合作

Nakamoto Games已经与多个知名游戏开发商合作，共同推出了一系列具有创新性和独特性的区块链游戏。这些合作不仅提升了Nakamoto Games在游戏市场的知名度和影响力，还为NAKA币的推广提供了有力支持。

3. 代币经济

NAKA代币是Nakamoto game的原生代币，是一种通缩货币，于2022年10月上线。根据coinmarketcap网站显示，截止11月6日，Naka代币流通市值$85.48 million，代币价格现报$1.38，近2周上涨80%。自今年年初以来，该代币的价值增长超过7倍，令人印象深刻。随着平台的发展和新项目的刺激，对NAKA代币的需求也会增加。

NAKA代币在Nakamoto生态系统中至关重要，可以让玩家参与Play-to-earn 游戏，让开发者使用SDK创建web3游戏，获取广告空间，以及为用户在游戏中铸造资产。它是联系玩家、开发者、广告商和零售用户的纽带。具体来说，该代币的应用场景如下：

• 游戏中的货币：NAKA代币被用作游戏积分。例如，最早的射击游戏 “猎鸭 “将要求玩家使用NAKA代币购买弹药。

• 奖金池：在游戏中消费的NAKA代币，正在被烧毁或将被用于每周的奖池。在排行榜上名列前茅的玩家将得到这些奖金池的奖励。

• 治理：NAKA代币作为管理代币，代币持有人可以提议或投票决定每周奖池或代币燃烧的结构。

• 激励：NAKA代币也作为一种激励机制，激励开发者在Nakamoto生态系统的基础上发展。

NAKA代币基本信息：

a) 代币总量：180,000,000

b) 合约地址：0x311434160d7537be358930def317afb606c0d737

c) 代币分配比例及解锁规则：

• 投资：30.18%，TGE释放10% ，锁仓1 个月，然后分9个月线性释放

• IDO：0.37%，TGE释放50%，锁仓1 个月，然后分2个月线性释放

• 玩赚金库：22.22%，根据需求释放

• 游戏开发基金： 5.56%，根据需求释放

• 玩家赞助 8.33%，根据需求释放

• 开发商赞助 5.56%，根据需求释放

• 运营储备金 11.11%，根据需求释放

• 团队和顾问： 13.89%，锁定 18 个月

• 薪资：2.78%，根据需求释放

4. 项目前景和机会

据估计，世界上大约有1/3的人口在网上玩游戏。随着区块链游戏的到来，人们在游戏中获得收入，许多 “传统游戏玩家 “可能会找到他们在区块链游戏领域的途径。Play-to-earn的游戏模式将会吸引更多的年轻人参与进来。随着Web3游戏产业持续增长，会有更多的传统企业和创业者涉足该赛道。Nakamoto Games无疑走在了这个赛道的前列，并持续发挥着它的影响力和创造力。Nakamoto Games此前已在全球领先的新闻媒体上得到专题报道，包括彭博社、雅虎财经新加坡等。

未来，Nakamoto Games与TON的合作，会将NAKA带入到世界最大的社交平台Telegram中。同时，Nakamoto Games即将于推出的开创性Web3移动应用程序和NAKAVERSE 2.0元宇宙现实，这是令人兴奋的里程碑。有望彻底改变泰国的游戏业，并为数百万人提供额外的收入和就业机会。也将让Nakamoto Games成为Web3 game赛道的真正龙头。

目前，火币HTX现已开启Naka挖矿活动，用户可透过锁仓 TRX 的方式参与活动，并瓜分现价值超过 450,000 USDT 等值 NAKA 奖励！

详情见：https://www.htx.com/support/zh-hk/detail/94953319293392

Prisma Finance quietly emerged in the first half of 2023, gaining support from top industry founders and institutions like Curve, Convex, Tetranode, and more. On November 2nd, the project released its token $PRISMA and increased the debt cap. On the same day, a large address related to Justin Sun deposited 110 million USD worth of wstETH and minted over 60 million USD worth of mkUSD stablecoins.

As of November 4th, the total supply of its protocol stablecoin $mkUSD exceeded 178 million. However, Prisma Finance recently raised the stablecoin minting cap for collateral wstETH from 100 million to 200 million through a community vote.

According to Defillama data, as of November 6th, the protocol's Total Value Locked (TVL) reached 364.27 million, ranking 19th within the Ethereum ecosystem. It has far surpassed the leading project Lybra Finance in the LSDfi domain, establishing itself as a dark horse. According to Dune Analytics:

• The protocol has 89,047.13 wstETH collateral with 451 unique addresses.

• The protocol has 7,717.32 cbETH collateral with 180 unique addresses.

• The protocol has 30,602.12 rETH collateral with 537 unique addresses.

• The protocol has 32,786.18 sfrxETH collateral with 349 unique addresses.

1. LSDFi Status Quo and Future Prospects

Following the completion of Ethereum's Shanghai Upgrade this year, the Ethereum staking market has entered the right track. Currently, the ETH staking rate exceeds 23%, with over 28 million ETH locked in the Beacon Chain and 863,000 active validator nodes. The Ethereum Liquid Staking Derivatives (LSD) market has also seen rapid growth, with a market cap of over $19 billion, and the TVL of the LSD protocol has exceeded $23 billion, ranking first in the DeFi category. LSD provides the foundation for the entire Ethereum staking ecosystem, releasing locked liquidity while enhancing the network's security. The LSDfi track was born on the basis of LSD.

LSDfi refers to DeFi projects built on top of the LSD protocol, such as Lybra Finance and Pendle Finance. By providing additional yield-generating opportunities, the LSDfi protocol allows LSD holders to leverage their assets and maximize their returns. The LSDfi protocol utilizes underlying assets like stETH, frxETH, and other LSD assets, further unlocking liquidity within the Ethereum ecosystem, providing sufficient volume and innovation support for the DeFi ecosystem. Since May this year, the funds under LSDfi's management have exceeded $400 million. Compared to the potential scale of LSD, there is still significant room for growth.Prisma Finance is a subcategory within the LSDfi protocol that involves minting stablecoins backed by LSD assets. These stablecoins require over-collateralization through liquidity staked tokens and carry liquidation risk. Prisma Finance falls under this category and offers three significant advantages:

• Store of value: LSD-backed stablecoins are over-collateralized, making them relatively price-stable and serving as a reliable tool for value storage. Additionally, they offer users earnings in $ETH. As the protocol's yield rates increase, it will further stimulate the adoption of these stablecoins.

• Increased Earnings: ETH staking returns may no longer satisfy users' high-yield demands, especially during extended bear markets. LSDfi offers an annual yield of over 5%, which is highly appealing to users.

• Liquidity Unleashed: LSD unlocks liquidity for collateralized ETH, while LSDfi further unlocks liquidity for LSD tokens, bringing innovation to the LSD ecosystem. With growing trust in the security of the Ethereum ecosystem and the yield from $ETH staking, the LSD and LSDfi will be one of the areas for future expansion.

2. The Strong Rise of Prisma Finance

Prisma Finance was officially deployed on Ethereum in early September. It is a stablecoin backed by a combination of LSD assets, a fork of Liquity, with significant improvements. Prisma Finance has created a robust and truly decentralized stablecoin protocol with favorable and flexible collateral parameters, making it attractive for those wanting to get the best out of their LSTs without tail risks from other stablecoins. Through Prisma, users can use liquid staking tokens as collateral to mint over-collateralized stablecoins ($mkUSD). Prisma DAO is responsible for parameters, emissions, and protocol fees. The protocol's income comes from four main sources: (1) minting fees for $mkUSD, (2) penalties for early collateral unlocking, (3) the price of the $PRISMA token, and (4) 1% of borrowing interest revenue. These income streams ensure the continued stable operation of the protocol.

Prisma Finance has following three key features:

a) Supporting Multiple LSD Collateral Options

Prisma supports multiple collateral options such as wstETH (Lido), cbETH (Coinbase), rETH (Rocket Pool), sfrxETH (Frax). And the protocol automatically utilizes the income generated from user’s collateralized LSD assets to repay debts.

b) Achieving High APR through multiple returns

In addition to the Ethereum staking rewards provided by the LSD protocol itself, users can achieve multiple returns through the Prisma Finance protocol, Curve, and Convex by staking stablecoin $mkUSD and the protocol governance token $PRISMA. These multiple returns include transaction fees, rewards in $PRISMA, $CRV, and $CVX. This may enhance the competitiveness of $mkUSD among competitors.

c) The stablecoin $mkUSD has real demand.

$mkUSD is an over-collateralized stablecoin, providing users and the protocol with a certain level of security. $mkUSD is a yield-bearing stablecoin, with the protocol not prioritizing its use as a medium of exchange. Most users hold $mkUSD to earn the annual interest rate it offers. Additionally, the protocol will increase incentive weights for a specific trading pool through participation in the Curve wars. This further enhances the performance and demand for the $mkUSD, such as bribes and competition for CRV emissions for deep liquidity.

3. Tokenomics

PRISMA is the governance token of the Prisma protocol with a maximum total supply of 300 million. All tokens are minted immediately when the protocol is deployed. Tokens are initially held by the Treasury and released gradually over time. The treasury balance is not considered to be in circulation.

The supply of PRISMA is allocated as follows:

• 62% (186,000,000 PRISMA) are allocated towards emissions. These emissions are directed by the Prisma DAO and incentivise certain actions within the Prisma Protocol. Emissions can additionally be used to incentivise liquidity on liquidity pools.

• 20% (60,000,000 PRISMA) are allocated to the Core Contributors. These tokens will be unlocked linearly for 12 months starting at Genesis.

• 10% (30,000,000 PRISMA) is allocated to Early Supporters who assisted in bootstrapping costs associated with the initial development of the Prisma Protocol. These tokens will be unlocked linearly for 12 months starting at Genesis.

• 5% (15,000,000 PRISMA) will be held in the Prisma DAO Treasury.

• 3% (9,000,000 PRISMA) will be distributed towards

Users can participate in the protocol's governance by locking $PRISMA, and the protocol uses a veToken model similar to Curve to allocate governance weight, with a maximum lockup period of 52 weeks.

$PRISMA holders will have the ability to incentivize specific pools, which means that LST providers may be interested in incentivizing $mkUSD with their own LST. This can create a positive feedback loop for the demand of $mkUSD. According to the whitepaper, voters can direct issuance towards using specific collateral for minting, maintaining active borrowing with specific collateral, and rewarding any LP token holders. Considering the crucial role of deep liquidity in maintaining stability, this will be a key factor distinguishing $PRISMA from its competitors.

$PRISMA was listed on HTX exchange on November 2nd, and HTX has also launched corresponding mining and earning campaigns. Users can earn $PRISMA rewards by locking TRX and enjoy higher returns.

Here's an introduction and link to the HTX primepool:

https://www.htx.com/en-us/assetactivity/primepool?activityId=25

4. Risks and Opportunities

It's important to note that Prisma Finance still carries certain risks related to capital efficiency, collateral liquidation, and fluctuations in the Prisma token price. Currently, relying solely on Ethereum staking generates a yield of around 3.8%, which may not be very attractive to users. However, LSDfi introduces innovative ideas and higher returns, further boosting the growth of the LSD market. Based on Prisma Finance's current performance, it is expected to bring ongoing innovation to LSD and LSDfi.

References:

1. https://www.coinonpro.com/news/toutiao/270119.html

2. https://medium.com/@HotairballoonCN/热气球项目分析-1-之-prisma-finance-curve-创始人参投-会是-lsd-版的-convex-么-f13527a818b4

3. https://prismafinance.com/

Prisma finance在2023年上半年悄然问世，获得了Curve、Convex、Tetranode 等多位行业顶尖创始人和机构的支持。项目在11月2日发行代币$PRISMA，并将其抵押品数量上限提高，当天Justin Sun相关的一个大地址也随即存入了 1.1 亿美元 的wstETH，并铸造了超过 6000 万美元的 mkUSD 稳定币。

截止11月4日，其协议稳定币$mkUSD的铸造数量超过178 million。然而，Prisma finance不久前通过社区投票将抵押品wstETH的稳定币铸造上限从100 million提高到200 million。

根据defillama数据显示，截止11月6日，协议TVL达到364.27 million，在以太坊生态中排名第19，已经远远超过了此前LSDfi赛道的龙头项目Lybra Finance，成为了LSDfi赛道中的一匹黑马。根据Dune数据网站显示：

• 协议内wstETH的抵押数量有89047.13个，抵押地址有451个

• 协议内cbETH的抵押数量有7717.32个，抵押地址有180个

• 协议内rETH的抵押数量有30602.12个，抵押地址有537个

• 协议内sfrxETH的抵押数量有32786.18个，抵押地址有349个

1. LSDfi赛道及其前景

伴随着今年上海升级之后，以太坊质押市场步入正轨。目前，ETH质押率超过23%，已有2800万ETH锁定在信标链中，活跃验证节点86.63万个。以太坊流动性质押协议（LSD）赛道也随之增长迅速，LSD赛道市值超过190 亿美元，并且LSD协议的TVL已经超过$23 billion，在DeFi类别中排名第一。LSD为整个以太坊质押生态提供了基础，他们释放了被锁定的流动性，同时为整个网络提供了安全性。LSDfi赛道也是在LSD的基础上诞生。

LSDfi 是指利用 LSD 协议构建的defi项目，例如Lybra Finance和Pendle Finance。通过提供额外的收益生成机会，LSDfi 协议允许 LSD 持有者利用他们的资产并最大化收益。LSDfi 协议以 stETH、frxETH 等 LSD 资产作为底层资产，等于进一步解锁了以太坊生态的双重流动性，可为 DeFi 后续生态提供了足够的体量及创新支撑。今年5月以来，LSDfi的资金规模已突破4亿美元。相较于 LSD 的量体来说，还有很大的成长空间。

LSDfi协议中的一个子类别是铸造以 LSD 为支撑的稳定币，这类稳定币需要通过流动性质押代币进行超额抵押，并存在清算风险。Prisma Finance就属于此类协议，其具有以下三大优势：

• 价值储存：LSD 支持的稳定币是超额抵押型稳定币，价格较稳定，可以作为很好的价值储存工具，同时为用户提供$ETH 收益。而随着协议收益率的进一步提高，会刺激该稳定币的采用率。

• 收益增加：ETH的质押收益已经无法满足用户的高收益需求，尤其在熊市持续的情况下，LSDfi提供大于5%的年华收益对用户具有很大的吸引力。

• 流动性释放：LSD 解锁了抵押的ETH的流动性，而LSDf进一步解锁了LSD token的流动性，为 LSD 生态带来了创新。

随着对以太坊生态系统的安全性和$ETH 质押收益的信任，LSD和LSDfi赛道将是未来进一步增长领域之一。

2. Prisma Finance强势崛起

Prisma Finance已于9月初正式部署至以太坊，它是一种以 LSD 为支撑的稳定币，是 Liquity 的分叉，但有着重大改进。Prisma Finance创建了一个强大的协议和真正去中心化的稳定币，具有有利且灵活的抵押参数，使其对于那些希望在没有其他稳定币风险的情况下充分利用 LST 的人来说具有吸引力。通过Prisma，用户可以使用流动质押代币作为抵押，铸造超额抵押稳定币（$mkUSD）。Prisma DAO 将负责参数、排放和协议费用。协议收入有四大来源：（1）$mkUSD的铸造费；（2）用户提前解除质押的惩罚费用；（3）$PRISMA代币价格；（4）1%的借贷利率收益。这些收入将让协议持续稳定运营。

Prisma Finance具有以下三大特点：

a) 支持多种LSD抵押品

Prisma 支持抵押各类以太坊流动性质押衍生品（Frax、Lido、Rocket Pool和 Coinbase）铸造稳定币$mkUSD，且 Prisma 的超额抵押模式支持自动偿还，允许利用以太坊质押收益来自动偿还债务。

b) 多重收益实现高APR

除了LSD协议自带的以太坊质押收益外，用户还能通过Prisma Finance协议本身、Curve、Convex质押稳定币$mkUSD和协议治理代币$PRISMA实现多重收益，包括交易费用、$PRISMA、$CRV 和 $CVX 的奖励。这可能使$mkUSD 在竞争对手中更具竞争力。

c) 稳定币$mkUSD具有实际需求

$mkUSD是超额抵押型稳定币，给用户和协议带来了一定的安全性。$mkUSD 是一种带有收益的稳定币，该协议不优先考虑将其用作交易媒介。大多数用户持有$mkUSD 是为了获得持有$mkUSD 所提供的年利率。此外，协议将通过参与 Curve 战争为具体的某个交易兑换池子增加激励权重。进一步扩展了$mkUSD稳定币业务的需求与表现。譬如项目方的贿选行为、交易深度的 CRV 排放竞争等等。

3. 代币经济

$PRISMA是协议的治理代币，总供应量3亿。部署协议后，所有代币都会立即铸造。代币最初由财政部持有，并随着时间的推移逐渐释放。 国库余额不被视为处于流通状态。

PRISMA的供应分配如下：

• 62% 分配给排放。 这些排放由 Prisma DAO 指导，并激励 Prisma 协议内的某些行动。 排放还可用于激励流动性池的流动性。

• 20% 分配给核心贡献者。 这些代币将从 Genesis 开始线性解锁 12 个月。

• 10% 分配给早期支持者，他们协助筹集与 Prisma 协议初始开发相关的引导成本。 这些代币将从 Genesis 开始线性解锁 12 个月。

• 5% 将存放在 Prisma DAO 金库中。

• 3% 将分配给veCRV投票者和Prisma积分持有者。

协议的治理需要通过锁定$PRISMA来获得，协议使用类似于Curve的veToken模型来获得治理权重，最长锁定时间为52周。

$PRISMA 持有者将能够激励特定的池，因此，LST 提供者可能有兴趣用他们自己的 LST 激励$mkUSD。这可以为$mkUSD 的需求创造一个正向循环效应。根据白皮书，投票人可以将发行量导向使用特定的抵押品进行铸造，以保持使用特定的抵押品进行活跃借贷，并向任何 LP 代币持有者发放奖励。考虑到深度流动性对于维持锚定稳定性至关重要，这将是区分 $PRISMA与竞争对手的重要因素。

$PRISMA在11月2日已上线HTX交易所，HTX也开启了相应的挖矿和理财活动，通过锁仓TRX获得$PRISMA奖励，并可享受更高的收益。

HTX primepool相关介绍和链接：

https://www.htx.com/en-us/assetactivity/primepool?activityId=25

4. 风险和机会

需要注意的是，Prisma Finance仍然存在一定资金效率、抵押品清算以及Prisma币价波动的风险。目前，单纯依靠以太坊质押的收益在3.8%左右，对于用户来说不太具有吸引力。然而，LSDfi提供了创新性的想法和较高的收益，进一步助力LSD赛道的增长。从Prisma Finance 目前的表现来看，将会给LSD和LSDfi赛道带来持续性的创新。

参考资料：

1. https://www.coinonpro.com/news/toutiao/270119.html

2. https://medium.com/@HotairballoonCN/热气球项目分析-1-之-prisma-finance-curve-创始人参投-会是-lsd-版的-convex-么-f13527a818b4

3. https://prismafinance.com/

Summary

As Web3 technology and infrastructure develop, the Web3 social sector is facing new opportunities. Anonymity, censorship resistance, and user data ownership, among other features, are enticing users and developers to explore novel social tools. Some developers and investors have ventured into the sector, giving rise to hundreds of Web3 social projects spanning domains like social interaction, identity, NFTs, DAOs, and fan engagement. Notably, tools like CyberConnect and Lens Protocol have garnered large user bases and massive attention. In this article, we delve into the developments of the Web3 social sector and the distinctive features of Web3 social products. We also analyze several leading Web3 social projects and examine the risks and challenges facing the sector.

Why should we pay attention to the social sector?

The cryptocurrency domain has been considered an interdisciplinary field involving computer science, finance, cryptography, mathematics, and more. However, its adoption on a global scale is yet to be achieved, due to its short existence, inadequate infrastructure, and varying regulatory standards, as well as a steep learning curve and associated costs. As smart contract public chains like Ethereum improve, on-chain DApps have witnessed a boom since 2020. So far, there are more than 40 million DeFi user addresses, as shown in the figure below. Defi led the way in bringing users to on-chain interactions, using realistic, convenient use cases to drive on-chain economy and foster a range of on-chain Degens. In 2021, blockchain games and NFTs began to usher in a new wave of trends, acquiring numerous new Web3 users with novel gameplays, Ponzi tokenomics designs[1], and a diverse value system. Specifically, blockchain games, by allowing users to convert in-game assets into real-world value, have attracted Web2 gamers and low-income individuals in developing countries. NFTs, with attributes of identity, collectibility, and brand value, have drawn in collectors, art lovers, and traditional brand owners.

[1] Ponzi: A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent approach commonly seen in the financial sector, using funds collected from new investors as quick profits to pay existing investors. It lures victims into investing by promising high returns. As more people join the scheme, it often leads to a financial bubble that eventually bursts when the funds become insufficient. Subsequently, many later investors will suffer financial losses.

Total DeFi User Addresses Across All Chains Over Time

Source: https://dune.com/rchen8/defi-users-over-time

Since 2022, the crypto market has experienced a prolonged bearish sentiment. The once-prominent games and NFTs have waned in popularity, and the Ponzi-like economy has collapsed due to inadequate increments, resulting in a stagnation of Web3 user growth. Despite ongoing innovations, as well as persistent efforts to explore new possibilities in infrastructure, zero-knowledge proofs, payment, identity, and DeFi 2.0, a limited user base remains an essential challenge for the development of Web3. Amid the lingering bearish market, many ecosystems find themselves in an awkward situation where projects are in place without enough real users. The number of real on-chain users, excluding airdrop studios and users with multiple wallets, is probably not encouraging.

To attract new users, Web3 needs to offer more use cases and create various gameplays. Currently, the social sector is anticipated to be the next catalyst for driving Web3 user growth. This sector has shown enormous potential in the traditional internet space, leveraging its massive user base and commercial value to the fullest. From MSN to Facebook, Instagram, and now TikTok, each technological upgrade has spurred the rise of new internet giants and created numerous job opportunities throughout the industry chain. With growing awareness of the privacy and commercial value of data ownership, more voices are advocating for users to control their social information and data through Web3 to enjoy the value of identity and behavioral data. For this reason, exploring Web3 social projects is expected to be one of the most promising and profitable topics in the coming period.

As ecosystems like Cyber Connect and Lens Protocol mature, the Web 3 social sector is growing more robust. Although in an early stage of a boom, it has garnered market attention with some eye-catching projects. For instance, Elon Musk, one of the most influential figures in crypto, has captured global focus by endorsing Dogecoin and incorporating Bitcoin into Tesla’s official documentation. Despite his statement that Twitter will never issue tokens, topics such as social identity and token rewards have been widely discussed. Moreover, events like Lens Protocol’s successful fundraising of $15 million, the issuance of NFTs by internet giants like Instagram, and the listing of CYBER and other tokens on major exchanges have all contributed to the growth of the Web3 social sector.

Characteristics of the Web3 social sector

There isn’t a universal definition of what Web3 social is, but we can put products involving information publication and exchange among individuals and user characterization into this field. Based on current developments, these mainly include social public chains, social graphs, social identities, social applications, and service tools.

In the Web2 realm, traditional social media platforms like Twitter, Instagram, and TikTok have amassed a significant user base and evolved mature and diverse business models. However, the necessity and feasibility of developing Web3 social need validation. Unlike Web2, Web3 has a limited user base and is still in the stage of technological exploration. In this article, we believe that the key factors for a flourishing Web3 social sector include:

1. Anonymity and censorship resistance

One of the most prominent advantages of Web3 social, compared to Web2 social, is its anonymity and censorship resistance. This feature has been proven a user need. In Web2, as data is controlled by centralized institutions, users can be arbitrarily censored and forced to delete or alter their posts on social media. Essentially, Web2 social is a social model that operates under surveillance, leaving users unable to protect their privacy. On the other hand, the decentralized Web3 social inherently safeguards user privacy and resists centralized institutional censorship, satisfying users’ need for privacy protection and security.

2. User data ownership

In the Web2 social model, user data is owned by centralized platforms. Leveraging user data, these platforms create user profiles to analyze user behavior for targeted advertisements and products. This approach maximizes traffic monetization while highlighting the value of data for business analysis. In Web3, users can gain commercial value from their data by controlling data ownership. From a user perspective, projects that facilitate data value monetization are appealing. In fact, this model has made some gains in Web2. For instance, Pinduoduo, a Chinese e-commerce platform known for its competitively priced products, offers cash rewards for watching videos or inviting friends to join activities (a method of acquiring new users through social networks), enabling users to monetize their traffic. So far, the Web3 space has seen several attempts to return data ownership to users, with projects like Bitcoin Lightning Network-based Nostra, Polygon-based Lens, and multi-chain protocol CyberConnect. We believe that with diverse and volatile tokens and a rich design for the token economy, monetizing data ownership can generate numerous engaging gameplays, growing wealth and new users more effectively than the previous bullish market for blockchain games.

3. Easy to use

One of the elements of social projects is enabling the abundance and free flow of information within a community, and abundant information relies on a large user base. Attracting a large number of users is the most notable challenge and opportunity facing Web3 social projects. A critical factor hindering the development of the crypto sector is its limited user base. First, engaging in the industry requires a steep learning curve — users must acquire computer and crypto knowledge to be involved in on-chain interactions. Second, today’s crypto projects are more complicated than their Web2 counterparts. Taking EOA wallets as an example, user experience is undermined by issues like complex seed phrases and storage methods, phishing and private key theft risks, and software updates and compatibility. This has prevented numerous Web2 users from entering the crypto world. On the other hand, this also means than any projects that are easy to use will attract a massive influx of users.

4. Composability

In Web2 social, the presence of centralized institutions has resulted in massive data silos. Internet giants formed by these data silos control data access and pricing, requiring other projects to ask for permission to use data or build applications upon the data. Additionally, incompatibility and potential competition among these data silos hinder the interoperability of many Web2 applications, leaving users to register new accounts and re-accumulate information and data when switching platforms. We believe that an ideal Web3 social product has the potential to eliminate data silos, as demonstrated by the user portrait descriptions provided by POAP and ENS. We expect simpler, easier standard protocols to emerge, allowing access to most protocols while empowering users with convenient control over data ownership. This area is one of the key directions that DID explores.

Overview of top projects

Based on project types, social projects mainly fall into three categories: social graphs, social applications, and tool projects.

Social graphs

Social graphs serve as infrastructure in Web3 social, providing common standards and data sources for other application projects. A social graph should be rich in data sources, extensive in composability, and easy to use. For this reason, there is no need to build standalone new public chain projects or native projects on less popular public chains, as they create isolation from mature ecosystems. Currently, the mainstream option for developing a social graph is to build universal standards for social identities on mature chains. Prominent projects include Lens Protocol, CyberConnect, and RSS3.

CyberConnect

CyberConnect is a multi-chain social graph that validates and accumulates user interaction data. It provides users with personal profiles, social graphs, and smart contract wallets, and offers DApp developers standard API data interfaces for migrating user data across DApps. Having connected with Polygon, Linea, and Optimism, CyberConnect will further its integration with more networks like Arbiturm, which will help increase its user base. As of August 8, 2023, CyberConnect has 368,000 user accounts, 738,000 user operations, and over 1.25 million user profiles, as shown in the figure below.

User Data of CyberConnect

Despite the current weak market performance, CyberConnect has maintained DAU of over 10,000, indicating large overall traffic.

Traffic Data of CyberConnect

Lens Protocol

Lens Protocol, developed by the renowned DeFi lending project AAVE’s team members, is a Polygon-based social graph protocol that allows anyone to create non-custodial social information and build new social DApps. Through their wallets, users can create their own social profiles to engage in social interactions. They can also build interactive DApps based on Lens (they can log in to Lense for interactions, and interaction records will also be stored in their Lens social profiles).

The image below shows projects within the Lens ecosystem. Over 100 projects have been built, including social, play-to-earn, streaming, DAO tools, ad management, information sharing, online paid knowledge, and lottery DApps. While still in an early stage, these projects exhibit both quantity and variety, rendering Lens even more abundant than some public chains. In general, this on-chain social ecosystem is highly economically friendly to creators.

Some Projects in the Lens Protocol Ecosystem

More than 110,000 addresses have obtained their profiles. According to the figures below, Lens has a user count of over 360,000 and a transaction count of 21.93 million. Both peaked in February 2023, indicating involvement from a large number of individual users or airdrop studios. Currently, daily on-chain transactions range between 15,000 and 20,000, with 3,000 to 50,000 wallet addresses participating in daily interactions. Such a large active user base amid the bearish sentiment reflects sound user data performance and growth potential in the Web3 social sector.

User Data of Lens Protocol

Social graphs form the infrastructure and common tools for the entire social sector. Universal, simple, and convenient social graphs help flatten users’ learning curves and reduce the barriers between DApps while accumulating more users and data. The Polygon-based Lens Protocol focuses on building its own social ecosystem. By contrast, CyberConnect, instead of creating a content platform and ecosystem, supports multi-chains and interactions with various applications. It is also actively exploring ways to attract Web2 users through wallets, and prioritizing open social profiles. Both projects are leading in the social sector, which could experience a boom due to the progress of Lens Protocol and the introduction of more of its projects.

Social Applications

Farcaster

Farcaster, created by Dan Romero, a former executive at Coinbase, is a decentralized social media platform built on Ethereum and aims to compete with Twitter. It is currently in the beta testing phase. Farcaster enables Web2-like fast and low-cost decentralized social experience by creating and storing on-chain user identities while storing other information in off-chain databases (or “Hubs”). Additionally, Farcaster ensures decentralization by allowing users to use a self-custodial model for sending and receiving messages without gateways. The ecosystem now includes nearly 20 derivative projects, spanning data analysis, image enhancement, trending topics, related topics, and search engines.

As of August 9, 2023, Farcaster has over 13,000 wallet addresses, including those registered by crypto degens like Vitalik Buterin. As an independent social application, it boasts decent user numbers and engagement — there was a 2.2% growth in users and 2,500 casts were posted in the past seven days.

On top of decentralized anonymity, driving Web2 users from Twitter to Farcaster remains a research priority for the platform’s projects.

User Data of Farcaster

Nostr

Nostr is a decentralized open-source social transmission protocol that allows developers to build DApps. Without any centralized servers, Nostr transmits messages through a design of client and relay nodes. Unlike Web2 social, the protocol achieves full decentralization, enabling censorship resistance and privacy protection. Damus, a Twitter-like social product built on Nostr, features a decentralized, anonymous, and ads-free experience. Although still in an early stage, the product has been endorsed and backed by Jack Dorsey, the co-founder of Twitter.

As a fully open, anonymous, and censorship-resistant decentralized product, Damus is more competitive than traditional social products in terms of privacy security. It has a defined market and target audience. However, to attract a broader base of Web2 users, it may need new product design and features.

Friend.Tech

Friend.Tech, invested by Paradigm, is a social application deployed on BASE, a Coinbase-affiliated L2 blockchain. Like traditional fan token/creator economy projects, the application offers creators services such as fan communities and token issuance. Users join a creator’s community by holding tokens issued by the creator. It has become a smash hit since its launch on August 10. As of August 29, as shown in the chart, in less than 20 days since its release, it has garnered over 120,000 registered addresses, with more than 20,000 active addresses (users who access the user space).

For each transaction, users need to pay a 10% fee, including 5% for the creator and 5% for the protocol. As depicted in the chart below, the protocol has accumulated revenue of over $4 million as of August 28, 2023.

The rapid surge of Friend.Tech has captured attention and triggered speculations about the social sector. People are curious about the product’s approach that enabled its achievements. In this article, we believe that although Friend.Tech follows the existing design of social products and token models, there are reasons behind such a success, including:

1. Ponzi-like tokenomics

Fan tokens are mainly designed in two ways. One is the issuance of fan tokens. Users gain entry to a creator’s community by holding a certain amount of fan tokens. These tokens follow a market-based pricing mechanism and offer features like buybacks, burns, profit sharing, and staking. The other is the issuance of fan NFTs. Users can hold fan NFTs to enter a creator’s community. While also being priced on a market basis, fan NFTs may offer new token mapping, new NFT airdrops, or other privileges.

In the token economy preceding Friend.Tech, fans buy or sell tokens solely based on their admiration for the creator, rather than the fluctuation of token prices. However, Friend.Tech introduced a combination of referral mechanism and Ponzi-like design to inject vitality into the fan token economy. According to Friend.Tech, a point will be distributed within six months. Although specific rules are still unknown, user points are broadly believed to be associated with token airdrops. The fusion of this strategy and the referral mechanism encourages users to invite their friends to join Friend.Tech. It also spurs them to buy shares in various creators to generate trading fees and data. Like Blur’s airdrop strategy, Friend.Tech’s approach attracts users by offering long-term point incentives and airdrop expectations. Meanwhile, the extended timeframe enhances customer loyalty, enabling Friend.Tech to maintain its market share after airdrops conclude.

Friend.Tech has not disclosed the calculations of its tokenomics. However, according to Laurence Day’s widely accepted estimation of the model, as depicted in the chart below, Friend.Tech’s fan tokens follow a price curve represented by P = supply ^ 2 / 16,000. Under this model, price fluctuations are exponential, in both upward and downward directions. As early investors have the opportunity to enjoy remarkable profits, such a Ponzi-like design will continue to drive prices up until a balance is reached between buyers and sellers. This will attract more speculative participants. On the other hand, it also implies that the last few investors who haven’t profited will find themselves holding valuable tokens without a market to sell. Alternatively, they can try to recover partial costs by continuously reducing prices until a new market equilibrium is reached. However, when a rapidly rising price suddenly experiences a sharp decline, it often triggers panic selling, resulting in a steep price drop. In a nutshell, the incorporation of a Ponzi economy is one of the most critical reasons for Friend.Tech’s rapid surge. A similar design was seen in the Meme project XEN, where a Ponzi-like token economy and dividend incentives for early users quickly sparked a market frenzy.

2. Advantages of BASE’s early stage

Initially built on other blockchains, Friend.Tech’s launch and popularity are closely related to the excitement around BASE and the L2 space. Since the launch of Arbitrum in early 2023, the L2 space has delivered impressive performance amid a bearish sentiment. The subsequent Zksync ecosystem, OP Stack, and BASE have fueled market enthusiasm. Anticipated launches and token issuance of Starknet, Scroll, and Zksync later this year, along with the upcoming Cancun upgrade, make L2 the most crucial and promising sector in the crypto world for 2023. Moreover, BASE is affiliated with Coinbase, a prominent crypto exchange. By launching on BASE during its early stage, Friend.Tech strategically capitalized on the market’s focus and timing advantages.

3. Endorsement by Paradigm

Friend.Tech earned substantial credibility by being backed by Paradigm, a top-tier investment fund for crypto. Without a fully developed website (only a rough beta version), whitepapers, or explanatory documents, the project still managed to gain extensive trust and enthusiasm. Additionally, its Blur-like point incentive mechanism was possibly designed under the guidance of Paradigm.

In conclusion, while Friend.Tech follows a conventional product mechanism, it takes bolder approaches in tokenomics design, user acquisition, and marketing. In the short term, Friend.Tech might replicate Blur’s path to user growth. However, the project’s long-term performance as a social product needs further examination after it is fully launched.

Tool projects

Most social tools are designed to serve DApp projects. For example, Lens Protocol has Lenscan for browsing data and LensDAO for organization and community management; Farcaster has Alertcaster for information alerts and FarQuest for launching surveys. Social tools also comprise various general auxiliary tools, such as Debank Hi for social promotion and Utopia for DAO treasury governance, as well as tools for NFT design, account management, and wallet management.

In a nutshell, the social sector is a field where developers can unleash their creativity for applications. Apart from social graphs and application tools, social applications in particular, various types of social platforms, follower platforms, and streaming platforms are emerging. As the sector is still in its infancy, the enthusiasm and efforts from developers and investors will continuously help it grow.

Risks and challenges

While the crypto social sector has attracted many developers and investors, it’s essential to recognize the risks and challenges facing the sector. These chiefly involve technology, user growth, and compliance.

Technological challenges

As social products are application-focused, their development relies on mature infrastructure and technologies. A growing user base will raise more and higher requirements for social products, whose progress needs resolving issues like data storage, cross-chain information transmission, information transmission cost, and network congestion. However, today’s infrastructure cannot accommodate the emergence of Web2-scale social software.

User growth

Apart from anonymity and censorship resistance, why would Web2 users move to Web3 social applications? Apparently, not all users have extremely high requirements for privacy protection. Numerous users fulfill their social needs on centralized social platforms. How can Web3 social products acquire more newcomers, except for these users? Should they focus solely on a privacy-conscious audience? If using economic incentives, how should they design the model to avoid economic loopholes or Ponzi-like pitfalls? Although Web3 social has garnered decent market attention and traffic, this excitement remains within the crypto community. Therefore, whether to address existing issues or create new features and demands is the key question for Web3 social products to increase their user base.

Compliance

Web3 social products have three major features distinguishing them from their Web2 rivals. First, Web3 products are decentralized, censorship-resistant, and privacy-protected. Second, users own their data. Third, users gain the benefits from their data ownership. Nonetheless, these selling points may become risks. Web3 products are anticipated to attract illegal and illicit practitioners while capturing the attention of regulatory agencies. With a maturing sector and a growing user base, developer security and potential regulatory inquiries, among other issues, need to be considered in advance.

Conclusion

Still in its early stage, the Web3 social sector relies on the development of infrastructure, including, but not limited to, cross-chain information transmission, data storage, lower transaction cost, and compliance. Today’s social products encompass social graphs, social tools, and social applications. Social graphs form the foundational layer, and social applications are the largest in quantity and cover the most categories. Currently, a significant number of developers are experimenting with Web3 social product development, and investors start putting money into the sector. Growing market interest is demonstrated by the launch of CYBER tokens as well as Twitter’s rebranding and ad revenue sharing model. Despite these opportunities, it’s necessary to recognize the challenges facing Web3 social, including immature infrastructure, user growth, and compliance. Overall, we believe the Web3 social sector shows promise in terms of its prospects, trends, and market enthusiasm. With improved infrastructure and growing projects, investors, and tokens, we are optimistic about the sector’s investment potential and future.

References

Web3 Social: Road to Mass Adoption (binance.com)

https://messari.io/report/web3-social-usage-and-engagement

https://mpost.io/web3-fundraising-report-for-q2-2023-trends-in-gaming-and-social-network/

同源异流：Lens 和 CyberConnect 的去中心化社交路径 — Biteye (mirror.xyz)

谁能成为爆款？一文盘点 Web3 社交赛道热门项目 — Web3Caff

https://medium.com/@Cobo_Global/socialfi-fdb821e1e7da

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

About Huobi Ventures:

Huobi Ventures, the global investment division of Huobi, integrates investment, incubation, and research to identify the best and brightest teams worldwide.

With a decade-long history as an industry pioneer, Huobi Ventures excels at identifying cutting-edge technologies and emerging business models within the sector. To foster growth within the blockchain ecosystem, we provide comprehensive support to projects, including financing, resources, and strategic advice.

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

作者： Juliet Tang, Huobi Ventures 投资分析师

引言：

每一轮牛市都有着不同的启动引擎，每一个牛市引擎背后都有其长久的草蛇灰线般的熊市发育历程。疯狂的MEME，DeFi之夏……随着Web3技术和基建的发展，社交赛道也迎来了新的发展机会。

Web3社交赛道会是下一个牛市引擎吗？

作为一个在应用层需要充分发挥开发者想象力的赛道，社交、身份、NFT、DAO、粉丝等都可以归类到Web3社交的范畴中。社交赛道目前还处于极早期，随着Cyber代币的上线、推特的更名和创作者激励计划等，社交赛道的市场热度逐步攀升。

L2链BASE上的社交应用 Friend.Tech，自8月10日上线后迅速蹿红，在其上线不足20天的时间里，已有超12万注册地址，活跃地址数超2万个。

CyberConnect、Lens Protocol等应用类工具也吸引到了大量的用户和市场关注。

本文探讨了Web3社交的发展现状、赛道产品特点，同时也对赛道内的几个头部项目进行了分析，此外对该赛道所面临的风险和挑战也进行了研究。总的来说，看好Web3社交赛道的未来，这一板块具备较好的投资潜力和发展前景。

本篇研究报告由Huobi Ventures出品，Huobi Ventures是火币的全球投资部门，整合投资、孵化和研究以识别全球最优秀和最有前景的项目。

摘要

随着Web3技术和基建的发展，社交赛道也迎来了新的发展机会，匿名性、抗审查性、用户掌握数据所有权等都吸引着用户和开发者探索新的社交工具。当前Web3社交赛道已吸引了部分开发者和资本的参与，整个社交生态有数百个项目开发，社交、身份、NFT、DAO、粉丝等都可以归类到Web3社交的范畴中，生态项目较为丰富，其中CyberConnect、Lens Protocol等工具吸引到了大量的用户和市场关注。本文探讨了Web3社交的发展现状、赛道产品特点，同时也对赛道内的几个头部项目进行了分析，此外对该赛道所面临的风险和挑战也进行了研究。

为什么要关注社交

加密赛道一直被视为是集计算机、金融、密码学、数学等学科的交叉科学。但由于其出现时间较短、基础设施尚不完善、监管标准不一以及有一定的学习门槛和成本等因素，使得其仍然未实现全球范围内广泛的普及和使用。随着以以太坊为代表的智能合约公链的建设日趋完善，链上Dapp的发展也从2020起迎来爆发，如下图所示，目前累计的Defi用户地址已超过40m个。Defi率先将用户引入到链上交互，其真实、便捷的应用场景驱动了链上经济的建设和发展，吸引和培养了以一批链上Degen。此后2021年开始链游和NFT开始引领新的一轮用户潮，新的链上玩法、庞氏的代币经济设计[1]和多元的价值体系帮助Web3领域吸引到了大量的新用户，其中链游方面由于其打金效应，吸引到了大量的Web2的游戏玩家以及第三世界的低收入人群，而NFT由于其还具备身份价值、收藏价值以及品牌价值等属性，吸引到了大量的收藏爱好者、艺术爱好者以及传统的各类品牌商家踏入。

[1] 庞氏：庞氏骗局（Ponzi scheme）是一种在金融领域内流行的诈骗手法，通常把新投资者的钱作为快速盈利付给最初投资的人，以高额回报诱使受害人投资。随着加入的人数越来越多，当资金入不敷出时，往往出现崩盘式的金融泡沫破裂，后期的大量投资者会遭受到金钱损失。

全链累计Defi用户地址数

2022年以来市场开始迎来漫长的熊市，前期爆火的游戏、NFT等赛道热度减退、庞氏经济模型在增量不足的情况下急速崩盘、Web3用户的增长迎来瓶颈期。当下，Web3的创新仍在持续，开发者不断在基础建设、零知识证明、支付、身份、Defi2.0等各个领域探索新的可能性，但目前用户数量太少仍然是Web3领域发展所面临的核心问题之一。在仍处于熊市的今天，大量的生态以及其生态上的项目，面临项目已完成建设，但缺乏真实用户的窘境。若排除各空投工作室以及多钱包用户，真实的链上用户数或许并不乐观。

从供给端看，目前Web3的发展需要拓展更多的应用场景、创造更多的玩儿法来吸引新用户的加入。目前看来，社交赛道有望成为下一个引爆Web3用户的赛道；从需求端来说，社交赛道已被传统互联网领域证实了其超强的潜力，巨大的用户基数和商业价值在这一赛道被发挥的淋漓尽致，从早期的MSN、到中期的Facebook、Instagram以及后期的Tiktok等，每一次社交赛道的技术迭代都伴随着互联网巨兽的诞生，并催发出大量的产业链上下游就业机会。随着人们对数据所有权的隐私价值和商业价值的认知提升，越来越多的声音在呼吁让用户通过Web3掌握自己的社交信息和数据、让用户享受自我身份和行为数据的价值。因此，对于Web3领域内的社交项目的探索，是未来一段时间内最有发展前景和商业价值的议题之一。

随着Cyber Connect、Lens Protocol等生态的成熟，整个社交版块生态正变得越来越磅礴，当前整个社交板块处于爆发前期，最近已有部分社交项目吸引市场热点。如币圈最大的KOL埃隆马斯克接手推特，其多次喊单狗狗币、将比特币纳入特斯拉的官方文档等行为都为加密领域带来了全球范围内的流量。虽然其表示推特将永不发行代币，但围绕推特的社交身份、代币打赏支付等揣测在在市场上讨论已久。另外，Lens Protocol完成1500万美元融资、Instagram等互联网社交巨头发行NFT、Cyber代币等同时上线多家头部交易所，行业扩张发展。

社交赛道特点

对于Web3社交，目前尚没有统一的定义，我们可以将所有涉及到人与人的信息发布、交换、可用于用户刻画的产品归类到社交这一领域，从目前的发展成果来看，主要包括社交公链、社交图谱、社交身份、各类型的社交应用、服务类工具等。

在Web2领域，传统的社交平台如Twitter、Instagram、Tiktok等已经拥有大量的用户，且衍生出成熟和丰富的商业模式。当我们提到Web3社交，需要验证Web3社交发展的必要性和可行性，相比Web2，Web3在发展社交上用户基数不足，且目前尚处于技术上的探索阶段。总地来说，本文认为，Web3社交发展的关键因素包括：

1. 匿名性、抗审查性

相对于Web2社交，Web3社交最大的优势之一即是匿名性和抗审查性，这一特性本身在当下就已经被验证为用户的需求之一。Web2领域中，数据被掌握在中心化的机构手中，用户可能会被随意地审查其数据信息、被迫删除和修改其社交言论等。本质上，Web2社交仍然是一种被监管体制下的社交模式，用户无法保护自己的隐私。而去中心化的Web3天然具有保护用户隐私、抗中心化机构审查的特点，这些特点可以满足用户保护隐私和维护自身安全的诉求。

2. 用户掌握数据所有权

在Web2的社交模式下，用户的数据所有权属于中心化的平台机构。平台通过掌握用户的数据，可以实现用户画像刻画，对用户行为偏好进行分析，进而投放相应的广告和产品，实现流量最大化变现，同时数据本身也具备一定的商业分析价值。在Web3领域，可以通过使用户掌握数据所有权实现用户对数据流量商业价值的获取。从用户角度出发，设计出能让用户便捷地实现数据价值变现的项目对用户来说具有一定的吸引力。事实上，这一模式在Web2的商业模式中已经有所尝试，并取得了一定的成效。如拼多多提供的观看视频获得现金奖励，邀请好友参与“砍一刀”（本质为社交网络拉新）获得现金奖励均为用户实现流量变现的尝试。目前，Web3领域在这一块已有较多尝试，如基于比特币闪电网络的Nostra、基于Polygon的Lens以及多链协议CyberConnect等，都在尝试将用户的数据所有权回归用户。本文相信，在Web3中，由于代币的多元性、代币本身价值的波动性、以及代币经济设计的丰富性，对数据所有权商业价值变现在Web3中可以衍生出非常多吸引用户的有趣玩法，具备甚至超过上一轮链游牛市所创造的造富效应和拉新效应。

3. 简单易用

社交项目的要素之一是实现圈层内信息的充沛和自由流动，而充沛的信息依赖于大量的用户。如何引入大量的用户，是Web3社交项目所面临的最大的挑战和机遇。当前加密领域发展受限的重要原因之一用户基数太少，一是用户进入加密领域有一定的学习门槛，用户需要掌握一定的计算机和加密知识，才能参与链上交互，二是当前的加密项目相比Web2的用户工具使用较为复杂，不够简单便捷，以EOA钱包为例，复杂的助记词和保存方式、潜在的被钓鱼和盗取私钥的风险、软件之间的更新迭代和兼容性问题等均影响了用户体验。将大量的Web2用户拦在加密世界之外，相对地，这也意味着，一旦能解决学习成本和进入门槛的问题，一旦有能够简单上手、让用户无感操作的社交项目的诞生，则将带来巨大的用户流量。

4. 可组合性

Web2社交中，由于各中心化机构的存在，实际上形成了一个个庞大的数据孤岛，巨大的数据孤岛所构成的互联网巨头具有数据准入权限和定价权，其他类目的项目想要使用该数据或在其上建立应用，需要获得数据所有机构的允许。同时，各个庞大的数据孤岛之前还存在着兼容性问题以及潜在的竞争关系，最终的结果导致很多Web2应用之间并不互通，用户往往使用一个平台就必须注册新的账号并重新累计信息和数据。本文认为，理想的Web3社交类产品或有机会解决数据孤岛的问题，类似POAP、ENS等对用户画像的描绘可以视作对数据孤岛的问题的解决的尝试。在未来，或会出现更加简单、无门槛的标准协议，在帮助用户实现便捷地掌握数据所有权的情况下，同时兼容对大多数协议的接入，这一领域即是DID重点的探索方向之一。

头部项目概览

按照不同的项目类型，社交类项目主要包括社交图谱、社交应用和工具项目几大类。

社交图谱

社交图谱在Web3社交中充当基础设施的功能，为其他应用类项目提供通用标准、数据信息源等。社交图谱应具备丰富的数据源、广泛的可组合性、使用门槛低等特点。从这一点上来说，单独构建的新公链社交类项目、构建在冷门公链上的原生社交类项目必要性均不大，增加了和其他成熟生态之间的隔离。目前而言，构建在成熟链上的社交身份类通用标准是社交图谱发展的主流选择，包括Lens Protocol、CyberConnect以及RSS3等均是该赛道下的主流项目。

CyberConnect

CyberConnect是一个多链社交图谱，可以验证并沉淀用户交互数据，为用户提供个人名片、社交图谱和智能合约钱包，为其他Dapp开发者提供标准的API数据接口，实现用户数据在多个Dapp上的迁移。目前CyberConnect已接入Polygon、Linea和Optimism, 后续还将接入Arbitrum等网络，用户数有望得到进一步的增长。如下图所示，截止至2023年8月8日，累计账户数达到了368k个，累计用户操作数达738k 笔，而总的用户profile已经超过1.25m个。

CyberConnect 用户数据

而在目前较为低迷的市场行情下，CyberConnect的日均流量DAU仍然维持在10k以上，整体流量较大。

CyberConnect流量数据

Lens Protocol

Lens Protocol是知名老牌Defi借贷项目AAVE团队开发的社交类项目，是一个建立在Polygon上的社交图谱类协议，它允许任何人创建非托管社交资料和构建新的社交 Dapp。用户可以通过接入钱包创建自己的社交名片NFT，使用社交名片与其他用户产生互动。用户同时还可以在Lens的基础上构建相应的交互的Dapp（用户可以使用Lens进行登录，Lens生态内可以进行交互，交互记录也将被记录到Lens社交名片中）。

下图所示展示了Lens生态的部分项目，目前Lens生态上构建了一百多个项目，其中包括各种社交、玩赚、流媒体分享、DAO工具、广告管理、信息传递、知识付费、抽奖等Dapp，虽然目前大多数生态生态项目还在早中期开发阶段，但整体无论是数量还是类型上都非常丰富，其生态丰富程度甚至超过了部分公链，总地来说，Lens所创造的链上社交生态对创作者经济十分友好。

Lens Protocol 部分生态项目

截止到2023年7月，已有超11万地址取得了Profile社交名片。如下图所示，Lens 累计用户数36万以上，累计交易数达2193万笔，交易和用户数爆发的高峰出现在2023年的2月份，或有大量散户或空投工作室参与布局。目前每日链上交易数在15,000–20,000笔之间，每日参与交互的用户在3000–5000个钱包地址之间，在熊市背景下仍然有较多数量的用户参与到社交赛道的交互中，显示出该赛道良好的用户数据表现和增长潜力。

Lens Protocol 用户数据

总地来说，社交图谱是整个社交赛道的基础设施和通用工具。统一、简单、便捷的社交图谱有利于降低用户的使用门槛、减少不同Dapp之间的使用壁垒，同时沉淀更多的用户和数据。相比较而言，Lens Protocol建立在Polygon上，重在打造自己的社交生态圈，而CyberConnect则没有自己的内容平台和生态，它支持多链，和多个应用交互，同时也在钱包端积极探索Web2用户的入局方式，重在打造开放式社交名片。两个项目目前同属于社交赛道的头部项目，随着Lens Protocol的进一步建设和上线，两个项目带领下的社交赛道可能会迎来爆发期。

社交应用

Farcaster

Farcaster是由Coinbase前高管Dan Romero创建的去中心化社交平台，建立在以太坊上并对标推特，目前处在β测试阶段。Farcaster通过在链上为用户生成和存储身份信息，在链下提供数据库Hub存储其他信息的方式，实现媲美Web2的快捷、低成本的去中心化社交交互体验，此外，Farcaster还允许用户使用自托管模式，让用户在没有网关的情况下认可收发消息，确保去中心化的实现。目前其生态下还构建了近20个衍生项目，包括数据分析、图片美化、热门话题、关联话题以及搜索引擎等。

截止至2023年8月9日，Facaster总钱包地址数突破13k，包括V神在内的多位加密行业Degen都注册了账户。用户当周增长率2.2%，过去七天发布动态数2.5k条，作为独立的社交应用，其用户数和用户活跃程度还不错。

目前来看，除了去中心化匿名性的优点，如何吸引Web2的用户从推特迁移到Farcaster是项目后续发展的重要研究方向。

Facaster用户数据统计

Nostr

Nostr是一个去中心化开源社交传输协议，开发者可以基于Nostr构建Dapp。Nostr上没有任何的中心化服务器，该协议通过客户端和中继端的设计来实现信息的收发。相比Web2社交，该协议实现了完全的去中心化，可以抗审查、保护用户隐私。Damus是建立在Nostr上的去中心化类推特社交产品，用户可以在体验类似推特的社交平台的基础上，享受去中心化、匿名、无广告等产品特点，该产品目前还处在开发早期，同时也受到了推特创始人Jack Dorsey的推荐和支持。

作为完全开放的匿名的去中心化抗审查产品，Damus在隐私安全方面相比传统社交产品有较强的竞争力，有明确的市场和目标客户。但对于更广泛地吸引Web2用户的进入，或需要新的产品设计和功能的出现。

Friend.Tech

Friend.Tech是由Paradigm投资的部署在Coinbase系L2链BASE上的社交应用。该应用与传统的粉丝代币/创作者经济类项目较为类似，平台为创作者提供粉丝社区和通证发行服务，用户通过持有创作者发行的通证加入创作者的社区。产品自8月10日上线后迅速蹿红，如图，至2023年8月29日，在产品上线不足20天的时间里，已有超12万注册地址，活跃地址数（当日查看用户空间）超2万个。

用户每交易一次需要支付10%的交易费用，其中5%归属给创作者，5%归属给协议。如下图所示，截止至2023年8月28日，目前该协议已累计收入4m美金以上。

Friend.Tech产品的迅速蹿红一定程度上引发了市场对社交赛道的关注和猜测，该产品究竟是通过怎样的模式实现了如此迅速而大规模得吸引到了用户。本文认为，从产品本身来说，目前Friend.Tech并没有跳出原有的社交产品和代币模式的设计，但是其本阶段取得的成功是有迹可循的，主要包括以下几点：

1.对粉丝代币的庞氏经济学设计

目前粉丝通证的设计主要有两种模式：一是发行粉丝代币，用户通过持有一定数量的粉丝代币，达到创作者社群的入门门槛，粉丝代币遵从市场经济下的价格涨跌，此外可能会有回购、销毁、分成、质押等粉丝代币功能的设计；二是发行粉丝NFT，用户通过持有NFT达到创作者社群的入门门槛，NFT遵从市场经济下的价格涨跌，此外可能会有新的代币发行的映射、空投新的NFT或者其他权益的实现。

总地来说，在Friend.Tech之前的代币经济设计中，粉丝通证的买卖驱动力主要来自于用户对创作者的喜爱，受代币价格本身涨跌的吸引是中性的。而Friend.Tech推出的用户邀请机制+粉丝代币经济学对原本缺乏活力的代币经济机制进行了颠覆。和庞氏经济学的设计思路类似，老用户通过不断拉新用户可以实现获利：Friend.Tech表示在六个月内会分发1亿枚积分，目前尚未披露积分分发规则，但用户积分被普遍认为和代币空投挂钩，这一机制和用户邀请机制的结合，促进了用户拉新的动力，老用户通过邀请新用户注册使用Friend.Tech赚取积分，同时也促进用户购买更多不同创作者的股份刷交易费用和数据。这一策略和Blur的空投策略类似，通过长周期内的积分激励+空投预期，吸引用户使用产品，同时由于周期够长，可以增加用户对产品的粘性，在空投周期结束后也能持续占据市场份额。

在代币经济学的设计上，由于目前官方并未披露相关的计算，根据目前普遍认可的Laurence Day对该价格模型的测算统计，如下图，Friend.Tech的粉丝代币价格遵从P=suppy²/16000 的价格曲线，在这个定价模型下，价格的上涨和下跌都将呈现为指数级别的波动。早期的投资者有机会享受到巨大的利润，这一庞氏经济的设计在买卖用户尚未达到均衡前会持续引发价格的暴涨，吸引更多投机用户参与到代币的买卖，同时也预示着当没有新用户继续购买创作者股份时，最后几批参与购买、但尚未盈利的用户只能接受有价无市的现状；或承担亏损，通过不断地降价、寻找市场价格的新平衡、最终实现部分成本的回收，然而当持续上涨的市场价格突然出现下跌时，投资者往往呈现出恐慌性挤兑，从而引发大量抛售，造成价格悬崖式下跌。总地来说，庞氏经济的巧妙嵌入是Frend.Tech短时间内引爆项目的最重要的原因之一，类似的设计在Meme项目XEN中也有体现，通过庞氏经济的代币设计和早期用户的分红激励机制使得项目在短期内引爆市场热点。

2.BASE链上线初期的红利

Friend.Tech早先构建在其他链上，近期上线和火热和BASE以及L2的赛道的热度也有极大的关联。自2023年年初Arbitrum上线以来，L2赛道在熊市中整体表现都非常亮眼，随后的Zksync生态、OP Stack以及BASE等都引发了市场的热潮，预计今年还会有Starknet、Scroll、Zksync的上线和发币预期，加上临近坎昆升级，整个L2可以称之为2023年币圈的最重要和最亮眼的赛道，而BASE还同时背靠Coinbase这一币圈上市交易所。Friend.Tech选择在BASE上线初期发行，巧妙地抓住了市场的热点和时间红利。

3.Paradigm顶级VC背景背书

作为币圈的顶级投资基金，Paradigm的背书自然对项目加分不少，在Friend.Tech尚未开发好网页端、且只有粗糙的β版、缺乏各种项目白皮书和说明材料的情况下，市场仍然对该项目赋予信任，投入大量的参与热情是和Paradigm的背书有极大的关系的。同时，从项目的积分机制中可以看到和Blur类似的激励设计，或有Paradigm指导的影子。

总地来说，Friend.Tech在产品机制上比较传统，但在代币经济设计、获客策略和营销玩法比传统的社交项目更加大胆，短期内Friend.Tech或许会复制Blur的用户增长路径，但作为社交产品，长期的社交属性的实现需要等待产品上线后进行观察。

工具项目

社交工具类项目主要发挥服务功能，当前大多数都定位为为项目服务，服务于Dapp的项目，如LensProtocol下用于浏览数据的Lenscan、用于组织和社区管理的LensDAO、Farcaster生态下用于信息提醒的Alertcaster、用于发起问卷调查的FarQuest。其他的包括各类通用类的辅助工具亦可划分到社交工具范畴，如帮助进行社交推广的Debank Hi模块，帮助进行DAO财库治理的Utopia，以及各种NFT设计工具、账户管理工具、钱包管理工具等。

总地来说，社交赛道是一个在应用层充分发挥开发者想象力的赛道，除了社交图谱、应用类工具外，尤其在社交应用上，各类型的社交平台、粉丝平台、流媒体平台等异彩纷呈。目前这个赛道还处于极早期，开发者和资方的热情和努力将不断帮助这一赛道积累成果。

风险与挑战

当前加密社交赛道吸引到了众多开发者和资本的参与，在看到机会的同时，我们也应明确这一赛道目前存在的风险和挑战。当下的问题主要存在于技术、用户增长和合规性方面。

技术难题

社交产品整体都处于偏应用层层面，其发展有待基建设施和技术的成熟。随着用户数目的增长，会对社交产品提出更多更高的要求，同时，社交应用的发展依赖于数据存储、跨链信息传递、信息传递成本、网络拥堵等问题的解决，而现阶段的基建暂时还不满足实现能容纳Web2级别的大规模用户社交软件的出现。

用户增长

除了匿名性、抗审查性外，为什么Web2用户愿意转换到Web3的社交应用？可以明确地是，并不是每个用户都对隐私有着极高的要求，有大量的用户在现有的中心化社交平台上仍然能实现其社交诉求，除开这部分用户，如何吸引更多的用户，亦或是目标用户仅专注在有隐私需求的用户上？如果考虑用经济回报来激励用户，该如何设计经济模型同时又避免陷入经济闭环或庞氏经济困境？在用户层面，目前Web3社交已经取得了不错的市场热度和流量，但目前热度仍停留在加密圈内部，未来是解决现有社交产品的问题还是创造新功能和需求是Web3社交产品提升用户数量需要直面的问题。

合规性

Web3社交产品的卖点也是和Web2产品区别开的点主要有三：一是去中心化、抗审查、隐私保护；二是用户掌握数据所有权；三是用户可实现数据所有权收益。Web3社交产品的优点在某成程度上或许会成为其面临的风险点。可以预见地是，Web3的产品特性极易吸引黑灰产业从业者，同时也会吸引到监管机构的目光。随着Web3赛道的成熟和用户基数的扩大，开发者安全问题、潜在面临的监管机构问询问题等都需提前纳入考虑。

总结

Web3社交赛道处于早期发展阶段，依赖于其他基础设施建设的成熟，包括但不限于跨链信息传输、数据存储、交易成本的降低以及合规性问题等。目前社交赛道产品主要包括社交图谱、社交工具和社交类应用，其中以社交图谱最为底层，社交应用数量最多品类最广。目前，有大量的开发者在对Web3社交产品的开发进行尝试，资本也在逐渐关注并投资都这个赛道。包括Cyber代币的上线、推特的更名和创作者激励计划等，均展现出社交赛道的市场热度逐步攀升。在社交展现出机会的同时，也应充分意识到目前该赛道所面临的挑战，本文认为主要包括基建类技术型建设目前仍不完善、新用户增长瓶颈以及潜在面临的合规性问题。总地来说，本文认为Web3 社交赛道无论从发展前景、发展趋势还是市场热度上均表现不错，随着基建的完善、项目的开发、资本的聚集以及代币的上市，本文认为这一板块具备较好的投资潜力和发展前景。

参考资料

Web3 Social: Road to Mass Adoption (binance.com)

https://messari.io/report/web3-social-usage-and-engagement

https://mpost.io/web3-fundraising-report-for-q2-2023-trends-in-gaming-and-social-network/

同源异流：Lens 和 CyberConnect 的去中心化社交路径 — Biteye (mirror.xyz)

谁能成为爆款？一文盘点 Web3 社交赛道热门项目 — Web3Caff

https://medium.com/@Cobo_Global/socialfi-fdb821e1e7da

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

关于Huobi Ventures：

Huobi Ventures是火币的全球投资部门，整合投资、孵化和研究以识别全球最优秀和最有前景的团队。作为区块链十年行业的先驱，Huobi Ventures推动行业内的尖端科技和新兴商业模式发展, 为合作项目提供全方位的支持，包括融资、资源和战略咨询，以建立长期区块链生态。目前，Huobi Ventures已支持跨越多个区块链赛道的 200 多个项目，其中部分优质项目已上线火币交易。

关于火币研究院

火币区块链应用研究院（简称“火币研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火币研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1.Huobi Ventures与本报告中所涉及的项目或其他第三方不存在任何影响报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2.本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规渠道，资料及数据的出处皆被Huobi Ventures认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但Huobi Ventures不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3.报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。Huobi Ventures不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4.本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据信息的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5.本报告版权仅为Huobi Ventures所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。在任何情况下不得对本报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

Introduction

Trust, liquidity, transparency, security, efficiency, and innovation comes with the birth of blockchain, but the bear market in the crypto industry seems to be struggling finding new growth opportunities; the crypto industry is in desperate need something new as the next narrative. Tokenization of RWA creates a venue between traditional finance and crypto finance, cultivating a multi-trillion-dollar asset market, which can be deemed as the water of life that nourishes the crypto industry across cycles of bulls and bears. Since its inception, voices on tokenization of RWA have always been heard, but none of them have been exemplary impeded by obstacles from technology, regulation, and the market. Recently, the RWA segment has returned to the center of discussions, and many institutions have taken actions. RWA projects have demonstrated characteristics of large varieties, with most of them being DeFi, highly risky with high returns, and it has become more accepted by the public. However, these projects are still somewhat problematic: they are low in liquidity, price discovery is incomplete, and most of them are in an early phase. Whether RWA could become the next superstar depends on the development of infrastructures and completeness of regulations in the next few years. This research report also indicates that token standardization and compliance is inevitable for RWA in further development. Despite the challenges ahead, the industry is constantly moving forward, and innovative projects have not stopped from emerging, especially those based on U.S. bonds and stocks, SME financing, and real assets, which are mainly characterized by: 1. The product of cooperation with traditional financial institutions; 2. optimization of project revenues and token sales; and 3. introduction of more participation of legitimate third-party entities. These features can partially solve the problems on tokenization of RWA caused by regulation, centralization, on-chain and off-chain identity, asset valuation, etc. We expect more projects to spring up and enrich the RWA segment in the future.

1. A brewing narrative

After a year-long bear market, the entire crypto market was like a deflated balloon in terms of market cap: money keeps flowing out, and on-chain activities appeared slumberous. DeFi is no longer appealing by the return, and players reave each other. No one could possibly predict what the fuse would be to kick-start the next bull market. Although an enormous gap remains between the crypto market and traditional financial market, opportunities may lie within by peeking into the incidents that happened during the bear market.

Arguably, the bankruptcies of various large institutions in 2022 were mainly caused by the financing activities of altcoins as well as massive lending and borrowing on them, so that when the price of altcoins plunged, it aggravated the settlement on credit lending, the death spiral was thus activated. It was institutions and credit lending that drove the bull market in 2021, which also conjured the bear market in 2022. In fact, credit lending is the invisible hand that promoted most of the economic development that is worth more than trillions of dollars; it creates huge potential in the market. More and more DeFi protocols started dabbling into traditional financial markets, such as equity and debt financing. While it is increasingly risky, there are no alternatives that could connect traditional financial markets worth over $800 trillion onto the chains. Tokenizing RWA is the ultimate solution to fill up the gap between the crypto market and traditional financial market.

In the first half of this year, the RWA segment has drawn some attention from traditional financial institutions and crypto-native institutions.

To start with, Goldman Sachs announced the launch of its digital asset platform, GS DAP, which has already assisted the European Investment Bank (EIB) in the issue a two-year €100 million digital bond. Shortly after that, Hamilton Lane, a private equity firm with over $100 billion under management, tokenized a portion of its $2.1 billion flagship equity fund for sale to investors on the Polygon network, and electrical engineering giant Siemens offered its first €60 million digital bond on the blockchain. Second, a few government agencies have set foot on RWAs, including the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), which was said to partner with J. P. Morgan Chase and DBS Bank.

In April, Binance announced to be a node operator of the Layer1 blockchain- Polymesh. DeFi protocols such as MakerDAO, Aave and Maple Finance were unprecedently active in the RWA segment, and more crypto investment companies are seeking for RWA projects. Currently, over 50 projects are competing in the RWA segment with emphasis on financial assets, including fixed income, TradFi, and a few in real estate and carbon credit. Recently, RWA tokens have all seen increase in price, some by more than 10 times. Is the momentum accumulated in the first half of 2023 a sign implying that RWA could be leading the crypto narrative in the coming years?

1. History of RWA

The concept of RWA was not born yesterday in the blockchain industry; the earliest RWA project is the “asset-on-chain” BTM chain. Currently, the most successful RWAs are the digital dollar, USDT and USDC, to be more specific, tokenized, and on-chain version of real dollar. Being the cornerstone in the crypto industry, stablecoins have never been more critical and influential.

RWA, known as real world assets- tokenization, is the process of converting the value of ownership (and any associated rights) in tangible or intangible assets into digital tokens. This allows digital ownership to be transferred and stored without a centralized intermediary, and the value of assets is reflected and traded on the blockchain. RWAs can be either tangible or intangible assets.

• Tangible assets include real estate, artwork, precious metals, vehicles, sports clubs, racing horse, etc.

Intangible assets include stocks and bonds, intellectual property, investment funds, synthetic assets, revenue-sharing agreements, cash, and accounts receivables, etc.

2.1 Status quo of the RWA segment

The RWA segment has a wide variety of projects, most of them are DeFi projects. They can be further classified into 3 categories: 1. fixed income projects based on off-chain assets, such as U.S. bonds, stocks, real estate, and artwork; 2. public credit projects based on assets offered and traded on public market; and 3. trading marketplaces based on intangible assets, such as carbon credits. In addition, there are also infrastructure projects, such as sector L1 chains.

• The fixed income category is based on the U.S. bonds and equity markets, it provides loans to individuals and institutions. Projects in this category differ from other DeFi lending by collateral; it can be real-world assets.

• The public credit category creates investment funds in crypto for crypto users, following the trace of US bonds and other bonds.

According to RWA.xyz, eight RWA lending protocols, including Centrifuge, Maple, GoldFinch, Credix, Clearpool, TrueFi, and Homecoin, disbursed a total of $4.38b in loans, with an average APR of 10.52% on borrowers’ end, serving mostly users from sub-middle development countries. These credit lending protocols offer higher returns than most DeFi lending, but Maple Finance defaulted on $69.3 million of debt in 2022 during the turmoil of institutions.

According to the data panel on Dune, the number of RWA holder addresses of $wCFG, $MPL, $GFI, $FACTR, $ONDO, $RIO, $TRADE, $TRU, $BST on Ethereum is also increasing, and it currently reaches 3.9k.

2.2 Advantages of tokenized assets

Ideally, any asset of value is capable of being tokenized. The advantage of asset tokenization is that ecological applications can be built with decentralization and blockchain as the underlying technology, thus solving drawbacks in exiting traditional finance, specifically:

(1) Creating huge potential in the market for investors, including retail investors

As leading financial institutions expect to benefit from the efficiencies and economic possibilities offered by blockchain, tokenization of real-world assets is embraced by institutions, and numerous tokenized products have already been on the market. RWA projects will also boost returns on DeFi.

Through real-world asset tokenization, companies would be able to leverage the DeFi ecosystem, accessing capital in a cost-effective manner and benefiting from lower barriers to entry and new ways to raise capital, especially for emerging markets. At the same time, the DeFi ecosystem can absorb investment returns and access diverse off-chain markets, as well as new opportunities to reach the user base in traditional finance.

(2) Improving the efficiency of capital flows and promoting positive feedback on asset tokenization

Traditional financial trading markets are labor-intensive, while blockchain technology can provide instant settlement, 24-hour trading, etc., reducing operational costs and market access for participants. On top of that, asset tokenization enables illiquid assets to be sliced into small portfolios that represent part of the original piece; no massive workload on paperwork is needed, nor does it require money and time consumption by investors. Therefore, a fairer market is in place, whilst creating new business and social models, such as shared property ownership or shared rights.

In the case of securities, tokenization is a perfect tool for securitization or refinancing of assets from less liquid assets to become more liquid security instruments.

Introducing real-world assets into the on-chain world of DeFi ecosystem brings about unique opportunities of collateral or investment, market efficiencies, and liquidity that is not accessible in traditional markets. The increased capital efficiency will further facilitate the RWA market, cultivating positive feedback.

(3) Lowering the entry barriers for retail investors and increasing liquidity of brick-and-mortar assets

Tokenization removes the barriers that currently impede real-world asset segmentation, empowering most retail investors to access asset classes that are typically limited to a few high-net-worth individuals or institutional investors, especially in the case of brick-and-mortar assets, where retail investors can invest in financial products across borders or collectively invest in a property or a piece of art that has extremely high barriers of entry in traditional finance. Notably, these physical objects may be extremely illiquid in a relatively closed markets; once they are on chain, they will be accessible to investors worldwide. On the one hand, issuers can reach a broader group of investors and invent new asset classes. On the other hand, retail investors could access markets that were previously closed to them and make wiser investment decisions based on transparent and publicly visible data.

(4) RWA transactions are more efficient and secure relying on blockchain

Blockchain ensures transparency of on-chain payment and data flow, solidity of transaction records, traceability, higher efficiency and lower operating costs, more robust risk management, ironclad ownership, as well as more combinability and fairer market condition. In the future, blockchain technology will continue to evolve, L1 chains or layer2 solutions of higher performance, stricter smart contract censorship mechanisms, and privacy protection programs based on ZK are on the way, all of which fertilize the soil to ensure a brighter future of RWA.

3. Prerequisites for a booming RWA market

Creation of asset on-chain is the critical point of the RWA sector. Two pillars are necessary to buttress the implementation: one is the improvement of blockchain infrastructure, and the other is the completeness of regulation, as interoperability, security, and privacy between individual protocols and tokens are highly involved in the world of blockchain, and regulatory statues, on the other hand, judge if off-chain assets and on-chain identity are supported by corresponding laws and regulations. While many issues are being actively discussed, this report explores only the following two: token standards and censorship.

3.1 Diversity of token standards

By on-chain token standard, ERC-721 and ERC-20 are the most seen standards on Ethereum, representing the non-fungible token and fungible token standards, respectively. In traditional finance, there are various asset classes, including tangible assets and intangible assets. When it comes to blockchain, different token standards must be followed according to different attributes of assets. Fungible tokens and non-fungible tokens have the following characteristics:

• Fungible tokens:

i. Exchangeable. Each unit has the same market value and validity, in other words, token holders can exchange assets with each other with the consensus that they are of equal value.

ii. Divisible. Assets can be split into as many decimal places as they are issued, and the value and validity are proportional to a full unit.

• Non-fungible assets cannot be exchanged, and it cannot be replaced because each unit is unique in value, and each contains different information and attributes. Non-fungible tokens are not divisible in most cases, but there are still ways to split the cost of an investment to provide partial ownership, such as in commercial real estate.

Most assets can adopt the standard of fungible tokens, but for some assets, such as bonds and derivatives, non-fungible tokens may be more suitable. Thanks to continuous development of RWA projects, more diverse scenarios will be in the scene, at which point the simple ERC-20 and ERC-721 will no longer be able to meet the needs of RWA tokenization. Many RWA sector L1 chains have foresighted and started to work on RWA tokenization compliant standards, such as Polymesh. Most of current RWA projects are built on Ethereum, which implies that further development on ERC standard is more universal. So far, ERC-3525 is more often discussed; more standards are expected to come out, especially after the storm of BRC-20. In my humble opinion, a perfect token standard for RWA projects must demonstrate the following characteristics:

（1） Outstanding operability and flexibility for RWA token issuers, compatible with both ERC-721 and ERC-20 features.

（2） High degree of privacy that it protects transaction and user information.

3.2 Strict censorship

Security is vital to tokenized real-world assets, especially when they serve as a source of collateral. Due diligence is the top priority for investors to conduct on DeFi protocols to choose technologies or services that are built with high-quality open-source code, which prioritize secured loans and offer closely fitted regulatory compliance. For RWA-related project teams, two solutions are necessary to be provided:

• Minimizing KYC / AML risks — Conduct KYC (Know Your Customer) or AML (Anti-Money Laundering) checks on users and/or transactions on the platform, and avoid potential user interactions or transactions, directly or indirectly, with OFAC and other sanctioned counterparties or politically exposed persons.

• Close surveillance — products and services that monitor and detect suspicious activity of DeFi users.

As a result, the program requires a dedicated compliance team to review and approve or deny user access to the platform based on identification, risk assessment, verification, and due diligence. In addition, client activity must be continuously monitored to detect any suspicious activities or behaviors that may be fraudulent or involved in money laundering.

4. Representative Project Analysis

There are several subdivision categories of RWA tracks. This research report analyzes 19 RWA representative projects in detail from multiple dimensions, such as RWA tokenization mechanism, protocol status, token function and performance, protocol advantages and risks. Through the analysis and summary of these projects, we can get a glimpse of the overall development and problems of RWA projects, as well as the future potential.

4.1 Concept of U.S. Debt

(1) MakerDAO

In 2020, MakerDAO formally incorporates RWA into its strategic priorities and publishes guidelines and plans of introducing RWA into the ecosystem. Maker has expanded its collateral offerings beyond ETH to include collateral in the form of tokenized real estate, invoices, and accounts receivable, in addition to issuing the stablecoin DAI. The main source of revenue for the Maker protocol is interest received from lending and penalties from liquidation on stablecoin DAI.

Status quo: Maker is a top 3 DeFi protocol in terms of TVL, ranking behind Lido and AAVE, and it is ranked the first place among CDP (Collateralized Debt Position) protocols. Currently it is deployed on Ethereum only, according to data from defillama retrieved on 2023–06–02, it has a TVL of $6.29b, 30-day protocol revenue of $23.53m, treasury amount of $68.4m. The governance token $MKR has been listed on Coinbase, Binance, Kucoin, Kraken, OKX, Huobi, Bybit. The average 24h trading volume is $13.58m, and the average 30-day trading volume is close to $20m.

Token Function: $MKR, the governance token of MakerDAO, has poor performance in terms of price, mainly because the protocol is weak in value capture, yet it plays an important role in governance. The $MKR token performs the following functions:

• Governance Rights: $MKR token holders have governance rights for the MakerDAO system. They can participate in voting and make decisions on important subject matters such as calibration of system parameters, risk management and other changes in the protocol. The voting result decides future developments and operations of MakerDAO.

• Collateral Stabilization: $MKR tokens can be used as collateral in the l MakerDAO system. When users are willing to receive stable coins (e.g., $DAI) by locking up a certain amount of crypto assets (e.g., $ETH), a certain amount of $MKR is required as collateral. This mechanism is designed to ensure the stability and security of the system.

• System Stability Buyback: $MKR tokens in collateral are also part of the System Stability Buyback mechanism. When the value of the stable coin $DAI in the MakerDAO system drops and deviates from its anchored value with the US dollar, the system will automatically initiate a buyback of MKR tokens and destroy them to stabilize the system.

• Risk Sharing: $MKR token holders bear the risk in the MakerDAO system. Once the system’s debt cannot be repaid or other problems occur, the value of the $MKR tokens may be affected. This incentivizes holders to participate in and oversee the operation of the system to ensure security and stability.

Protocol advantages: 1. With the help of EVM and L2 ecology, MakerDAO has a more loyal user base, as well as stable and secure network support than other L1 chains; 2. The advantages on governance have been tested through bull and bear cycles, including a strict entry threshold for collateral, not to mention over-collateralization and a nearly-perfect auction system, which guarantees the value of DAI pegged to USD in most cases; in extreme cases, the contingency measures for emergency shutdowns are also in place.

Protocol risks: 1. Governance attacks. Short-term large-scale convergence of $MKR token could lead to excessive concentration of governance power, resulting in a series of governance attacks such as incremental junk collateral, emergency shutdowns, malicious tampering of risk parameters, etc. With appreciation of $MKR, the protocol is competent in dealing with the risks, and it is sufficient to mitigate such risks in most cases; 2. Market price risks. When mainstream tokens are volatile, a series of auction settlements will increase the supply of token on the market, exacerbating the liquidity issue, which happened in the past two years when mainstream tokens experienced massive declines, but the protocol per se did not incur massive losses.

(2) Ondo Finance

Ondo Finance is one of the most trending RWA projects in the first half of this year, which received $20 million in Series A funding led by Founders Fund and Pantera Capital in April. Ondo Finance is a decentralized investment bank that invests mainly in US listed cryptocurrency funds off-chain and conducts on-chain lending business with Flux Finance on stablecoins, including USDC, FRAX, DAI and USDT, with an average lending rate of about 5%. The protocol income comes from the 0.15% annualized management fee.

Users must pass KYC/AML before they can trade any fund tokens and trade in a licensed DeFi protocol. Ondo Finance has launched four tokenized bonds for investors to choose from, including:

• U.S. Money Market Funds (OMMF): Ondo Money Market Funds, which invest in high credit-rated U.S. government bonds, short-term bonds and other debt instruments with the ultimate goal of capital preservation; currently yielding 4.5%.

• U.S. Treasury (OUSG): Ondo Short-Term US Government Bond Fund, invested in the U.S. Short-Term Note ETF, currently has an annualized yield of 4.85% with $100.87M in TVL.

• Short-Term Bond (OSTB): Ondo Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund is an actively managed exchange traded fund (ETF) seeks to maximize current income while ensuring capital preservation and liquidity on daily. The ETF invests primarily in short-term investment grade debt securities with an average portfolio duration typically less than one year and a current annualized yield of 5.77%.

• High Yield Bond (OHYG): Ondo High Yield Corporate Bond Fund, which invests mainly in high yield corporate debt, currently earns 7.9% annualized.

Status quo of the protocol: TVL of $100.5m on ETH, ranked first in the RWA category on Defillama. OUSG has the largest scale, and OUSG holders can also deposit into Flux Finance, a decentralized lending protocol developed by Ondo Finance, for more revenues. Ondo (OUSG) accounts for 61% of the market share, of which 28% is deposited in Flux Finance. The total supply of Flux Finance is now over $40 million and the market cap of OUSG is already over $100 million. The lending protocol FLUX has been sold to Neptune Foundation.

Token functions: The functions of the governance token $ONDO include the following:

• Paying platform fees: Users may be required to pay certain fees when trading, lending or other financial activities within the platform, and these fees can be paid with $ONDO.

• Voting rights and governance: Holders of Ondo Finance tokens can participate in the governance and decision-making process of the platform. They can vote on platform upgrades, parameter adjustments, proposal adoption, etc., and express opinions and suggestions on the overall development.

• Rewards and Incentives: The Ondo Finance platform may issue token rewards and incentives to attract users to participate in the platform’s activities and eco-building. These rewards may be issued in the form of $ONDO.

• Lending and collateral: On the Ondo Finance platform, users can use $ONDO as collateral to access lending services. Holders of $ONDO are eligible to obtain higher borrowing credits or lower interest rates when using $ONDO as collateral.

Protocol Advantages: Fully compliant with regulations. The products are either low-risk US government related debt instruments or high-risk ETFs, both of which are legitimate products audited by third party accounting disclosures. Also, users are required to pass KYC/AML process.

Protocol Risks: 1. Risk outside the crypto world. Since most of the products are backed by off-chain ETFs, U.S. government debt instruments, etc., although compliance can be guaranteed, it bears more market risk and credit risk outside the crypto world, especially on OHYG and other high-risk corporate credit bonds; 2. Deviating from the spirit of crypto. The project is currently adopting a new operation philosophy of centralized + compliance, and the utility of governance tokens may be stripped and marginalized. Blockchain will serve nothing towards R&D of decentralization but on profit sharing, bookkeeping, and distributing shares, which is opposed to the purpose of most projects in the crypto world.

(3) Maple Finance

Maple Finance has been under development for 3 years, and the main business is lending/institutional credit lending. The on-chain business is to provide USDC, wETH lending services, operated by an independent centralized pool manager; this manager decides lending objects, amount, interest rate, strategy, etc. Some may argue that Maple Finance is not a qualified RWA project, but in April it announced its plan to launch a lending pool for investing in US Treasuries, supporting non-US DAOs, offshore companies, etc. to inject restricted funds into the pool set up by Maple Finance.

Protocol income: Maple Finance’s revenue is derived from the following main sources.

• Borrowing Fees: Maple Finance charges a borrowing fee for loans. These fees are calculated based on the amount borrowed and the term of the loan; the interest rate is set by the pool.

• Loan processing fees: Maple Finance, as a platform, charges processing fees related to loan transactions. These processing fees include loan application fees, lending fees, and loan closing fees.

• Token Mining Rewards: Maple Finance distributes rewards to participants through a token mining mechanism. Maple token holders may be rewarded for providing liquidity or participating in lending pools.

• Platform Governance Fees: As a manager of lending and borrowing pools, Maple Finance may charge a percentage of platform governance fees. These fees are used to support and maintain the platform’s operations, including developing new features, conducting security audits, and maintaining community governance.

Status quo of the protocol: in terms of TVL, Maple Finance is ranked 145 on defillama, but the first in no-collateral loan protocols, with a total TVL of $48.56m, total debt in transit of $32.22 million, cumulative returns of $45.6m, 18 debt in transit (due to the nature of centralized credit debt, the lending targets are large institutions, and the number is small), 8 cash pools (7 with USDC+1 with ETH, the average 30d return is 7% annualized). In addition, Maple Finance also has a small amount of TVL on Solana, but with the shrinking activeness on Solana, only about $16.4k of TVL is present, and most (99%) of the TVL comes from the ETH mainnet.

Token Features: $MPL tokens are native tokens of the Maple Finance platform with the following features:

• Paying transaction fees: $MPL tokens can reimburse fees when lending on Maple Finance. $MPL holders may receive discounts or other benefits so that to continuously hold.

• Community Governance: $MPL holders can participate in the governance decisions of the Maple Finance platform. They can make proposals, vote, and express their opinions on platform governance and decision making.

• Voting rights: $MPL holders have certain rights in voting on the platform and are eligible to participate in deciding on protocol parameters, protocol upgrades and other important matters.

• Receive Dividends: $MPL token holders are eligible to share the profits of the lending pool on Maple Finance. These profits, which may come from interest paid by borrowers or other sources of income, are distributed proportionally to $MPL holders.

• Incentives: Maple Finance may facilitate the growth of its ecosystem by providing incentives to $MPL holders. These incentives may include airdrops, rewards, or other forms of perks to stimulate user participation and support platform growth.

Protocol advantages: Operated with security; the credit risk is managed by the manager of the pool, and a management fee is charged in return. Liquidity providers may enjoy low interest rates and less default risk at the same time.

Protocol risks: 1. Credit risk. Lending pool managers, lending objects are approved by centralized institutions, and the debt mainly relies on credit rather than asset collateral (collateralized assets are from the pool manager). When in the event of a large-scale institutional default, insolvency may occur; 2. High threshold. To maintain a high level of security, the lending threshold is set high, which impedes most users from accessing the services, therefore the community is not a trendy one.

4.2 TradFi

(1) Polytrade

Polytrade is a decentralized trade finance platform designed to provide seamless lending to businesses across multiple industries. The project is currently in the middle of an upgrade from V2 to V3. No debt defaults, and no LPs incur losses since Jan 2022. In V3, it is expected to include functions converting real assets to NFT, and a secondary trading market for NFT in the future.

Status quo of the protocol: The governance token $TRADE has been listed on Kucoin, Gate, MEXC, Bitfinex and other exchanges, with the main marketplace on MEXC. According to defillama, it shows that the project TVL is only $10,984, which is far from the $17.27 million when fully releasing locked tokens, which indicates the risk of overvaluation. On March 30, 2023, the project received funding from Polygon Studios, Matrix, CoinSwitch, Alpha Wave Global and other companies with seed round of $3.8 million.

Token Functions: $TRADE is the governance token that the main function is to vote and make decisions on protocol income and updates; more detailed disclosure of token functions may be disclosed after V3 is released.

Protocol advantages: 1. lower transaction costs of Polygon chain, let alone gas, transaction speed and other natural advantages of EVM; 2. Competitive advantages. Funded by the official Polygon team, it is expected to retain competitive advantage on Polygon EVM.

Protocol risks: 1. credit risk. Although lending happens on the chain, the scrutiny of lending object, business flow, audit and other processes are all off-chain; that is to say, even the project party claims that the transactions are secured by AIG, Mercury and other credible institutions, default risks from off-chain entities cannot be eliminated; 2. technical risk. The project is in the middle of V2 to V3, and current code is not audited by third-party institutions, which may incur bugs on unknown codes.

(2) Defactor

By linking traditional finance with DeFi, Defactor aims to provide businesses with access to financing and liquidity. The project is not yet officially active, and it is in the early stages. According to its roadmap, it is still in the partnership recruiting, staff recruiting, and development phase in the second half of 2023. According to the project’s website, $FACTR is the native token, designed to lower the barrier to access to applications and infrastructure. It coordinates benefits and incentivizes the growth of the ecosystem.

4.3 Borrowing and Lending

(1) Goldfinch

Goldfinch is a decentralized credit protocol for off-chain entities of bonds and fintech, which is similar to Maple Finance. Goldfinch offers zero-collateral credit loans of USDC. Goldfinch is modeled much like a bank in traditional finance, but with a pool of decentralized auditors, lenders and credit analysts. Borrowers can convert USDC into fiat currency and deploy it to end borrowers in their local markets. Before a borrower can apply for a loan, it must be approved by a protocol approved decentralized auditor. Auditors are independent entities that must stake the governance token $GFI in order to receive the privilege to scrutinize borrowers in exchange for rewards.

Protocol income: 10% of all interest payments from Goldfinch are retained in the vault. Also, user redemptions from the Premium Pool will incur a 0.5% fee, which is also deposited in the vault.

Status quo of the protocol: Currently, the total outstanding principal amount of all loans under Goldfinch is $101.34 million, with an aggregate loss ratio of 0% and total principal and interest repaid of $25.1 million. For the last 30 days, the protocol has generated revenue of $101,000. There is no bad debt so far.

Token Features: Goldfinch currently has two ERC20 native tokens, $GFI and $FIDU.

• $GFI is Goldfinch’s core native token. It can be used for governance voting, auditor staking, auditor voting rewards, community grants, staking supporters, protocol rewards. It can be deposited into the member vault to issue rewards and ensure protocol growth.

• $FIDU represents the liquidity provider’s deposits in the Premium Pool. The liquidity providers will receive an equal amount of $FIDUs when aided the Premium Pool. $FIDUs can be converted to USDC in the Goldfinch dApp at an exchange rate based on the Net Asset Value of the Premium Pool, less a 0.5% withdrawal fee. Over time, the exchange rate of $FIDU will increase as interest paid increases in the Premium Pool.

Protocol advantages: The mechanism lowers the threshold for borrowing, and to some extent, it helps users with low credit to obtain loans. Goldfinch offers greater user-friendliness than traditional platforms, and the process is essentially handled by smart contracts.

Protocol Risks: The adoption of DeFi is on a global scale, but differences in respective national laws may result in higher costs and issues for Goldfinch operations. Also, Goldfinch senior pools are subject to default risk due to the absence of collateral.

(2) Centrifuge

Launched in 2017, Centrifuge was one of the first DeFi projects to integrate RWAs; it is also the technological solutions provider behind the two headline protocols: MakerDAO and Aave. Similarly, Centrifuge is an on-chain credit ecosystem designed to provide a venue for SME owners to stake their assets on chain in exchange for liquidity.

Centrifuge allows anyone to start an on-chain credit fund and create a pool of mortgages. Borrowers can tokenize physical assets through Tinlake, an open asset pool powered by smart contracts. The physical collateral will be divided into two parts of tokens, $DROP and $TIN, based on risk and return, representing a fixed rate for the prime and a floating rate for the sub-prime, respectively. Investors can choose to invest in either $DROP or $TIN based on risk tolerance and expectations of return. Currently, lending and borrowing on Centrifuge is free of charge.

Status quo: On May 23rd, Centrifuge announced the launch of the new Centrifuge App to replace Tinlake. The new Centrifuge App improved the speed of KYC and flow of investments, added KYB (Know Your Business) automation, and laid the foundation for upcoming multi-chain support. Previous data of Tinlake will be automatically migrated to the new app. From official data, Centrifuge has a TVL of $201 million and total underlying assets of $397 million.

Token Functions: $CFG, native token of Centrifuge, is deemed as an on-chain governance tool that enables $CFG holders to oversee the development of the Centrifuge protocol. $CFG can also be paid as transaction fees.

Advantages: 1. Low barriers of entry for financing, while generating income from assets in the real world. Centrifuge essentially simulates the process of credit lending in traditional finance; 2. Fully committed to compliance. Centrifuge is structured following the law frame of asset securitization in the United States.

Risks: Mainly default risk on loans, according to rwa.xyz, Centrifuge has $10,194,481 in loans outstanding that are more than 90 days past due.

(3) Clearpool

Clearpool is a DeFi lending protocol that provides pure credit loans to institutions. Clearpool has two products: Prime and Permissionless. Clearpool Prime is only available to whitelisted institutions and no collateral is required when borrowing with Prime. Borrowers create pools of funds with specific terms and conditions in a core smart contract. Once the pool is created, the borrower can invite any other whitelisted institutions to fund the pool. The underlying assets are automatically transferred directly to the borrower’s wallet address without custody of Clearpool. Clearpool Permissionless requires the borrower to be a whitelisted institution, and it has no requirements on the loaner.

Protocol Income: 5% of all interest payments collected by Clearpool as fees.

Status quo of the protocol: Clearpool has generated a cumulative $398 million in loans, with outstanding balance of $16.58 million and Permissionless TVL of $20.78 million.

Token Functions: $CPOOL serves as Clearpool’s utility token and governance token. $CPOOL holders are eligible to vote on a whitelist of newly approved borrowers.

Protocol advantages: The advantages of Clearpool are prominent in the fact that loans are granted only through the protocol itself in absence of collaterals, in which case it greatly enhances efficiency.

Protocol risks: No collateral. Once the market is down, the current whitelist and credit rating mechanisms make it difficult to avoid borrower defaults.

4.4 Public fixed income

(1) Swarm Markets

Swarm Markets is a DeFi infrastructure that provides relevant compliance services for RWA token issuance, liquidity provision and trading; it is regulated by German regulatory bodies. Swarm Markets combines an on-chain layer of compliance with regulatory license to tokenize U.S. Treasury bills and equities. By purchasing publicly traded securities with the issuing entity, SwarmX, on-chain tokens are backed by bona-fide assets, which are in possession of institutional custodians.

Protocol Income: Swarm receives 25% of the pool’s exchange fee or 0.1% of the exchanged assets, whichever is greater.

Status quo of the protocol: Swarm currently offers TSLA (Tesla), AAPL (Apple) stocks and TBONDS01 (GOVT iShares U.S. Treasury Bond 0–1 Year ETF), TBONDS13 (GOVT iShares U.S. Treasury Bond 1–3 Year ETF). On April 25, the official Swarm team announced to introduce BLK (Blackrock), COIN (Coinbase), CPNG (Coupang), INTC (Intel), MSFT (Microsoft), MSTR (MicroStrategy), NVDA (Nvidia) tokens for corresponding stocks.

Token Features: $SMT is the native token of Swarm Markets that carries the privilege of trading discounts and rewards. Traders can receive a 50% reduction in agreed fees when they choose to pay with $SMT. $SMT holders are eligible for loyalty rewards, the exact percentage of which will vary depending on the level of rankings, similar to the platform tokens of centralized exchange.

Protocol Advantages and Risks: Swarm offers DeFi users more options, combining crypto and traditional assets by mix and mingle of TradFi and DeFi. However, not many stocks and bonds are currently offered compared to traditional finance, and the trading depth is not commensurate either.

(2) Acquire.Fi

Acquire.Fi is an M&A marketplace of crypto, and it produces income from fractional equity of cryptocurrency companies, traditional businesses, and real-world assets. With Acquire.Fi, equities are converted to NFTs, bought, and sold on the secondary market. Sellers and buyers in the marketplace and investment pool must pass KYC (KYC requirement may be waived for investments under $250).

Protocol Income: Acquire.Fi adopts a tiered structure for commission. Commissions are fixed at 15% of the sales price for deals below $700,000, 8% for deals between $700,000 and $5 million, and 2.5% for deals above $5 million.

Status quo of the protocol: Acquire.Fi marketplace currently offers equity sales in numerous companies, including NFT Marketplace, Metaverse, Media, DAO and other businesses. According to official statistics, over 2000 deals have been completed online.

Token Features: $ACQ is the utility token of Acquire.Fi; when staking $ACQ, users could enjoy an exclusive investment pool, crypto M&A deal flow, LP mining rewards, and other exclusive benefits.

Protocol Advantages: Selling business online with Acquire.Fi does not mandate extra paid services, and there is no need to contact a web hosting provider, while receiving more attention. It’s easier and faster than other platforms.

Protocol Risks: Making deals on Acquire.Fi is highly exposed to legal risks, especially when the buyer and seller are not in the same judicial area.

4.5 Summary of financial products

Lending protocols are the most successful examples of tokenized RWA. On the one hand, the lending model without collateral is appealing to institutional investors in a bull market, but, on the other hand, it ferments the next bear market. In other words, the most worrisome issue for credit lending protocols is default risk. TradFi has relatively fewer projects, and most of the businesses are focused on SME financing.

The institutional credit business has very limited room for growth, where most of the revenues are generated from stablecoins. Moreover, lenders bear default risk, or even bad debts, due to insufficient collateralization. In a bull market, risk-free return on DeFi is also high, which may pose threats to credit lending businesses of institutions.

Treasury bonds or currency funds, such as Ondo’s, may have huge potential in the future. First, these funds are already top choices for investors in traditional finance, and the risk is moderate; second, they offer more options for on-chain users, while lowering the threshold.

Although RWA projects in the financial sector are in a rather early stage, many interesting use cases are already in the place. As the combinability of each protocol is enhanced, many high-yield projects with interesting gameplay may be spotted, and it is indeed a sector worth the attention.

4.6 Real estate type

(1) RealT

RealT is a tokenization platform for real estate founded in 2019 in the US, serving real estate markets in Detroit, Cleveland, Chicago, Toledo, and Florida, where investors could invest in real estate by purchasing RWA tokens. So far, the platform has processed over $52 million and 970 real estates for tokenization.

The protocol has no native tokens; the value exchange within the ecology is completed in $DAI (XDAI/WXDAI), and RealToken is issued and affiliated with each real estate as an equity for receiving rent.

Tokenization process:

• Off-chain: Ownership of property is confirmed according to the deed by a third-party property manager, and the equity is divided into equal shares; rents are exchanged to U.S. dollars through the property management. Legal Support: RealToken files for a securities exemption under Regulation D and Regulation S of the U.S. Securities Act. RealToken cannot be offered or sold within the United States or for the interest of U.S. citizens.

• On-chain: Investors need to obtain RealTokens as collateral by depositing or get a loan in $DAI at the price provided by the oracle inside the RMM application (RealT Market Maker). Payments are made daily in $DAI to relevant wallet addresses of the leasing contracts by the amount of 1/30 of the monthly rent.

Protocol Income: No specific revenue model was found; revenues may come from borrowing and lending spreads in the pool of $DAI and commissions on rent received on-chain and off-chain.

Status quo of the protocol: Current market cap of the protocol is $10.51m; total XDAI supply is $3.224 million with APY 6.94%, and total borrowing is $2.54 million, with APY 9.93%. Over 40 properties are currently available for investment in the protocol.

Status quo of user income: 17 users have weekly rental income over 1000 $DAI, and the highest income is at 6187.83 $DAI/week.

Protocol Advantages: The protocol maintains a multi-million-dollar market size with consistent cash flow since its debut in 2019.

Protocol risks: The expected rental return may differ from actual rent since the real estate rental market is volatile.

(2) Tangible

Tangible is an RWA tokenization project that provides users with solutions of RWA tokenization through the launch of Real USD, a native revenue-bearing stablecoin. RWAs, in this case, include but are not limited to, art pieces, fine wine, antiques, watches, and luxury goods.

Tokenization process:

• Off-chain: There are four categories on the platform: gold, wine, watches, and real estate.

(1) For trading and storage of gold bars, PX Precinox in Switzerland is the service provider.

(2) For wine, the protocol partnered with Bordeaux Index headquartered in London.

(3) For watches, the protocol partnered with BQ Watches based in the UK.

(4) For real estate, Tangible creates native special purpose vehicles (SPV). These are legal entities created for each property, and through SPVs the protocol could manage the properties by finding tenants, collecting rent, or do maintenance. All properties are occupied, and the rental proceeds are paid to TNFT holders in the form of $USDC.

• Legal support: Each property located in the UK has its own SPV because brick-and-mortar real estate cannot be tokenized, but legal entities can. TNFT holders have ownership of the SPV, which endows them with equity of the real estate. However, legally, the ownership and equity remain in the possession of Tangible’s legal entity (i.e., BTS TNFT Limited, registered in the U.K. Tangible also has a registered entity of the same name in the British Virgin Islands).

• On-chain: Tangible launches a real estate backed native revenue-bearing stablecoin, Real USD ($USDR), where users can use $TNGBL or $DAI to mint $USDR at a 1:1 ratio. Users can purchase physical goods on Tangible with $USDR, including but not limited to art, fine wine, antiques, watches, and luxury goods. When a user purchases an RWA listed on Tangible, a TNFT (“Tangible non-fungible token”) will be minted, representing that specific item. Tangible deposits the physical item in a physical vault and sends the corresponding TNFT to the buyer’s wallet. TNFT can be transferred and traded.

• Over-collateralized rate approach & liquidation mechanism:

(1) If the CR of USDR drops below 100%, half of the rent will be retained in the USDR collateral pool. As a result, the daily rebalancing will be reduced by 50%. In other words, USDR holders will earn less interest until the CR returns to 100%.

(2) The vaults, which are compatible with USDR, always hold a diverse portfolio of liquid assets for rapid liquidation (e.g., $DAI, protocol-owned liquidity, and $TNGBL).

(3) If all $DAI and other reserves are depleted, the real estate TNFT will be liquidated. In this case, the user will receive $pDAI instead of the real $DAI. $pDAI is an IOU Token that represents the right to claim on the real $DAI, and it can be cashed out once the liquidation is executed.

Protocol income: TNFT owners are required to pay storage fees. For example, the storage fee for gold bars is 1% per year. Upon redemption, the transportation costs must be paid by the person redeeming the TNFT.

Status quo of the protocol: TVL of the protocol is $33,665,846, with total value of assets in collateral of $35,367,224. According to the USDR Whitepaper, the theoretical collateral distribution should be as follows: 50–80% in tangible real estate; 20–30% in tokens; 20–30% liquidity owned by the protocol; 5–10% insurance funds; 0–10% in $TNGBL. Actual distribution of assets is as follows, which differs significantly from the proposal:

Token functions: $TNGBL locks in passive income of $USDC after minting NFT, serving as reward token to incentivize market circulations and subsidize USDR earnings; it can also be used to mint USDR.

Token performance on secondary market:

• $TNGBL is only circulating on Uniswap; it is not yet supported by centralized exchanges, which results in poor liquidity. Single-day trading volume is merely several hundred to thousands of dollars, with highest trading volume on a single day of $32,000. The market cap is $110 million, and currently 1,021 addresses are found on chain.

• The stablecoin USDR was issued at the end of March. The trading volume is considerable; it is circulating on multiple DEXs and compatible with ETH, BSC, polygon, op, and Arbitrum. 30d average daily trading volume is $0.7 million; the price remains above $1, and current price $1.053.

Protocol Advantages: With the creation of TNFT market, many circulating tokens are locked up. Moreover, it also introduces transactions of physical goods, including art, fine wine, antiques, watches, luxury goods, etc.

Protocol risks: De-peg of SDR. The risk is due to centralization; the team is both the TNFT issuer and the custodian of the underlying assets.

(3) LABS Group

LABS Group was originally positioned as a tokenization platform of real estate that allowed homeowners to tokenize their homes to raise capital without an intermediary, and investors can access more liquid real estate tokens through the secondary market. Currently, LABS Group has launched Staynex, a Web3 platform for vacations that offers members annual access to resorts around the world and the ability to earn rewards by holding memberships. Staynex embedded check-in into NFT with the help of blockchain, enabling the creation, design, and mint of timesharing vacation plans of hotels and resorts in the form of NFT, which represents membership and duration of stay.

Because the investment is cross-borders, LABS Group submitted a complete business plan to the government, and it has been approved with a license for retail investments.

Protocol income: LABS Group’s primary platform, secondary exchange, and decentralized lending platform can make various business revenues, such as consulting fee, transaction fee, listing fee, and commission.

Status quo of the protocol: It has rich resources in the vacation industry with over 60 hotels, as well as being the official booking platform for members of Arsenal Football Club. Currently, LABS Group is the best performing RWA project in tokenized real estate. $LABS is currently listed on Kucoin, Gate, Bitmart, etc., receiving massive attention since March 2021. Single day trading volume had once exceeded $35 million at the early stage of listing but declined shortly after. Single day trading volume is less than $100k in the past year. Market capitalization is $1.47 million, FDV is $6.66 million, and the number of addresses on chain is 11,911.

The community is active, with 58k followers on Twitter, 19k followers in Telegram group chat with 511 online.

Token functions: Tokens are mainly serving as rewards, and other functions include governance (voting), and as proof of buyback in destruction mechanism. The destruction is planned at 80%: 50% in the first phase, and 10% of every transaction on the platform will be sent to the liquidity pool for permanent lock. There have also been previous phases of staking activity, such as staking $LABS for soccer match predictions (https://www.support2win.io/, it has ended).

Advantages of the protocol: The timesharing vacation model, where a person has the right to occupy a certain vacation asset for a specific period each year, is embraced in the rising digital nomad culture. In addition, the team is experienced in the vacation industry with access to partnerships of 60 hotels. Also, it is the official booking platform for members of Arsenal Football Club.

Protocol risks: Poor token value capture for $LABS as it was originally designed for rewards; the value resides mostly inside NFT. Timesharing has its own disadvantages: high annual management fees, hard to sell, let alone unethical misconduct and scams.

Summary

The overall market size of real estate type of RWA projects is rather small. Due to the status quo of insufficient liquidity and poor transparency of the mechanism, which requires the intervention of large and centralized entities to endorse and regulate, the acceptance of utility tokens issued by relevant protocols in the crypto market is poor. The reason behind may be that physical assets need to be strictly regulated, and project parties must conduct complex operations on the ownership of assets beforehand.

Tokenization of real estate can potentially solve the following issues: 1. poor liquidity issues of existing real estate market thanks to the cross-territory nature and the ability to complete instant transactions by blockchain; 2. retail investors were not able to invest in real estate globally and receive returns until blockchain made it possible. However, the most difficult problem of real estate tokenization is the deed and valuation; the deed determines the legitimacy of property and valuation determines the price of loans and price for liquidation. Tangible has made bold attempts in these aspects: adopting Chainlink oracle to price RWA tokens, in which the information is filled by the price on hometrack.com. In terms of validation of ownership, Tangible hires third-party auditors to independently verify the ownership. As we can see in these projects, third-party involvement is still mandatory before real estate can be processed on chain, including appraisal, finance, legal and other works, all of which demand compliance in the process with current regulations and laws.

4.7 Carbon credit type

Carbon credits refer to the amount of carbon dioxide emissions reduced or neutralized by a company through the organization’s Verified Carbon Standard (VCS), similar to the “voluntary emission reductions (CCERs)” in China’s carbon trading system.

(1) Toucan

Toucan Protocol is deployed on Polygon with the goal of converting carbon credits into tokens to facilitate the trading of carbon credits in the form of decentralized financial instruments, and ultimately to promote carbon neutrality. (Carbon credits exchanged on Toucan are verified amount on Verra, where Verra is a non-profit organization that records carbon credits.

Tokenization process:

Toucan’s carbon stack consists of three modules: Carbon Bridge, Carbon Pools, and the Toucan Registry.

• Carbon Bridge

Anyone can send their carbon credits onto the chain via Carbon Bridge. Toucan only supports exiting carbon credits on Verra registry, and Carbon Bridge is an irreversible one-way bridge.

(1) An ERC721 compatible NFT, BatchNFT, representing a batch of carbon credits will be minted at the beginning of bridging.

(2) Permanent withdrawal of the tokenized carbon credits from Verra registry and a unique serial number is generated upon tokenization.

(3) Recording the serial number received from Verra, BatchNFT is linked to the exit entry in the original registry.

(4) BatchNFT updates serial numbers and then automatically submits for review.

(5) With final approval by Toucan Verifier, a fully tokenized batch of carbon credits is generated; it could be converted into ERC20 token, TCO2, at any time.

BatchNFT can mint an equivalent amount of fungible ERC20 tokens, TCO2, with 1 TCO2 representing 1 carbon credit with a value of 1 tCO2e.

TCO2 token contract still carries all the attributes and metadata of NFT, fixed at a specific project and year, as voluntary market carbon credits are traded at different prices. TCO2 is the umbrella term for fungible token of carbon credits. When splitting BatchNFT, the ERC20 tokens will be prefixed with TCO2, followed by a name including the registry of origin, project name, year, etc. For example: TCO2-GS-0001–2019.

• Carbon Pools

Bundling multiple project-specific tokenized TCO2 tokens into more liquid carbon index tokens enables price discovery for different classes of carbon assets. Each pool has a unique configuration with a specific logic that instructs TCO2 with selection of tokens to deposit.

The Toucan team has partnered with KlimaDAO to deploy the first Carbon Pool, the Base Carbon Tonne (BCT). The requirements for the Base Carbon Tonne pool are: TCO2 tokens must be Verra VCU (Verified Carbon Units), and they must be at least 2008 or after.

TCO2 tokens that pass the logic screening can be deposited in the Carbon Pool, and the person receives the Carbon Pool tokens (e.g., BCT). Users can redeem it at any time. Redemption burns the Carbon Pool tokens and sends the native tokens to the user, and the redemption can be automatic (redeem the lowest ranked TCO2) and selective (pay a fee to redeem the specified TCO2) by user setting.

There are currently 2 Toucan Carbon Pools, BCT (Base Carbon Tonne) and NCT** **(Nature Carbon Tonne)

Protocol income:

• Carbon Pool Token Exchange Fee

When redeeming Carbon Pool tokens with selective option, Toucan Protocol charges a fee, a portion of which is used to burn low-value carbon credits and a portion of which is given to Toucan to establish the protocol, that is 25% for BCT pool redemptions and 10% for NCT pool redemptions.

• Bridging carbon pool fees

This fee is currently set to 0.

Status quo of the protocol: Toucan has been active since October 2021, it currently supports Polygon and Celo with 21,889,951 tons of carbon credits transferred through Carbon Bridge, offsetting 298,173 tCO2e of carbon credits, 19,908,799 of carbon supply (staked in BCT and NCT pools) and $2,946,585 of total liquidity (total BCT and NCT liquidity across exchanges).

Token functions:

• NCT, short for Nature Carbon Tonne, is a standardized reference token linked to all carbon credits deposited to Nature Carbon Tonne;

• BCT, short for Base Carbon Tonne, is a standardized reference token linked to all carbon credits deposited to Base Carbon Tonne;

TCO2 tokens that pass the logic screening will be in the carbon pool as collateral to obtain the corresponding tokens; conversely, the two tokens can be exchanged for TCO2.

Protocol advantages: a certain degree of carbon credit tokenization is realized to increase liquidity of carbon credit.

Protocol Risks: Toucan Carbon Bridge is an irreversible one-way bridge that cannot retrieve off-chain credits once the tokenization process begins; Verra Registry does not currently support carbon credit tokenization and prohibits the practice of creating instruments or tokens based on exiting credits, and clearly Toucan’s solution is not the ideal one.

(2) Flowcarbon

Flowcarbon, a blockchain startup founded by WeWork co-founder Adam Neumann, aims to integrate the entire carbon credit lifecycle by providing strategies and solutions from carbon project origination and financing to credit sales and corporate carbon portfolio management. In May, Flow Carbon closed a $70 million funding round led by a16z along with participation from General Catalyst and Samsung Next. Currently, the carbon credit spot market is not yet available. Goddess Nature Token (GNT) will be the first bundled token.

Tokenization process:

• Minting Tokenized Carbon Credits

All requests for tokenization of carbon credits are submitted through a form on the Flowcarbon website. When a tokenization request is submitted, Flowcarbon verifies the information with the designated registrar. Once the ownership of the account, project type and number of credits are confirmed, the carbon credits are transferred to a bankruptcy-isolated special purpose entity (SPV). Once the batch information is verified and the credits are added to the SPV, a new contract is thus created.

• Exit (Retirement)

A token holder first initiates a token withdrawal on Flowcarbon and specifies the amount to withdraw, which reduces the token holder’s balance and increases the withdrawal amount. Withdrawn tokens accumulate transparently in the contract until they exceed a pending batch size. Once the threshold is reached, the bankruptcy-isolated SPV deletes the carbon credits in the underlying registry.

• Redemption

Redemption is the process by which token holders redeem their GCO2 tokens for actual off-chain credits. A token holder initiates the redemption process by submitting a request to Flowcarbon. Once the request is approved, Flowcarbon confirms the account under the applicant’s name with the appropriate registrar. The GCO2 tokens are then destroyed by the GCO2 smart contract, and the actual carbon credits are transferred from the SPV to the designated account.

A standard 2% fee applies on redemptions. If a GCO2 holder requests to redeem 100 GCO2s, 98 off-chain carbon credits will be received.

• Liquidity

GCO2 tokens can be deposited into a designated address in exchange for affiliated tokens in Flowcarbon’s dApp. The affiliated tokens are bundled and issued at 1:1; if 50 GCO2 are deposited into the address, 50 affiliated tokens will be received in return. Affiliated tokens are intended to provide liquidity, and users can purchase the affiliated tokens directly; these tokens are also redeemable and sellable.

Protocol income:

Fees apply dynamically on unbundling, swap, exit and redemption features, and more recent carbon credits are more expensive than the elder ones, which aims to incentivize the withdrawal of older carbon credits. The fees are achieved through a “rake back” contract. When one of these features is activated, the contract performs that feature on behalf of the user account, and the rake back contract determines how much of that fee should be sent back to the user. For example, if the fee cap is 15%, and Sarah requests to unbundle 100 affiliated tokens into 2020 GCO2, the affiliated token contract will automatically charge 15 GCO2 in the fee account, and the rest 85 GCO2 will be sent to the rake-back contract. The rake-back contract contains detailed information about the charge; in this case, 2020 is a relatively new year, and the actual fee rate is 10%. Therefore, the rake-back contract will take 5 GCO2 from the fees and send 90GCO2 back to Sarah.

Protocol Advantages: Flowcarbon provides a “round-trip bridge” that allows GCO2 tokens to be exchanged for underlying carbon credits off-chain.

Protocol Risks: Everything happens off-chain: carbon credits are transferred to SPV instead of on-chain.

(3) PERL.eco

PERL.eco is Perlin’s latest project focused on introducing real-world bio-ecological assets onto blockchain, with one of the first available assets being tokenized carbon credits. The product is not yet officially launched.

Tokenization process:

PERL.eco has partnered with AirCarbon Group, which also manages a fully regulated carbon exchange ACX, and established the PERL.eco Carbon Exchange (PCX), where PFCs (PERL.eco Future Carbon, high-quality carbon projects vetted by PERL.eco and tokenized carbon credits from carbon projects that have not yet been issued) and other high-quality carbon assets and traded at retail on the PCX.

Status quo of the protocol: $PERL is listed on Binance, but attention on social media is low, project progress is slow, and the whitepaper has not been updated for over 1 year. PFC pilot soft launch is planned to happen in Q3 2023 along with early prototype release of PERL.eco Carbon Exchange (PCX); PCX Alpha will be released in Q4 2023, and PCX Beta in 2024.

Token functions:

$PERL is the governance token of PERL.eco. $PERL plays a key role in defining the incentive system, building a broad stakeholder base, and facilitating the flow of economic value in the network. $PERL holders can vote on the fee structure and allocation, as well as making other important decisions. By participating in governance, users are rewarded with carbon credit airdrops that can offset their emissions.

Protocol advantages: Working with a regulated carbon exchange significantly reduces the risk in compliance.

Protocol risks: PERL.eco only acts as a reseller role, increasing the exposure of the subject but not inherently improving liquidity.

Summary

Carbon credit type of Web3 projects provides better liquidity for carbon credit trading through tokenization and establishment of trading pools.

However, Web3 carbon credit projects are constrained by issues of high isolation and low credibility. Furthermore, it is nearly impossible to achieve a truly homogeneous tokenization because carbon credits are influenced by the registry of origin, project and year, and the pricing is not consistent. For example, Toucan, which already has certain trading data, currently supports only two types of carbon credit carbon index tokens, which can be staked only through logical screening. Flowcarbon currently only plans to provide one type of bundled token, which must meet three requirements. In addition, the carbon credit trading process is complex and cannot bypass centralized independent non-government entities, such as Verra and Gold Standard, which have explicitly stated that they do not support carbon credit tokenization at this time. Blockchain technology can change the problems of the traditional carbon credit trading market in many ways, but to improve credibility and enhance the uniformity and liquidity of the market mandates more time and effort.

4.8 Sector L1 chains

It is due to the diversity of real-world assets that the implementation of asset tokenization requires an exclusive L1 chain to meet the needs of institutional users, which includes: 1. higher level of security and privacy; 2. higher degree of user-friendliness, such as the provision of SDKs; 3. diversity and operability of token standards; and 4. an approved chain with permissions from regulatory authorities.

In terms of token standard, from the ERC-20 standard of Ethereum, the issuer is unable to achieve recycle, equity management, identity management, bulk processing, off-chain authorization, and other possible interactions with tokens, which poses more difficulties for asset management. Therefore, existing L1 chains are insufficient for complex operations of asset management in the current financial market. In other words, new L1 chains are needed to build new token standards.

(1) Polymesh

Polymesh is an institutional-grade Layer1 blockchain tailored for regulated assets, such as security-based tokens, with a market capitalization of $90 million in circulation. Polymesh is a publicly permissioned blockchain that employs the Nominated Proof of Stake (NPoS) consensus model developed by Polkadot to clarify the roles, rules, and incentives of the network. Its on-chain token standard is inspired by ERC-1400, reinforcing additional functionality and security to facilitate token issuance and management of on-chain assets.

Polymesh’s core team is expertise in finance, technology, and law; most of them have experience building the first secure token platform and leading the ERC-1400 at Polymath. Information of the team can be found at: https://polymesh.network/team#

Project advantages/features

• Born for regulation: Un-permissioned L1 chains, such as Ethereum, may have difficulties accommodating transactions of RWA assets due to regulatory and other restrictions. As a result, sector application chains are in place, specifically handling RWAs.

• Transparency Assurance: All issuers, investors, stakers and node operators, etc. are required to complete KYC, and all customers are subject to the process of due diligence. The node operators must be a licensed and financial entity in practice, to which known real-world entities on-chain interactions can be l traced. All transactions are authorized by licensed entities.

• Preventing hard-forks: Forked chains can have significant legal and tax implications for physical asset tokens, and POLYX’s industry-led governance model eliminates the possibility of hard-forks.

• Confidentiality: Polymesh has designed a secure asset management protocol that enables the issuance and transfer of confidential assets, which complies with the requests of real-world market participants on confidentiality of positions and transactions.

• Instant settlement: Inherited from Polkadot’s GRANDPA finality gadget, combined with the above authentication requirements, compliance verification, and elimination of hard-fork cultivate instant settlement on Polymesh.

Token functions:

$POLYX is the native token of Polymesh. According to the guidance of the Swiss financial regulator FINMA (Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority), the token is classified as a utility token in accordance with the laws of the country. $POLYX is utilized for governance, securing the chain through staking, creating and managing security-based tokens.

The inflation rate of the token is 10.12%, which is relatively normal.

Ecosystem:

Existing participants in the Polymesh ecosystem include exchanges, experts in tokenization (i.e., Polymath), and companies with portfolios of security-based tokens (RedSwan). The Polymesh Association aims to facilitate further development through two programs:

• The grant program is available to individuals and companies that build open-source features in Polymesh.

• The Ecosystem Development Fund is available to companies with integrated closed-source technology on Polymesh.

The current major ecologies include:

• Tokenise — The first CSD, broker and exchange for digital assets. It has chosen to build its infrastructure based on Polymesh; digital assets have been started to be built.

• DigiShares — A white-label tokenization platform. It became the first recipient of the Polymesh Ecosystem Development Fund with Polymesh integrated.

• Stably — A regulatory-compliant stablecoin infrastructure provider and creator of the USDS token. It is working to launch first stablecoin on Polymesh.

• ABC Tokens — A tokenized real estate provider that offers geographically dispersed commercial real estate to investors on Polymesh.

Asset tokenization mechanism:

• Configuring security tokens

Security tokens can be configured on the blockchain to represent physical or digital assets. On Polymesh, tokens are created at the protocol layer, eliminating the need to add smart contracts to each security token at the top of the chain. Tokens can be easily configured by basic programming language and the Polymesh SDK, or on a tokenization platform for issuers who pursue codeless approach.

• Set compliance rules

Polymesh’s compliance engine can set flexible ownership and transfer rules to enforce transfer restrictions so that tokens comply with regulatory requirements, such as KYC/AML requirements, as well as securities regulations.

• Token Distribution

Mint tokens with one click and send them to shareholders, affiliates or reserve accounts while enforcing broader compliance requirements. Set pricing based on meanings of token and (if needed) appoint a qualified custodian to manage the pool in a safe and secure manner.

• Management of company behavior

Execute corporate actions on chain to resolve issues regarding interests, restructuring, capital allocation and voting. The issuer only needs to enter a few details, from where the engine can determine entitlements, schedule record dates, allocate capital (if needed), and update records.

Status quo of the project:

Currently, 38,000 accounts are created with 357M $POLYX tokens in staking, representing 47.7% of the total issuance. 43 node operators are in the network. Daily trading volume on the chain ranges from 2000 to 11 million $POLYX. On April 20, the number of on-chain transfers reached $138 million after the announcement of Binance becoming a node operator.

In the future, Polymesh will integrate smart contract, defi applications, NFT and more functions.

Project review:

Technically, Polymesh leverages Polkadot’s development framework, but it is not a parallel chain. It inherits the security and technical superiority of substract. In terms of ecological development, Polymesh provides the issuance and management tools for RWA tokenization on-chain that can be autonomously executed to meet the end needs of various asset tokenization. It provides an institutional-level solution to RWA tokenization, but there are two risky points: (1) identity verification ensures a certain level of transparency and security, but a plan B is needed in case of emergency; (2) institutional developers are critical to the system, and more partnerships should be established.

(2) MANTRA Chain

MANTRA (formerly MANTRA DAO) was founded in 2020. It is a part of the MANTRA ecosystem, Omniverse, along with MANTRA Nodes and MANTRA Finance. The circulating market cap is $19 million. MANTRA Chain is an L1 blockchain built with the Cosmos SDK that hopes to become a network for enterprise, so that companies and developers could collaborate to build any applications ranging from NFT, games, metaverse, to DEX with compliance. MANTRA Chain can interoperate with other Cosmos ecosystems via IBC, and it is also compatible with EVM chains.

MANTRA carries positive expectations on RWA and Hong Kong, it has only 1 financing event that receives capital investment from LD Capital, Waterdrop Capital, GenBlock Capital.

Project advantages/features:

• Powerful Identity System: MANTRA Chain has a robust Decentralized Identity (DID) module to meet all KYC and AML requirements, which facilitates the development of products that may cement current functions and ecosystem.

• A complete ecosystem: With MANTRA Finance being the main line, various nodes, DAOs and L1 chain infrastructures are developed.

Token functions:

$OM is Omniverse’s native token with features including governance, network staking, and DAO token access/airdrop rewards. $AUM, MANTRA Chain’s native token, will be available soon.

Ecosystem and status quo:

The first dApp on MANTRA Chain is MANTRA Finance, which aims to be a globally regulated DeFi platform that transplants the speed and transparency of DeFi to the opaque world of TradFi, empowering the issuance and trade of RWA tokens.

Currently, a few crypto-based interest-bearing DeFi products are launched, which will be followed by the Central Limit Order Book (CLOB) DEX that offers swap functionality and traditional financial products (bonds, equities, and other real-world assets (RWA)). When these products are successfully launched, MANTRA Finance intends to expand the Decentralized Exchange (DEX) by offering derivative products.

Project review:

MANTRA started out in 2020 on Polkadot, but it has not progressed well. The project has undergone several major changes, and the product is overall slow in development, with no relevant RWA product launches or corresponding solutions for enterprise and institutional level in sight.

(3) Realio Network

Founded in 2018 in New York, Realio Network is formerly an end-to-end digital asset issuance and P2P trading platform focused on real estate private equity investments. Currently, Realio has built its own L1 blockchain with the Cosmos SDK, and the mainnet was launched in April. The Realio platform utilizes blockchain technology and offers a range of services, including tokenization, digital asset issuance and trading on secondary market. RealioVerse and the coming Freehold wallet are applications that lay foundation for future businesses on securities rather than just real estate.

Realio’s platform also provides tools for KYC/AML compliance, investor authentication and investor management; these tools are also available to aid third-party issuers in digitizing their assets and raising capital within the network. All actions are subject to SEC compliance requirements.

Information of team members is publicly available; multiple advisors are in finance and real estate.

Project advantages/features:

• Security Assurance: One of Realio’s unique features is a distributed key management system that oversees secure staking validators and principals. By binding $RIO or $RST, shares of block rewards are distributed according to contribution.

• Compliance: All token offerings must meet SEC compliance requirements.

Ecological development:

Currently, the Realio Network mainnet has just embarked, but Realio’s native tokens $RIO and $RST have long been issued, and the Realio Platform Wallet and Realio.fund have been in the scene.

• Realio Platform Wallet

The Realio wallet is a non-custodial multi-chain wallet that currently supports Bitcoin, ETH, Algorand, Stellar, Raven and Fusion, and any assets on these chains. The storage of private keys and transaction signatures are simplified, and the function to grant access in DeFi is coming soon.

• Realio.fund

A P2P investment platform that offers real-time multi-chain token issuance tools with fully automated compliance process features. Investments can be made in cash or Realio-backed cryptocurrencies.

Token functions:

The network employs a native dual equity model, represented by $RIO and $RST, effective on network staking, governance, key management, and other functions.

$RST is an equity token issued by Realio in partnership with Algorand in 2020; holders are the platform and developers who maintain the platform. $RST is sold as an Algorand Standard Asset (ASA), which has interoperability with other supporting blockchain and platform features, such as RealioX. $RST is sold globally in private following Regulation D Rule 506(c) and Regulation S exemptions. Currently, there is no secondary market for trading. $RST is a hybrid digital security that is eligible both in receiving revenue distribution from the platform and rewards for validators on Realio Network. The maximum supply is 50 million, and mainly sold through pre-sales and the Security Token Offering on realio.fund.

$RIO is Realio Network’s native gas and utility token; it is offered on multiple chains, such as Ethereum, Algorand and Stellar networks. There is no pre-mining; all incremental issuances are via validator’s block rewards and liquidity mining. Maximum supply is 75 million with a circulating market cap of approximately $1 million. $RIO is available on OKX and MEXC, with daily trading volume rising to about 4 million dollars in May compared to 1 million dollars in March.

Status quo of the project:

Currently, the platform is still focused on cryptocurrency trading. Meanwhile, it launched a liquidity mining fund $LMX for the BTC eco, and token holders can also participate in other DeFi programs, which is similar to stETH. 29.7K fans are on Twitter.

The Alpha mainnet is now available, with limited release of the network staking. According to the Realio project roadmap, the realioVerse virtual real estate project will be launched in 2023 Q3, on top of which Land Bank will be built, allowing players to buy and sell lands, build houses, make money, etc.

Project review:

The project is still in its early stages, but the entire team was summoned in 2018; no RWA or real estate related tokenization projects were in progress other than issuing tokens, which implies an unknown future. No prominent features are seen in terms of development or marketing, which reveals no comparative advantages.

Summary

Although the Ethereum ecosystem is gigantic, and most of the existing RWA projects are on it, Ethereum is not the haven for RWAs, because it is poor in censorship resistance of nodes and performance. As the variety of real assets demand different token standards and smart contracts, a new infrastructure of programmability, verifiability, and compliance with the existing regulatory system is desperately needed. The current RWA sector L1 chains seem all competent in meeting the needs. However, the whole segment is still underdeveloped, as few users and developers are participating; the underlying L1 chains are still based on existing ones, such as Polkadot and Cosmos. The existing competition landscape of L1 chains seems to have been finalized, applications are the ultimate solution to make it appealing for more users.

5. Is consortium chain the final stop for L1 chain?

The concept of consortium chain was not born yesterday, and it has undergone a development period for as long as a L1 chain. Since it does not create a wealth effect due to high barriers of entry and strict censorship, it seems to be an outsider of the crypto world. A consortium chain is a blockchain managed by several organizations or institutions, with each controlling one or more nodes that jointly record transaction data, and only these organizations or institutions can read, write, or send transactions to interact with the data on the consortium chain. Famous consortium chains include Hyperledger and Blockchain Service Network (BSN).

Consortium chain has the following features: (1) “Partially decentralized”. Each node usually has a corresponding legal entity; it can join or exit the system only with the approval of the alliance. The number of nodes is limited, and data are not publicly available by default. New smart contracts and validations of transactions can only be published with approval; (2) Higher controllability. Compared to the fact that the information in the block of L1 chains cannot be altered once packed, the block data can be changed if most of the participant nodes reach consensus; (3) Fast transactions. Consensus can be reached in rather a short time as the number of nodes is small.

All these characteristics of the consortium chain undoubtedly point to the RWA sector L1 chain, but the consortium chain is not essentially the finish line of RWA for the following reasons: 1. The development of the crypto industry cannot be diluted from decentralization and openness. With that being said, the consortium chain cannot create wealth rather than being deployed as the underlying technology; it is difficult to attract investors and institutions merely being a technical tool; 2. The development of RWA, especially in terms of compliance and whitelist, coincides with consortium chain. However, the power of consortium chain is too centralized to be democratically open, and overly centralization hinders transparency; 3. The advantages embodied by consortium chain can be applied in the process of tokenizing RWA on chain, and some consortium chains are working on the same thing, but the feedback is poor., the reflection is less than expected. The philosophy of L1 chains is indispensable.

6. Risks and challenges

The RWA market is expected to reach $500 million by 2025. In a recent research report by Citibank, the RWA sector carries all expectations to be the killer app and drive the blockchain industry into the multi-trillion-dollar market. According to some stats from BCG (Boston Consulting Group), the RWA sector is expected to potentially reach an overall size of $16 trillion by 2030. The huge potential of RWA cannot be neglected. However, recent crypto industry is cold, with the market cap of the whole industry lower than Apple’s, not to mention the industry has been regularly on the list of sanctions from various regulatory bodies. The crypto industry is still young, and it takes a long time to become multi-trillion-dollar in market size.

To sum it up, more problems are present than advantages in the RWA sector.

From the status quo, RWA projects are generally faced with problems of poor liquidity, high management costs, and intricate liquidation processes. The projects have not solved the institutional issue, and they are not as efficient as traditional finance. Some of the protocols have few users, but the valuation of native tokens is high.

In terms of diversity, the variety is rich, but the business scope of leading protocols is too limited: stablecoin and credit lending. These projects are riskier than other lending protocols, and in fact, no real assets are reflected on chain, further squeezing the room for RWAs. Lending protocols based on securities, bonds, and physical assets have never seen vast development.

From user behavior, RWA projects may not be able to prosper when the bull comes. The authentic demand of users is the high yield from RWAs on chain. Since the low yield of DeFi in a bear market can no longer satisfy investors, the US bond yield can reach 5% now, which is more than appealing for investors; even many centralized financial products are investing in US bonds and stocks, which indeed transfers the popularity to RWA projects with emphasis on US bonds. But when the bull comes, returns on RWA projects may not outcompete other DeFi protocols.

The fundamental reason that restricts the expansion of the RWA sector is that the following issues are not properly addressed by current technology and process:

（1） Regulatory Uncertainty

Regulation is the biggest challenge faced by the RWA sector, and the uncertainty is manifested in two aspects:

• The laws still do not clearly define cryptocurrency, especially regarding whether tokens should be considered commodities or securities. By latest definition, all cryptocurrencies other than Bitcoin are classified as securities, which applies regulatory requirements to assets, issuers, trading markets, and even on-chain contracts and L1 chain nodes. To meet compliance requirements, most of the RWA projects will have to conduct KYC/ AML process.

• RWAs are constrained by real locations. The spirit of RWA is relied on credit, and the key to global liquidity is the creation of an internationally applicable act and the power of enforcement. As of now, there is still a lot of resistance to RWA compliance. A small number of crypto-friendly regions may become the sandboxes, such as Hong Kong and Singapore.

（2） Identity

Via KYC/AML, off-chain centralized entities and individuals can be scrutinized and verified, where Tangible, a real estate project, provided insights of creating SPVs as a potential solution. However, most projects carry the verification responsibility themselves, and the trustworthiness is mysterious. Many private projects of credit lending, including MAPLE and TrueFi, have already incurred bad debts. Credible off-chain third-party agencies are urgently needed to verify the relationship between on-chain and off-chain entities; more solutions on identity and data privacy, along with the validation of on-chain and off-chain data, must be supported with continuous legislative and technological updates.

（3） The balance of decentralization and centralization

The signature tag of blockchain technology is decentralization. If cooperation with censorship is desired by RWA projects, centralized process is inevitable, including the screening process, establishing nodes, censoring of user qualifications; many of them are executed by the project parties themselves, and the smart contract on blockchain becomes nothing but useless codes. However, the prosperity of the RWA sector cannot be achieved without centralization; more credible third parties can be introduced to neutralize the power abuse of centralization (consider the process of ABS).

(4) Mechanism for valuation, liquidation, and protection of assets off chain

The market price of off-chain assets, especially tangible assets, is difficult to estimate. While some websites provide quotes on market prices, the realized price is not available until a deal is closed. The valuation of assets decides the liquidation mechanism. In addition, because the collateral is not in ERC-20 tokens, liquidating these assets to recover the principal can be much more complicated; some protocols have already accumulated bad debts. Asset preservation is another headache. Tangible assets that may be dispersed across borders, such as artwork and real estate, custody becomes difficult, especially in the decision of the custodian. Users may be highly skeptical of the mechanism before it is clarified.

All the above issues cannot be solved until the infrastructures in the RWA sector are updated, including tokenization, collateral of digital assets, custodian platform, etc. Although it is stressful to clear the obstacles between traditional finance and crypto finance, more solutions are expected to become available when more RWA projects are on the Web3 market accompanied by more valuable assets. The RWA sector is still a powerful candidate becoming the main narrative for the next bull.

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

This article is a product of diligent work by the Huobi Research Team that is currently under Huobi Ventures. Huobi Research committed to advancing the understanding and application of blockchain technology since 2018. Huobi Research, guided by public welfare, rigor, and innovation, aims to contribute to the evolution and sustainability of the blockchain industry.

Reference

1. Bitwu looks at RWA: DeFi’s water of the future, unlimited liquidity

2. Is RWA, which Coin and Goldman Sachs are scrambling for, DeFi’s next growth engine or a flash in the pan?

3. Real World Assets: The Bridge Between TradFi and DeFi

4. Money, Tokens, and Games-Blockchain’s Next Billion Users and Trillions in Value

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits

6. https://docs.toucan.earth/

7. https://docs.flowcarbon.com/introduction/context

8. *https://docs.perl.eco/

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

导读

区块链带来了信任、流动性、透明度、安全性、效率和创新，但加密行业的熊市似乎很难找到新的增长点，加密行业急需一个赛道承载新的叙事。RWA代币化能够打通传统金融和加密金融的通道，承载数十万亿美元的资产市场，对加密行业来说可以是超越牛熊周期的生命之水，所以区块链诞生至今一直在尝试的RWA代币化，但受到了技术、监管、市场等多重因素的阻碍。如今，RWA赛道又被热议，多家机构开始布局。RWA项目已呈现种类繁多、DeFi为主、收益高、风险高的特点，已经逐渐步入大众视野，但项目总体上还存在流动性差、早期阶段、缺少价格发现等问题。RWA赛道是否能在未来几年爆发也要看基础设施的发展和监管体系的完善，这篇研报也提出了代币标准化和合规化是RWA赛道发展的必经之路。尽管RWA赛道面临多重挑战，行业发展始终是向前走的，我们已经看到不少创新项目的出现，尤其是基于美债美股、中小企业融资、实物资产的项目上，这些项目主要特点在于：1. 与传统金融机构合作；2. 最大化项目和代币的收益；3. 引入更多的合法第三方参与。这些特点能够部分解决RWA代币化上出现的问题，包括监管、中心化、链上链下身份、资产估值等，我们期待未来更多的项目丰富RWA赛道。

1. 正在酝酿的叙事

经历了长达1年多的熊市，整个加密市场的市值严重缩水，资金不断流出，链上活动萎靡，DeFi收益已经不再有吸引力，场内互割严重。现在的我们无法想象，加密行业应该靠什么启动下一个牛市。加密市场和传统金融市场还有很大的差距。但我们也可以从熊市发生的一些暴雷事件中，窥见巨大的商机。

可以说，导致2022年一些大型机构破产的主要原因是利用山寨币进行融资和借贷，当山寨币在熊市出现爆跌，进一步加剧了贷款的清算，死亡螺旋开始。我们看到，是机构和信贷推动了2021年的牛市，也是它们促成了2022年的熊市。实际上，信贷推动了价值数万亿美元的业务和全球经济的大部分发展。它带来的潜力是巨大的，目前，在 DeFi 市场上，越来越多的协议进入股权和债务融资等传统信贷市场。虽然带来了一些风险，但是这是唯一能够将超过 800 万亿美元的传统金融市场引入到链上的方式。弥合加密市场和传统金融之间的巨大差距，我们需要做的是现实世界资产的代币化。

在今年上半年，传统和加密行业开始关注RWA板块。

首先是高盛宣布旗下数字资产平台 GS DAP 正式上线，而该平台已经帮助欧洲投资银行（EIB）发行 1 亿欧元的两年期数字债券。不久后，管理规模超 1000 亿的私募股权公司 Hamilton Lane 在 Polygon 网络上将其 21 亿美元旗舰股权基金的一部分代币化，向投资者出售；电气工程巨头西门子也在区块链上首次发行 6000 万欧元的数字债券。其次，一些政府机构也开始试水RWA，包括新加坡金融管理局 (MAS)将与摩根大通、星展银行合作。

4月，币安宣布成为Layer1区块链Polymesh节点运营商；其次，MakerDAO、Aave、Maple Finance 等DeFi协议在RWA赛道上动作频繁，更多加密投资公司也在寻求RWA的项目。目前，RWA板块的项目已经超过50个，主要集中在金融资产类，包括固定收益、TradFi，少部分在地产和碳信用领域。近期，RWA概念代币都有所上涨，有些涨幅超过10倍以上。2023年上半年的一波蓄力，是否预示着RWA在未来几年将引领加密叙事？

2. RWA的前世今生

RWA概念在区块链行业并不陌生，最早RWA的项目是“资产上链”的BTM比原链。目前，最成功的RWA就是数字美元USDT、USDC，即把美元映射到链上并代币化。稳定币潜移默化地影响着整个加密行业，现已成为重要基石。

RWA的全称为现实世界资产的价值代币化（real world assets- tokenization），是将有形或无形资产中的所有权价值（以及任何相关权利）转换为数字代币的过程。这使得资产的数字所有权、转移和存储无需中央中介，价值映射到区块链上并交易。RWA可以是有形或无形资产。

• 有形资产包括：房地产、艺术品、贵金属、交通工具、运动俱乐部、赛马等。

无形资产包括：股票和债券、知识产权、投资基金、合成资产、收入分成协议、现金、应收账款等。

2.1 RWA赛道现状

RWA赛道项目种类繁多，多以DeFi为主，主要有三种类别：1. 基于美债、股票、房地产、艺术品等链下资产的固定收益类项目；2. 基于公开市场发行或交易的公共信贷类项目；3. 基于碳信用等虚拟资产的交易市场类项目。除此之外，还有垂直公链等基础设施项目。

• 固定收益类基于美债和股票市场，为私人和机构提供贷款。这些项目与链上其它DeFi借贷类项目的唯一区别在于抵押品可以是现实世界资产。

• 公共信贷类可以通过跟踪美债或其它债券建立投资基金以供加密用户投资。

数据方面，根据RWA.xyz网站统计，包括Centrifuge、Maple、GoldFinch、Credix、Clearpool、TrueFi、Homecoin 在内的8个RWA借贷协议，共计发放贷款额度$4.38b，用户可获得平均APR达到10.52%，主要服务于中等以下的发展水平国家。这些信用借贷协议提供的收益比大部分DeFi借贷高，但在2022年的机构暴雷事件中，Maple Finance发生了6930万美元的债务违约。

根据Dune数据分析面板，以太坊RWA项目中，$wCFG, $MPL, $GFI, $FACTR, $ONDO, $RIO, $TRADE, $TRU, $BST的持币地址数也在不断增加，目前达到3.9k。

2.2 资产代币化优势

理想情况下，任何有价值的资产都能够实现代币化。而资产代币化优势也是基于去中心化和区块链技术底层，创建一些生态应用，解决传统金融出现的弊端，具体来说：

（1）带来潜在的巨大市场，吸引投资者和散户

随着领先的金融机构希望从区块链带来的效率和经济可能性中获益，现实世界资产的代币化正在被机构注意，并已经开发了一些代币化产品。RWA项目也将会激发DeFi的投资收益。

通过现实世界的资产代币化，企业能够以低成本的方式利用 DeFi 生态系统获取资本，并受益于较低的进入门槛以及新的融资方式，尤其是对于新兴市场。与此同时，DeFi 生态系统获得了投资收益、进入多样化的链下市场以及扩大传统金融客户群的新机会。

（2）提高资金流动效率，促进资产代币化正反馈

传统金融交易市场属于人工密集型，区块链技术能够提供即时结算、24小时交易等，降低了参与者的运营成本和市场准入。不仅如此，资产代币化能够使现实流动性较差的资产变成小份额投资组合，并且投资者不需要大量文书工作、金钱和时间消耗。这带来了更公平的市场，同时创造了新的商业和社会模式，例如共享财产所有权或共享权利。

在证券方面，代币化可以成为证券化的有用工具，或者将资产从低流动性资产再融资为流动性更高的安全工具。

将现实世界的资产上链并带入 DeFi 生态系统会带来独特的抵押品或投资机会、市场效率以及传统市场无法获得的流动性。资金效率的提高将会进一步促进RWA赛道的发展，形成正反馈。

（3）降低散户进入门槛，增加实物资产流动性

代币化消除了目前阻碍现实世界资产分割的障碍，使大多数散户投资者有可能接触到通常仅限于一些高净值个人或机构投资者的资产类别，尤其在实物资产方面，散户可以投资跨地域性产品，或者集体投资一处房产或一件一艺术品，在传统金融领域需要极高的门槛。而这些实物可能在小市场上流动性极低，一旦上链，将会面向全世界的投资者进入。此外，发行人可以接触到更广泛的投资者群体，并创造出新的资产类别。散户投资者可以进入以前无法进入的市场，并能够根据透明数据做出更明智的投资决策。

（4）依托区块链技术优势，RWA交易更加高效和安全

区块链技术保证了链上支付和数据流的透明度、交易记录的不变性、可追溯性、更高的效率和更低的运营成本、更稳健的风险管理、明确的所有权等等优势，以及更多的可组合性和更公平的市场环境。未来，区块链技术不断发展，将会有更高性能的公链或layer2解决方案，有更严格的智能合约审核机制，也会有基于zk技术的隐私项目保护交易，这些都为RWA赛道发展提供了扎实的土壤。

3. RWA赛道爆发的先决条件

资产上链是RWA赛道的唯一关键点。解决这个关键点也需要两个基础，一个是区块链基础设施的完善，另一个是法律监管。区块链涉及到各个协议和代币的互操作性、安全性、隐私性。法律监管则是链下资产、链上身份等是否有对应的法律法规支持。很多问题都在被积极讨论，这里主要探讨了两个：代币标准和审查制度。

3.1 代币标准的多样化

根据链上代币标准，以太坊上有ERC-721和ERC-20，分别对应不可分割的NFT和可分割的代币标准。在传统金融中，资产属性多种多样，包括有形资产和无形资产。对用在区块链上，我们也需要根据资产的属性，创建对应的代币标准对资产进行代币化。可替代代币和不可替代代币有以下特征：

• 可替代代币：可**互换，**每个单位都具有相同的市场价值和有效性，这意味着代币持有者可以相互交换资产，并确信其价值相同；**可分割，**资产在发行时可以分割成多少个小数位，每个单位将具有比例价值和有效性。

• 不可替代资产是不可互换的，不能被替换，因为每个单元都代表一个独特的价值并具有独特的信息和属性。不可替代的代币通常也不可分割，尽管有一些方法可以分割投资成本以提供部分所有权，例如在商业房地产中。

大多数资产也可以用可替代代币标准，也有一些资产，比如债券、衍生品，通过不可替代代币实现代币化可能会更好。根据RWA项目逐渐兴起，可能会出现更多丰富的形式，这时候单纯的ERC-20和ERC-721已无法满足RWA代币化的需求。很多RWA的垂直公链项目已经想到了这一点，开始创建符合RWA代币化标准，例如Polymesh。而从如今RWA项目的发展情况看，大部分项目都是建立在以太坊上，所以发展更广泛的ERC代币标准更具有普适性。目前讨论较多的是ERC-3525，也有可能未来会有更多的代币标准出现，尤其经过BRC-20的洗礼后。我们认为能够很好服务于RWA项目的代币标准需要有以下2个特点：

• 对RWA代币发行方有很好的可操作性和灵活性，**兼具ERC-721和ERC-20的双重特点；

• 具有一定的隐私性，能够保护交易信息和用户信息。

3.2 严格的审查制度

安全性是代币化现实世界资产的重要组成部分，尤其是当它们作为抵押品来源时。对于 RWA 的发行人和投资者来说，重要的是对 DeFi 协议进行尽职调查，并选择优先考虑担保贷款、提供严格的监管合规性并使用高质量开源代码构建的技术或服务。对RWA相关项目团队来说，可能需要提供两点必要解决方案：

• 避免KYC / AML 风险 — — 对平台上的用户和/或交易进行 KYC（了解你的客户）或 AML（反洗钱）检查。避免用户直接或间接地与 OFAC 和其他制裁名单上列出的对手方或政治公众人物进行潜在互动或交易。

• 提供有效监控手段 — — 监控和检测 DeFi 用户可疑活动的产品和服务。

由此，项目需要专门设置合规团队，根据客户身份、风险评估、验证和尽职调查，审查和批准或拒绝用户访问平台。此外，对客户的活动进行持续监控，以发现任何可能存在欺诈或洗钱的可疑活动或行为。

4. 代表项目分析

RWA 赛道有多个细分种类的，本篇研报从RWA代币化机制、协议现状、代币功能和表现、协议优势和风险等多维度详细分析了19个RWA代表项目。通过对这些项目的分析和总结，我们可以一窥RWA项目的整体发展情况和存在的问题，以及未来的潜力。

4.1 美债概念

（1）MakerDAO

2020 年，MakerDAO 正式将 RWA 纳入战略重点并发布引入 RWA 的指南和计划。Maker除了发行稳定币 DAI，还扩大了除了ETH之外的抵押品种类，包括代币化房地产、发票和应收账款形式的抵押品。Maker协议的主要收入来源是稳定币DAI的借贷利息和清算罚金。

**协议现状：**从TVL看，Maker是前三大的DeFi协议，排名在Lido和AAVE后，并且是CDP（Collateralized Debt Position）协议第一。目前仅运行在以太坊上，根据2023–06–02，defillama所示，TVL为$6.29b，30天协议收入$23.53m，国库金额$68.4m，治理代币$MKR已上线Coinbase、Binance、Kucoin、Kraken、OKX、Huobi、Bybit、Gate等主流交易所，24h交易量$13.58m，30日均交易量接近$20m。

代币功能：$MKR作为MakerDAO的治理代币，币价表现不佳，主要原因是协议价值捕获能力太弱，但治理上却发挥了重要作用。$MKR代币效用包括以下4个方面，

• 治理权：MKR代币持有者具有MakerDAO系统的治理权。他们可以参与投票并对系统参数、风险管理措施和协议变更等重要事项进行决策。代币持有者的投票结果对MakerDAO的发展和运营具有重要影响。

• 抵押品稳定化：MKR代币可以用作MakerDAO系统中的抵押品。当用户通过锁定一定数量的加密资产（如以太坊）来生成稳定币（如DAI），他们需要支付一定数量的MKR作为抵押品。这种机制旨在确保系统的稳定性和安全性。

• 系统稳定性回购：作为抵押品的MKR代币还用于系统稳定性回购机制。当MakerDAO系统中的稳定币DAI价值下降并偏离与美元的锚定价值时，系统将自动启动回购MKR代币，并销毁它们以稳定系统。

• 风险分担：MKR代币持有者承担了MakerDAO系统中的风险。如果系统的债务无法被偿还或发生其他问题，MKR代币的价值可能受到影响。这使得MKR代币持有者有动力参与和监督系统的运行，确保系统的安全性和稳定性。

协议优势：1. 基于EVM和L2生态，较其它公链的RWA协议具有更忠实的用户群体和稳定安全的网络支持；2. 制度优势已经经历了牛熊周期考验，包括对抵押品有严格准入门槛，加上超额抵押和完善的拍卖制度，能够在绝大部分情况下保证DAI与美元的1:1挂钩，在极端情况下协议还设置了紧急关停的应急措施。

**协议风险：**1. 治理攻击，MKR代币的短期大规模趋同归属有可能导致治理权力的集中从而导致一系列诸如新增垃圾抵押品、紧急关停、风险参数恶意串改等治理攻击，随着MKR价值提升以及协议自身的风控措施足够在大部分情况防范此类风险；2. 市场价格风险，在主流代币波动增加的情况下，连环的协议拍卖清算会主动增加市场上的代币供应，恶化市场流动性问题，这在过去两年主流代币出现大规模下跌时时有发生，但协议自身并未出现大规模亏损。

（2）Ondo Finance

Ondo Finance 是今年上半年最受关注的RWA项目之一，其在4月获得了Founders Fund和 Pantera Capital 领投的2000 万美元的 A 轮融资。Ondo Finance是一家去中心化投资银行，链下主要投资美国上市货币基金，链上开展与Flux Finance合作的链上稳定币借贷业务，包括USDC、FRAX、DAI、USDT，目前平均借贷利率5%左右。协议收入来源于0.15%的年化管理费。

用户需要通过 KYC/AML 流程后，才能交易基金代币，并在许可的 DeFi 协议中使用这些基金代币。Ondo Finance已经推出了四款代币化债券产品可供投资者选择包括：

• 美国货币市场基金（OMMF）：Ondo Money Market Funds，投资于高信用等级的美国政府债券、短期债券等债务工具，最大目标是保本，目前年化收益4.5%。

• 美国国债（OUSG）：Ondo Short-Term US Government Bond Fund，投资与美国短期票据ETF，目前年化收益率为4.85%，$100.87M TVL。

• 短期债券（OSTB）：Ondo Short-Term Investment Grade Bond Fund，该主动管理的交易所交易基金（ETF）旨在追求最大的当前收入，同时确保资本保值和每日流动性。该ETF主要投资于短期投资级债务证券，其平均投资组合期限通常不超过一年，目前年化收益率为5.77%。

• 高收益债券（OHYG）：Ondo High Yield Corporate Bond Fund，主要投资于高收益公司债权，目前年化收益7.9%。

**协议现状：**ETH上TVL $100.5m，defillama RWA分类第一。OUSG 的使用规模最大， OUSG 持有人还可以存入 Ondo Finance 开发的去中心化借贷协议 Flux Finance以获得收益。Tioga Capital 投资人 Tzedonn 在最新的报告中提到，债券代币的现有市值为 1.68 亿美元，Ondo（OUSG）拥有 61% 的市场份额，其中 28% 存入了 Flux Finance。目前 Flux Finance 总供应已经超 4000 万美元，OUSG 的市值已经超过一亿美元。借贷协议FLUX已经被出售给了Neptune Foundation。

代币功能：治理代币$ONDO的功能包括以下4个，

• 平台手续费支付：用户在Ondo Finance平台上进行交易、借贷或其他金融活动时，可能需要支付一定的手续费，这些手续费可以使用Ondo Finance代币进行支付。

• 投票权和治理：持有Ondo Finance代币的持有人可以参与平台的治理和决策过程。他们可以投票表决关于平台升级、参数调整、提案通过等事项，并对平台发展方向发表意见和建议。

• 奖励和激励：Ondo Finance平台可能会通过发放代币奖励和激励措施来吸引用户参与平台的活动和生态建设。这些奖励可以以Ondo Finance代币的形式发放，鼓励用户贡献和支持平台的发展。

• 借贷和抵押：在Ondo Finance平台上，用户可以使用Ondo Finance代币作为抵押物来获取借贷服务。持有Ondo Finance代币的用户可以将其作为抵押物，获得更多的借贷额度或更低的利率。

**协议优势：**合规化，产品要么是低风险的美国政府相关债务工具，要么是高风险的ETF，都是有第三方会计披露的合规产品。同时，用户也需要通过KYC/AML 流程.

**协议风险：**1. 圈外风险，主要产品都是链下的ETF、美国政府债务工具等，合规性可以保证但是也会带来圈外的市场风险、信用风险等，尤其是OHYG等高风险的公司信用债券；2. 出圈风险，项目目前个人看法是正在剥离去中心化的产品，转而采取中心化+合规方向运营，治理代币用途可能会被剥离并且边缘化，后续仅采用区块链技术作为项分润+记账+售卖份额用途而不往项目整体去中心化方向研发，与币圈大部分项目宗旨背离。

（3）Maple Finance

Maple Finance协议已经发展了3年时间，主流业务是借贷/机构信用贷。链上业务是提供USDC、wETH的借贷服务，但是由独立的中心化池子管理者管理借贷业务，包括借贷对象、额度、利率、策略等。看似Maple Finance并不是一个合格的RWA项目，但在4月其宣布计划推出一个投资美国国债的借贷池，支持非美国 DAO、离岸公司等将限制资金投入 Maple Finance 设置的资金池。

**协议收入：**Maple Finance的收入主要来自以下几个方面，

• 借款费用：Maple Finance通过为借款人提供资金而收取一定的借款费用。这些费用基于借款金额和贷款期限进行计算，并根据借款池的利率设定而定。

• 贷款手续费：Maple Finance作为平台提供商，可以收取与贷款交易相关的手续费。这些手续费可以包括贷款申请费、放款费用和贷款结算费等。

• 代币挖矿奖励：Maple Finance可能会通过代币挖矿机制向参与者发放奖励。持有Maple代币的用户可以通过提供流动性或参与借贷池来获得奖励。

• 平台治理费用：作为借贷和借款池的管理者，Maple Finance可能会收取一定比例的平台治理费用。这些费用用于支持和维护平台的运营，包括开发新功能、进行安全审计和维护社区治理等。

**协议现状：**从TVL看，Maple Finance在defillama上排名145，但是无抵押贷款协议中排名第一的，TVL总额为$48.56m，在途债务共计$32.22m，累计收益$45.6m，在途债务18个（由于提供的是中心化的信用担保债务，因此借贷对象都是大机构，数量较少），8个现金池子（7USDC+1ETH，平均30d收益为年化7%）。另外，Maple Finance在Solana上也有小部分TVL，但随着Solana链上活动的递减，目前仅有$16.4k左右TVL，大部分（99%）TVL皆来源于ETH主网。

**代币功能：**MPL代币是Maple Finance平台的原生代币，具有以下功能，

• 支付手续费：MPL代币可以用于支付在Maple Finance平台上进行借贷交易时的手续费。持有MPL代币的用户可以享受折扣或其他优惠，以鼓励他们使用和持有该代币。

• 社区治理：MPL代币持有者可以参与Maple Finance平台的治理决策。他们可以提出提案、投票和表达自己的意见，影响平台的发展方向和重要决策。

• 投票权益：MPL代币持有者在平台上的投票中拥有一定的权益，可以参与决定关于协议参数、协议升级和其他重要事项的投票。

• 份额分红：持有MPL代币的用户有资格分享Maple Finance平台上借贷池的利润。这些利润可能来自借款人支付的利息或其他收入来源，按比例分配给持有MPL代币的用户。

• 激励机制：Maple Finance平台可能通过向MPL代币持有者提供激励来促进其生态系统的发展。这些激励可能包括空投、奖励或其他形式的回报，以鼓励用户参与和支持平台的增长。

**协议优势：**有一定的安全性，借贷风险由池子的管理者负责并收取一定管理费作为回报，流动性提供者在享受借贷利率同时可承担更小的违约风险。

**协议风险：**1. 信用风险，借贷池子管理者、借贷对象都由中心化机构审核，并且债务主要依靠的是信用抵押而不是资产抵押（抵押资产来自池子管理者），因此一旦发生大规模的机构违约可能出现资不抵债的情况；2. 门槛过高，为了保证债务的安全性，因此借贷门槛较高，不适用于大部分用户，因此社群热度不高。

4.2 TradFi

（1）Polytrade

Polytrade是一个去中心化贸易融资平台，旨在为多个行业的企业提供无缝贷款。目前，项目正在V2到V3的转移。2022年1月份至今未出现债务违约，LP损失为0，在V3中预计会加入现实资产的NFT化功能，未来可能会有NFT的二级交易市场。

**协议现状：**治理代币TRADE已上线Kucoin、Gate、MEXC、Bitfinex等交易所，主盘在MEXC，defillama显示项目TVL仅为$10,984，于项目代币的$17.27m全解锁市值相差甚远并且存在高估风险，2023年3月30日项目自Polygon Studios、Matrix、CoinSwitch、Alpha Wave Global等企业种子融资了$3.8m。

代币功能：TRADE是项目的治理代币，主要功能是对协议收入和更新进行投票和决策，更详细的代币功能披露可能在V3发布后披露。

协议优势：1. Polygon链上交易成本更低，gas、交易速度等EVM天然优势；2. 赛道优势，Polygon官方资助，有望保证Polygon EVM上的竞争优势。

协议风险：1. 信用风险，虽然借贷交易保持在链上，但是借贷对象、业务、审核等过程全是链下的，项目方自称交易受到AIG、Mercury等机构保障，但无法避免线下实体的违约行为；2. 技术风险，项目处于V2到V3迁移阶段，目前协议代码并未提供第三方机构审核报告，可能存在未知代码技术类的Bug。

（2）Defactor

Defactor通过将传统融资与 DeFi 联系起来，旨在为企业提供融资机会和流动性。目前项目还未上线，处于早期阶段。根据其路线图，2023年下半年仍旧处于招商+招聘+开发阶段。根据项目官网介绍，$FACTR是defactor生态系统的原生代币，旨在降低对应用程序和基础设施的使用门槛。它能够协调利益并激励生态系统的增长。

4.3 借贷

（1）Goldfinch

Goldfinch 是一个面向链下实体的债务基金和金融科技公司的去中心化信贷协议，与Maple Finance类似。Goldfinch提供零抵押 USDC 信用额度贷款。Goldfinch 的模式很像传统金融的银行，但是拥有的是去中心化审计员、贷方和信用分析师池。借款人可将 USDC 兑换成法币，并将其部署到当地市场的最终借款人手中。借款人申请贷款前，必须得到协议去中心化审计师的批准。审计师是独立的实体，必须质押治理代币 GFI，才有机会验证借款人以换取奖励。

**协议收入来源：**Goldfinch 所有利息支付的 10% 保留在协议金库。同时，用户从高级池中赎回将会产生 0.5% 的费用，该费用也会存入协议金库。

**协议现状：**目前，Goldfinch 协议中所有贷款的未偿还本金总额为 1.0134 亿美元，总损失率为 0%，已经偿还的本金和利息总额为 2510 万美元。近 30 日，协议产生了 10.01 万美元收入。暂无出现坏账。

**代币功能：**Goldfinch 目前有两个 ERC20 原生代币，GFI 和 FIDU。

• GFI 是 Goldfinch 核心原生代币，可用于治理投票、审计师质押、审计师投票奖励、社区赠款、押注支持者、协议奖励，并可存入会员金库以获得会员奖励，以确保协议的发展。

• FIDU 代表了流动性提供者在高级池中的存款。当流动性提供者向高级池提供资金时将会收到等额 FIDU。FIDU 可以在 Goldfinch dApp 中以基于高级池净资产价值的汇率，减去 0.5% 的提款费，兑换成 USDC。随着时间的推移，FIDU 的汇率会随着高级池中增加的支付利息而增加。

**协议优势：**采用的机制降低了借款门槛，在一定程度上可帮助信用评级较低的用户获得借款。相比传统平台，Goldfinch 具备更强的易用性，流程基本由智能合约进行处理。

**协议风险：**DeFi 的采用是全球化的，但各国的法律不同可能导致 Goldfinch 业务上产生更高的成本和问题。并且，因不存在抵押品，Goldfinch 高级池也存在违约风险。

（2）Centrifuge

Centrifuge 于2017年推出，是最早涉足 RWA 的 DeFi 项目之一，也是 MakerDAO、Aave 等头部协议背后的技术提供方。与以上几个借贷协议类似，Centrifuge也是一个链上信贷生态系统，旨在为中小企业主提供一种将其资产抵押在链上并获得流动性的方式。

Centrifuge 允许任何人都可以启动链上信贷基金，并创建抵押贷款池。Centrifuge 创建了基于智能合约的开放资产池 Tinlake。借款人可通过 Tinlake 将实体资产代币化。实体抵押品将根据风险和回报分成 DROP 和 TIN 两种代币，分别代表优先级别的固定利率和次级别的浮动利率。投资者可根据自身的风险承受能力和收益预期选择投资 DROP 或 TIN。目前，Centrifuge协议不收取任何费用。

**项目现状：**5 月 23 日，Centrifuge 宣布推出新的 Centrifuge App 以替代 Tinlake。新的 Centrifuge App 提高了 KYC 和参与投资的速度以及新增了 KYB（Know Your Business）流程自动化，并为后续的多链支持奠定了基础。此前的 Tinlake 将自动迁移至新应用之中。官方数据，Centrifuge 目前 TVL 为 2.01 亿美元，融资资产总额达 3.97 亿美元。

**代币功能：**Centrifuge Chain 的原生代币 CFG 用作链上治理机制，CFG 持有者能够管理 Centrifuge 协议的开发。同时，CFG 还用于支付 Centrifuge Chain 交易费用。

**项目优势：**1. 融资门槛低，同时让投资者可以从真实资产中获取收入。Centrifuge 基本模拟了传统金融中企业信贷的过程；2. 致力于合规，Centrifuge基于美国资产证券化的法律结构搭建。

**项目风险：**贷款逾期违约风险，根据 rwa.xyz 数据显示，Centrifuge 有 10,194,481 美元贷款逾期超过 90 天。

（3）Clearpool

Clearpool 是一个为机构提供无抵押贷款的DeFi借贷协议。Clearpool 有两款产品，Prime 和 Permissionless。Clearpool Prime 仅适用于列入白名单的机构，在Prime借贷不需要提供抵押品。借款人在核心智能合约中创建具有特定条款的资金池。池子创建后，借款人可以邀请任何其他白名单机构为池子提供资金。贷款资产会自动直接转移到借款人的钱包地址，无需 Clearpool 进行保管。Clearpool Permissionless 需要借款人是白名单机构，而对贷款方无要求。

**协议收入：**Clearpool 收取的所有利息支付的 5% 作为协议费用。

**协议现状：**Clearpool 累计产生了 3.98亿美元贷款，目前在贷余额 1658万美元，Permissionless TVL 2078万美元。

**代币功能：**CPOOL 是 Clearpool 的实用性代币和治理代币。 CPOOL 持有者可以对新晋借款人白名单进行投票。

**协议优势：**Clearpool 的优势在于完全无需抵押品以及其贷款的发放仅仅只需要通过协议本身，极大提升了效率。

**协议风险：**无抵押，一旦市场环境变差，Clearpool 目前的白名单和信用评分机制难以避免借款人违约。

4.4 公共固定收益

（1）Swarm Markets

Swarm Markets 为 RWA 代币发行、流动性和交易提供合规的 DeFi 基础设施，并受到德国监管机构的监督。Swarm Markets 结合了链上合规层与监管许可,将美国国库券和股票代币化。通过发行实体 SwarmX 收购公开交易的股票证券，作为链上代币的基础资产，这些资产由机构托管人持有。

**协议收入：**Swarm 将获得矿池交换费用的 25% 或被交换资产的 0.1%（以较大者为准）。

**协议现状：**Swarm 目前已提供TSLA（特斯拉）、AAPL（苹果）股票和 TBONDS01（iShares 安硕美国国债 0–1 年期 ETF）、TBONDS13（iShares 安硕美国国债 1–3 年期 ETF）债券 ETF。4月25日，Swarm官方宣布将推出BLK（贝莱德）、COIN（Coinbase）、CPNG（Coupang）、INTC（英特尔）、MSFT（微软）、MSTR（微策略）、NVDA（英伟达）股票代币。

代币功能：$SMT 是 Swarm Markets 原生代币，可享受交易折扣和奖励。交易者选择使用$SMT支付时，可以获得50%的协议费用减免。$SMT持有人可享受忠诚度奖励，具体比例将根据不同级别而不同。类似于中心化交易所平台币概念。

**协议优势和风险：**Swarm 的优势在于为 DeFi 用户提供了更多选择，结合了区块链和传统资产，混合了TradFi与DeFi。当然，Swarm 目前提供的股票和债券依旧较少，并且其深度也无法和传统市场相比。

（2）Acquire.Fi

Acquire.Fi 是加密货币并购市场，同时为所有人提供加密货币公司、传统企业和现实世界资产的零散股权的现实世界收益。在 Acquire.Fi，股权将被 NFT 化，可通过二级市场买卖。市场上的卖家、卖家以及投资池中的买家均需通过 KYC（后续，低于 250美元的投资可能无需 KYC）。

**协议收入：**Acquire.Fi 使用多结构佣金。业务价值低于 70万美元，佣金将固定为销售价格的 15%。70万美元至 500 万美元之间佣金将减少至 8%。超过 500 万美元的佣金将进一步降低至 2.5%。

**协议现状：**目前 Acquire.Fi 市场上提供包括 NFT 市场、元宇宙、媒体、DAO 等赛道众多公司股权出售。根据官方统计，已经完成了 2k+ 在线业务的销售。

代币功能：$ACQ 是 Acquire.Fi 实用型代币，质押 $ACQ 可享受独家投资池、加密并购交易流、LP 挖矿奖励以及其他独家优势。

**协议优势：**使用 Acquire.Fi 进行在线业务出售无需再另行购买服务，也无需联系网站托管服务商，同时还能获得更高的关注度。相较其他平台，具备更方便快捷的优势。

**协议风险：**通过 Acquire.Fi 进行并购或购买股权依旧存在法律风险，尤其是买卖双方并不在同一法律实体范围时。

4.5 金融类产品小结

借贷协议是RWA项目最成功的范例。无抵押借贷模式在牛市中获得了机构的欢迎，但也是熊市到来的催化剂，所以信贷协议最难的在于违约风险。基于美债和美股的项目发展较为成熟，在熊市中用户也能获得较高收益。TradFi项目较少，目前业务还是集中在中小企业融资。

机构信贷业务的发展空间十分有限，用户收益主要来自于稳定币+协议代币，而且由于非足额抵押的原因，借款人需要承担一定的坏账风险。在牛市阶段，DeFi的无风险收益也很高，所以机构信贷业务可能无法持续。

类似Ondo推出的国债或货币基金，我们认为是未来有潜力的方向，一是这些基金在传统金融已是投资者的热门选择，风险也较低；二是为链上用户提供了不同的选择，同时降低了门槛。

金融领域的RWA项目虽然处于早期阶段，但已有很多有趣的用例，随着各协议可组合性加强，可能会产生很多玩法和高收益项目，是一个值得期待的细分赛道。

4.6 地产概念

（1）RealT

RealT 是一个房地产代币化平台，成立于 2019 年，主要服务于美国底特律、克利夫兰、芝加哥、托莱多和佛罗里达等州的房地产项目，投资者可以购买RWA代币实现对地产的投资。迄今为止，该平台已经处理了超过 5200 万美元，970家房屋的房地产代币化。

协议无原生生态代币，生态内价值交换使用$DAI（XDAI/WXDAI），针对每所房地产资产发行realtoken，以作为抵押品获取租金分润。

代币化包装流程：

• 链下：通过第三方房产管理机构根据房产契约，对房产所有权进行确认，并将成员权益分成相等的单位；租户租金通过房产管理服务兑换为美元。法律支持：RealToken 根据美国证券法 D 条例以及 S 条例提交文件申请证券豁免，不得在美国境内或为美国人或为美国人的利益提供或出售 RealToken。

• 链上：realtoken投资者需要通过RMM应用程序（RealT做市商）的稳定币DAI存款和贷款服务按照预言机价格来换取realtokens作为抵押品，链上以DAI的形式每天发送给租赁合同相关RealToken的数字钱包地址1/30DAI总量进行每日支付。

**协议收入：**未找到具体收入模型。可能的收入来源于DAI资金池存贷利差、链下链上租金抽成。

**协议现状：**当前协议市场规模$10.51m，XDAI总供应量$3.224m，供应APY6.94%，总借款$2.54m，借款APY9.93%。目前协议内市场上可以投资的房产40+。

**用户收入现状：**每周租金收入>1k DAI的有17位，最高收入为6187.83DAI/周。

**协议优势：**协议自2019年发行以来保持千万美金级市场规模，有持续真实的现金流收入。

**协议风险：**受房地产租赁市场价格与供需关系影响，存在预期租金收益与实际租金收益差异。

（2）Tangible

Tangible 是一个RWA代币化项目，通过推出原生收益稳定币 Real USD，为用户提供了接触 RWA 代币化的途径。RWA实物包括但不限于艺术品、高档葡萄酒、古董、手表、奢侈品。

代币化包装流程：

(1)链下：平台上有四个代币化产品类别，包括黄金、葡萄酒、手表和房地产。

• 对于黄金条的交易和存储，Tangible 使用瑞士 PX Precinox 的服务。

• 对于葡萄酒，他们与总部位于伦敦的波尔多指数合作。

• 对于手表，他们与总部位于英国的 BQ Watches 合作。

• 对于房地产，Tangible 创建了原生的特殊用途实体（SPV）。这些是为每个房产设立的法律实体。SPV 通过寻找租户、收集租金或管理维修来管理房产。所有房产都被出租，租金收益以 USDC 的形式支付给 TNFT 持有人。

(2)法律支持：每个位于英国的房产都有自己的英国 SPV。这是因为房地产不能直接进行 Token 化。但是，法律实体可以。房地产 TNFT 持有人对 SPV 享有所有权，这使他们对该房地产的所有权有了有益的所有权。但是，两者的法定所有权仍由 Tangible 的法定实体（即注册于英国的 BTS TNFT 有限公司。Tangible 还在英属维尔京群岛注册了同名实体）拥有。

(3)链上：Tangible推出一个由房地产支持的原生收益稳定币 Real USD（USDR），用户可以使用 TNGBL 或 DAI 以 1：1 的比率铸造USDR。在 Tangible 上用户可以使用USDR购买有价值的实物商品，包括但不限于艺术品、高档葡萄酒、古董、手表、奢侈品。当用户购买在 Tangible 上列出的 RWA 后，将铸造 TNFT（“Tangible non-fungible token”），代表实物。Tangible 会将实体物品存入实体保险库中，并将 TNFT 发送到买家的钱包。TNFT 可自由转账、交易。

(4)保证超额抵押率的方式&清算机制：

• 如果 USDR 的 CR 降至 100％以下，则房租收益的一半将被保留在 USDR 抵押品金库中。因此，每日重新平衡将减少 50％。换句话说，直到 CR 回到 100％之前，USDR 持有人将赚取较少的利息。

• 支持 USDR 的金库始终持有多样化的流动资产组合，以进行快速清算（例如 DAI、协议所有的流动性和 TNGBL）。

• 如果所有的 DAI 和其他储备金都被耗尽，房地产 TNFT 将被清算。在这种情况下，用户将获得 pDAI 而不是真实的 DAI。pDAI 是一种 IOU Token，表示对真实 DAI 的索赔，一旦执行清算后，就可以兑现。

**协议收入：**TNFT 的所有者需要支付存储费用。例如，金条的存储费用为 1% 每年。赎回时，运输费用必须由赎回 TNFT 的人支付。

**协议现状：**协议TVL $33,665,846，总抵押品价格$35,367,224。根据USDR白皮书理论上其抵押结构应如下：50–80% 有形房地产；20–30% 代币；20–30% 协议拥有的流动性；5–10% 保险基金；0–10% TNGBL。而实际的USDR抵押品结构如下，与拟定抵押结构差异较大：

代币功能：$TNGBL锁定铸造NFT后被动收入USDC；作为奖励 Token以激励使用市场并补贴 USDR 收益；可用于铸造 USDR。

代币二级市场表现：

• $TNGBL仅在uniswap流通，未获得中心化交易所支持，流动性较差，单日交易量多为几百~上千美金，历史单日最高交易量$3.2万，项目市值$1.1亿美金，链上持币地址1,021。

• 稳定币USDR自三月底发行至今，交易热度尚可，上线多个DEX，支持ETH、BSC、polygon、op、arbitrum，30d平均日交易量$0.7m，价格>$1，现价$1.053。

**协议优势：**打造TNFT市场，且获得大量流通代币锁定，还引入其他实物商品购买，包括艺术品、高档葡萄酒、古董、手表、奢侈品等。

**协议风险：**SDR脱锚风险。中心化风险，团队既是TNFT发行方，又是基础资产的托管方。

（3）LABS Group

LABS Group 原本定位是一个房地产代币化平台，允许房主将自己的房屋代币化以在没有中介的情况下筹集资金，投资者也能通过二级市场接触到其他更高流动性的房地产代币。目前，LABS Group 推出了一个 Web3 度假平台 Staynex，每年为会员提供全球度假村的使用权，并能够通过持有会员资格来赚取奖励。通过区块链技术将“入住”代币化并将其嵌入到NFT中，让入驻的酒店和度假村可以在NFT上创建、设计和铸造他们自己的分时度假计划，NFT代表会员身份和住宿天数。

由于涉及跨境投资，LABS Group的交易所是跟政府提交了一整套的商业计划书后得到政府批准。LABS Group已取得散户投资的合规牌照。

**协议收入：**LABS Group的一级平台、二级交易所、去中心化借贷平台可以获得咨询费、交易费、上架费、手续费等各种业务收益。

**协议现状：**度假产业资源丰富，拥有60家酒店，合作阿森纳足球俱乐部，作为其酒店官方会员平台。目前，LABS Group是房地产RWA赛道代币表现最好的项目，$LABS获得kucoin、gate、bitmart等中心化交易所的支持，2021年3月上所获得较高关注度，上线初期单日交易量曾突破$3500万，后交易热度下滑，近一年单日交易量<$10w，市值$1.47m，FDV$6.66m，链上持币地址数11,911。

社群热度较高，推特5.8万关注者，电报群19k关注者，511在线用户。

**代币功能：**主要作为奖励代币，其他功能包括治理（投票），有回购销毁机制、计划销毁80%，其中第一阶段50%，此外平台上的每笔交易中抽取 10%会被发送到流动性池中进行永久锁定。此前也有过阶段性质押活动，如质押$LABS进行足球比赛预测（https://www.support2win.io/），活动已结束。

**协议优势：**采用的分时度假模式，即一个人在每年的特定时期对某个度假资产所拥有的使用权，在当今数字游民文化兴起备受欢迎。此外团队自身具有度假产业资源，拥有60家酒店，合作阿森纳足球俱乐部，作为其酒店官方会员平台。

**协议风险：**代币价值捕获较差，主要用作奖励，赋能主要在NFT上。以及分时度假自有缺点：年管理费高、销售困难、不道德的玩家和骗局。

小结

目前RWA中房地产类项目整体市场规模非常小，存在流动性不足、机制透明度差等现状，需要大型中心化主体介入进行背书与监管，相关协议所发行实用代币在加密市场的接受度整体较差。主要是由于实物资产需要受到严格的监管，项目方还需要对资产的所有权进行复杂操作。

房地产的代币化能够解决：1. 区块链的跨地域性和即时交易，可以解决现有地产流动性低的问题；2. 门槛低，散户也能在全球范围内投资房地产从而获得收益。但地产代币化最难解决的问题就是房产证明和估值，证明决定了房产信息的真实性，估值决定了贷款和清算的价格。Tangible项目在这些方面做了大胆尝试：利用Chainlink预言机给RWA代币定价，预言机的信息主要来自hometrack.com提供的价格；在房产真实性方面，Tangible采用第三方审计师合作的模式独立验证房产所有权。这些项目中我们能看到，房地产上链之前还是需要第三方参与，包括评估、财务、法律等相关机构。这些都需要流程合规和法律完善。

4.7 碳信用概念

碳信用，指的是企业通过该组织核证碳标准 (Verified Carbon Standard)进行认证的减排或中和掉的二氧化碳的数量，类似于我国碳交易体系中的“自愿减排量（CCER）”。

（1）Toucan

Toucan Protocol是一个部署在Polygon上的协议，目标是将碳信用转化为代币，以实现利用去中心化的金融手段促进碳信用交易，最终实现促进碳中和。Toucan Protocol所交易的碳信用来自于在Verra上注册的碳补偿额度。Verra是一个进行碳信用(carbon credits)登记的非营利组织。

代币化包装流程：

Toucan 的碳堆栈包含三个模块：Carbon Bridge、Carbon Pools、Toucan注册表。

（1.1） Carbon Bridge

任何人都可以通过Carbon Bridge将他们的碳信用带到链上。Toucan仅支持从Verra注册表退出的碳信用额度，且Carbon Bridge为不可逆的单向桥。

• 桥接初期即会铸造一个ERC721 NFT BatchNFT代表一批碳信用；

• 将被代币化的碳信用从Verra注册表中永久退出，并获得唯一的序列号；

• 写入从Verra收到的序列号，BatchNFT链接到原注册表中的退出条目；

• BatchNFT更新序列号后自动提交审核；

• 待Toucan Verifier批准后成为完全代币化的一批碳信用，用户可以随时碎片化为ERC20代币TCO2。

BatchNFT可用于铸造等量的完全可替代的ERC20代币TCO2，1个TCO2代币代表1个碳信用，其值为1 tCO2e。

TCO2代币合约仍然带有NFT的所有属性和元数据，使其特定于一个特定的项目和年份，因为自愿市场碳信用的交易价格非常不同。TCO2是可替代的代币化碳信用的总称。当你把BatchNFT分化时，ERC20代币将以TCO2-为前缀，后面是一个信息丰富的名称，包括原产地注册处、项目、年份等。例如： TCO2-GS-0001–2019。

（1.2）Carbon Pools

将多个特定项目的代币化TCO2代币捆绑到流动性更强的碳指数代币中，实现了不同类别碳资产的价格发现。每个池都有一个独特的配置，并带有特定的逻辑，该逻辑指示TCO2可以将哪些代币存入其中。

Toucan团队已经与KlimaDAO合作，部署了第一个Carbon Pool，即the Base Carbon Tonne (BCT)，the Base Carbon Tonne pool的门槛要求为： TCO2代币必须是Verra VCU（Verified Carbon Units），而且它们的年份必须是2008年或以后。

通过逻辑筛选的TCO2代币可质押在Carbon Pool中，存款人收到Carbon Pool代币（如BCT）。用户可以随时进行赎回，赎回会燃烧Carbon Pool代币并将基础代币发送给用户，赎回时可以选择自动赎回（兑换排名最低的TCO2）和有选择的赎回（缴纳费用赎回指定TCO2）。

目前有2个Toucan Carbon Pools，BCT (Base Carbon Tonne) 和NCT (Nature Carbon Tonne)

协议收入来源：

• 兑换Carbon Pool代币费用

兑换Carbon Pool代币时若选择选择性兑换，Toucan Protocol收取费用，其中一部分用于燃烧低价值的碳信用额，另一部分将交给Toucan，用于建立协议。BCT池子兑换费用为25%，NCT池子兑换费用为10%。

• 桥接carbon pool费用

目前该费用设置为0。

**协议现状：**Toucan自2021年10月推出，目前支持Polygon和Celo，通过Carbon Bridge上链的碳信用额21,889,951吨，抵消的碳信用额298,173tCO2e，碳供应量19,908,799（BCT和NCT池中质押量），总流动性$2,946,585（各交易所BCT和NCT总流动性）。

代币功能：

• NCT是Nature Carbon Tonne简称，是与所有存入Nature Carbon Tonne的碳信用挂钩的标准化参考代币；

• BCT是Base Carbon Tonne简称，是与所有存入Base Carbon Tonne的碳信用挂钩的标准化参考代币；

将通过逻辑筛选的TCO2代币质押在carbon pool中将获得对应代币；反之两种代币可用于兑换代币化碳信用额。

**协议优势：**一定程度上实现碳信用代币化，并提高了碳信用流动性；

**协议风险：**Toucan Carbon Bridge为不可逆的单向桥，代币化进程开始后不可赎回实际的链外信用；Verra Registry目前不支持碳信用标记化，禁止基于退出信用创造工具或代币的做法，Toucan选择的从原来的注册表中退出，以防止重复计算并不是一个最佳方案。

（2）Flowcarbon

Flowcarbon是由WeWork联合创始人Adam Neumann创建的区块链初创公司，希望垂直整合整个碳信用生命周期，提供从碳项目发起和融资到信用销售和企业碳投资组合管理的战略和解决方案。5月，完成7000万美元融资，a16z领投，General Catalyst和Samsung Next参投。目前，碳信用现货市场暂未上线。Goddess Nature Token (GNT)将是第一个捆绑代币。

代币化包装流程：

• 铸造代币化碳信用

所有对碳信用额度进行代币化的请求都是通过 Flowcarbon 网站上的表格提交的。提交代币化请求后，Flowcarbon会与指定的注册机构核实信息。一旦账户的所有权、项目类型和信贷数量得到确认，碳信用就会转移到破产隔离特殊目的实体（SPV）。一旦批次的信息被验证，并且信用被存入SPV，一个新的实例合约就被创建。

• 退出（Retirement）

代币持有人先向Flowcarbon发起代币退出，并指定她想退出的数量。这将减少代币持有人的余额并增加她的退出额。退出的代币在合同中透明地累积，直到它们超过一个待定的批量大小。一旦达到阈值，破产隔离SPV就会在基础注册表中退出碳信用。

• 赎回

赎回是指代币持有人将其GCO2代币兑换成实际的链外信用的过程。代币持有人通过向Flowcarbon提交请求来启动赎回程序。请求被批准后，Flowcarbon会确认请求者在适当的注册机构拥有一个账户。然后，GCO2代币被GCO2智能合约销毁，然后实物碳信用额从破产隔离SPV转移到请求实体的账户。

赎回时有2%的标准费用。如果一个GCO2持有人要求赎回100个GCO2，他们将收到98个链外碳信用额度。

• 流动性

可以使用Flowcarbon的dApp将GCO2代币存入一个捆绑包中以换取捆绑代币。捆绑代币以一对一的方式发行；如果GCO2代币持有人将50个GCO2存入一个捆绑包，她将收到50个捆绑包代币作为回报。捆绑代币旨在提供流动性，因此用户可以直接购买捆绑代币。捆绑代币同样可退出、可赎回。

协议收入：

解绑、互换、退出和赎回功能都有相关的动态费用，更近年份的碳信用行动比时间较长的碳信用行动更昂贵。这是为了激励旧的碳信用额度的退出。动态费用是通过 “回扣（rake back） “合同实现的。当其中一个功能被启动时，合同代表用户账户执行该功能，回扣合同决定该最大费用的多少应该被送回给请求者。比如说，最大费用是15%，如果Sarah请求将100个捆绑代币解绑成2020年的GCO2。绑代币合约将自动在费用账户中收取15GCO2，85GCO2将被发送到回扣合约。回扣合约将包含关于费用实际情况的逻辑；2020年是一个相对较新的年份，实际费用是10%。因此，在这种情况下，回扣合同将从费用中提取5GCO2，并将90GCO2送回给Sarah。

**协议优势：**Flowcarbon提供“双向桥”，允许 GCO2 代币在链下兑换为基础碳信用。

**协议风险：**通过碳信用转移到SPV并创建代币实现链上交易，未能真正实现碳信用代币化。

（3）PERL.eco

PERL.eco是Perlin的最新项目，专注于将现实世界的生物生态资产引入区块链，首批可用的资产之一是代币化的碳信用。目前，产品还未正式上线。

代币化包装流程：

PERL.eco 与完全受监管的碳交易所 ACX 的运营商 AirCarbon Group 合作，建立 PERL.eco 碳交易所 (PCX)，由PERL.eco直接从供应方碳项目和合作伙伴处获得的PFC（PERL.eco Future Carbon，由PERL.eco审核的高质量碳项目的代币化碳信用，这些项目尚未发行）和其他优质碳资产并在PCX上进行零售交易。

**协议现状：**代币$PERL已上线Binance，但是社媒关注度低，项目进展慢，白皮书超过1年未更新。计划于2023年Q3进行PFC试点软启动、PERL.eco Carbon Exchange (PCX) 早期原型发布；2023Q4 PCX Alpha版本发布，2024发布PCX Beta版本。

代币功能：

$PERL是PERL.eco的治理代币。PERL在确定激励体系、建立广泛的利益相关者基础以及促进网络中的经济价值流动方面发挥着关键作用。PERL 持有者可以对该费用模式和分配以及其他重要决策进行投票。通过参与治理，用户可以得到碳信用空投的奖励，用来抵消他们的排放。

**协议优势：**与受监管的碳交易所合作降低风险；

**协议风险：**PERL.eco仅作为类似经销商的角色，增加了标的曝光度，并未真正提高其流动性。

小结

链下的碳信用市场存在着缺少价格发现、流动性差、市场透明度差等问题。Web3碳信用项目致力于通过碳信用的代币化以建立交易池，为碳信用交易提供更好的流动性。

但Web3碳信用项目面临着孤立性强、可信度低等问题，且由于碳信用受原产地注册处、项目、年份等影响，价格并不一致，较难实现真正的同质化代币化。如已有一定交易数据的Toucan目前只支持两类碳信用碳指数代币，通过逻辑筛选方可质押。Flowcarbon目前只计划提供一类捆绑代币，需满足三项要求。另外碳信用交易流程较为复杂，无法绕过一些由独立的非政府实体管理的，如Verra和Gold Standard等中心化的核查机构，Verra曾明确表示目前不支持碳信用代币化。区块链技术可以在很多方面改变传统碳信用交易市场存在的问题，但在提高可信度、增强市场统一性流动性上还有较长的路要走。

4.8 垂直公链

正是由于现实世界资产属性的多样化，资产代币化的实现更需要一条专属公链，以满足机构用户的需求。包括：1. 更强的安全性和隐私性；2. 更便捷的操作，比如提供SDK等工具；3. 代币标准的多样化和可操作性；4. 可能需要许可链构建可监管和合规的流程体系。

在代币标准上，从以太坊的ERC-20标准上看，发行方无法对代币实现回收、股份管理、身份管理、批处理、链下授权等等行为，这为资产的管理带来了更大的难度。所以，现有的公链无法实现现有金融市场对资产管理的复杂操作。需要新的公链构建新的代币标准。

（1）Polymesh

Polymesh是一个专为证券型代币等受监管资产而量身打造的机构级Layer1区块链，流通市值9000万美元。币安近期已宣布成为其节点之一。Polymesh是一条公共许可区块链，采用由Polkadot开发的提名权益证明(NPoS)共识模型来明确网络的角色、规则和激励措施。链上代币标准收到ERC-1400启发，提供了更多的功能性和安全性，以方便链上资产的发行和管理。

Polymesh核心团队拥有金融、科技、法律背景。大多数人都有在 Polymath 建立第一个安全令牌平台和带头 ERC–1400 的经验。团队成员公开，团队信息见：https://polymesh.network/team#。

项目优势/特点

• 为监管而设：由于监管等限制，以太坊等无许可的公链可能很难满足 RWA 资产的交易，因此专为 RWA 设立的垂直应用链应运而生。

• 透明度保证：所有的发行方、投资者、质押者和节点运营商等都需要完成身份认证流程，即客户都需要进行尽职调查。特别是节点运营商，必须是经许可的执业金融实体。这样提高了网络安全性。链上交互可以追溯到已知的真实世界实体。所有交易均由获得许可的实体授权。

• 防止硬分叉：分叉链对实物资产代币会产生重大的法律和税收问题，POLYX的行业主导治理模式杜绝了硬分叉的产生。

• 保密性：Polymesh 设计了一个安全的资产管理协议，可以实现机密资产的发行和转移。符合现实世界市场参与者对头寸和交易的包密要求。

• 即时结算：继承了Polkadot的GRANDPA finality gadget，结合以上身份验证要求、合规性验证、无硬分叉使Polymesh的交易可以即时结算。

代币功能：

$POLYX，原生代币。根据瑞士金融监管机构FINMA（瑞士金融市场监管局）的指导，依照该国法律，该币种归类为效用代币。POLYX用于治理、通过质押保障链安全，以及创建和管理证券型代币。

代币的通胀率为10.12%，比较正常。

POLYX 代币流通图

生态系统：

Polymesh生态系统的现有参与者包括加密货币交易平台、代币化领域资深参与者(Polymath)以及拥有相当规模证券型代币投资组合的公司(RedSwan)。Polymesh Association旨在通过两个计划促进进一步发展：

• 资助计划适用于在Polymesh中搭建开源功能的个人和企业。

• 生态系统发展基金适用于拥有集成Polymesh闭源技术的企业。

目前的主要生态包括：

• Tokenise–——第一个数字资产的 CSD、经纪和交易所 — 选择基于 Polymesh 构建其基础设施并已开始创建数字资产

• DigiShares ———个白标代币化平台 — — 成为第一个整合 Polymesh 的 Polymesh 生态系统发展基金接受者

• Stably—— 一家符合监管要求的稳定币基础设施提供商和 USDS 代币的创建者 — 正在努力在 Polymesh 上推出第一个稳定币

• ABC Tokens—— 一家代币化的房地产提供商 ———使用 Polymesh 向投资者提供分散的商业房地产

2022年10月Polymesh生态系统一览

资产代币化实现机制：

• 配置安全令牌

在区块链上配置安全令牌以表示物理或数字资产。在 Polymesh 上，代币是在协议层创建的，无需在链顶为每个安全代币添加智能合约。可以使用基本的编程语言和 Polymesh SDK 或为想要完全无代码方法的发行人使用令牌化平台轻松配置令牌。

• 设定合规规则

使用 Polymesh 的合规引擎灵活地设置所有权和转让规则。确保可以强制执行转移限制，并且您的代币符合监管要求，例如 KYC/AML 要求，以及证券法规。

• 代币分发

一键铸造您的代币，并将它们发送给现有股东、附属机构或储备账户，同时执行更广泛的合规要求。根据对您的令牌有意义的方式设置定价，并（如果需要）指定合格的保管人以安全可靠的方式管理集合。

• 管理公司行为

在链上执行公司行动，以解决利益、重组、资本分配和投票方面的问题。发行人只需输入一些细节。从那里，引擎可以确定权利、安排记录日期、分配资本（如果需要）和更新记录。

项目现状：

目前，已经有3.8K的账户，357M枚$POLYX代币在质押，占总发行量的47.7%。43个节点运营商。链上每日交易量在2K~11M $POLYX不等。在4月20日期间，由于币安宣布成为其节点运营商，链上转账数达到138M。

Polymesh链上交易笔数

在未来，Polymesh引入智能合约功能，并带来defi应用、NFT支持等。

项目评价：

从技术上说，Polymesh利用了polkadot的开发框架，但并不属于平行链。继承了substract的安全性和技术优越性。从生态发展上看，Polymesh提供了能够自主设定的链上发行RWA代币化的发行和管理工具，满足各种资产代币化的需求。给RWA代币化提供了一种机构级解决方案，但有两个风险点：（1）身份验证确保了一定的透明度和安全性，但万一出现问题需要有配套保险方案；（2）吸引机构开发者进入是关键，还需要更多的合作。

（2）MANTRA Chain

MANTRA（原MANTRA DAO）成立于2020年，属于MANTRA生态系 Omniverse的一部分，其它包括MANTRA Nodes、MANTRA Finance，项目流通市值约1900万美元。MANTRA Chain 是一个基于 Cosmos SDK 构建的 L1 区块链，旨在成为一个企业之间相互协作的网络，吸引企业、开发人员构建从 NFT、游戏、元宇宙到合规的 DEX 等任何应用程序。MANTRA Chain可以通过IBC跨链实现与Cosmos其它生态的互操作，也与EVM链兼容。

MANTRA项目跨越RWA和香港概念，累计融资1次，主要投资方有LD Capital、水滴资本、GenBlock Capital 等。

项目优势/特点：

• 强大的身份系统：MANTRA Chain具有强大的去中心化身分 (DID) 模块来满足所有 KYC 和 AML 需求。该模块有助于开发可利用强化功能和生态系的产品。

• 完整的生态体系链：以MANTRA Finance为主线，发展了节点、DAO组织和公链基础设施。

代币功能：

$OM是OMniverse的原生代币，其功能包括治理、网络质押、DAO代币存取/空投奖励。MANTRA Chain的原生代币$AUM即将推出。

生态系统及现状：

MANTRA Chain 上的第一个 dApp 是 MANTRA Finance，其目标是成为一个全球监管的 DeFi 平台，将 DeFi 的速度和透明度带到不透明的 TradFi 世界，允许用户发行、交易 RWA 代币。

目前，推出了一些基于加密货币的收益型DeFi产品，随后将会推出中央限价订单簿 (CLOB) DEX，它将提供掉期功能和传统金融产品（如债务、股票和其他现实世界资产 (RWA)。在这些产品成功推出后，MANTRA Finance打算通过提供衍生产品来扩充其去中心化交易所 (DEX) 产品。

项目评价：

MANTRA项目起于2020年，当时基于Polkadot开发，但并没有得到很好的发展。项目路线也经历多次重大变化，产品进展缓慢，目前没有看到相关RWA产品的推出或者相应的针对企业和机构级的解决方案。

（3）Realio Network

Realio Network 前身是一家专注于房地产私募股权投资的端对端数字资产发行和 P2P 交易平台，总部位于纽约，成立于2018年。目前，Realio建立了自己的L1区块链网络，基于Cosmos SDK开发，主网于4月上线。Realio平台利用区块链技术提供一系列服务，包括代币化、数字化资产发行和二级市场交易，提供应用程序包括 realioVerse 和即将推出的 Freehold 钱包，未来不仅仅是房地产领域，还会涉及证券。

Realio的平台也包括提供诸如 KYC/AML 合规、投资者认证和投资者管理工具，这些工具也为第三方发行人提供服务，使其资产数字化并在网络内筹集资金。所有行为均需要满足SEC合规要求。

团队成员信息公开，多名金融和房地产领域顾问。

项目优势/特点：

• 安全性保证：Realio 的独特功能之一是分布式密钥管理系统。帮助确保安全的质押验证者和委托人。通过绑定$RIO或$RST将根据他们的贡献金额获得他们的区块奖励份额。

• 合规性：所有代币发行需要满足SEC合规要求。

生态建设：

目前，Realio Network主网刚上线，但Realio的原生代币$RIO和$RST早已发行，项目方也上线了Realio Platform Wallet和Realio.fund投资平台。

• Realio Platform Wallet

Realio 钱包是一个非托管的多链钱包，目前支持比特币、以太坊、Algorand、Stellar、Raven 和 Fusion，包括这些多链上的任何资产，支持更多正在开发的区块链。该钱包是非托管钱包，简化了私钥的存储和交易签名，也即将推出访问DeFi等生态的功能。

• Realio.fund

P2P的投资平台，提供多链、实时的代币发行工具、全自动合规流程功能，投资可以使用现金或者Realio支持的加密货币。

代币功能：

区块链网络采用原生双代币权益证明模式，$RIO和$RST，具有网络质押、治理、密钥管理等功能。

$RST是Realio在2020年与Algorand合作发行，属于股权代币，持有人是技术平台和网络维护者。$RST作为 Algorand 标准资产 (ASA) 来出售，并具有与其他提供支持的区块链和平台功能 (如 RealioX) 互操性。RST 代币将基于 Regulation D 条例 506 © 和 Regulation S 豁免法规在全球非公开出售。目前，并无二级公开市场买卖。$RST是一种混合数字证券，享有平台收益分配，也可以抵押在Realio Network上赚取验证者奖励。最大供应量5000万，通过预售和realio.fund平台上的Security Token Offering产品出售。

$RIO是Realio Network的原生gas和实用代币，多链发行，目前在以太坊、Algorand和Stellar网络上发行，没有预挖，增发通过验证者区块奖励和流动性挖矿。最大供应量为7500万，流通市值约为 100 万美元。已上线OKX和MEXC，每日交易量在3–5月有所上涨，约100至400万美金。

项目现状：

目前平台还是专注于加密货币交易。同时，也推出了一个针对于BTC生态的流动性挖矿基金$LMX，代币持有者也可以参与其它DeFi生态，类似于stETH。Twi粉丝数29.7K。

Alpha主网已上线，目前有限放开网络质押功能。根据Realio项目路线图，在2023 Q3将会启动realioVerse虚拟数字地产项目，在其之上构建Land Bank,玩家可以买卖土地、建造房屋、赚钱等。

$RIO代币流通量和持币者数量变化

项目评价：

项目还处于早期阶段，但整个团队在2018年就已经建立，但除了发行代币，并没有进行任何与RWA或房地产相关的代币化项目。未来发展还是不得而知。区块链建设或者生态并没有任何新的技术或者营销点，现在很难看清有任何的优势。

小结

虽然以太坊生态很庞大，现有大部分的RWA项目也是构建在以太坊基础之上。但是以太坊并不完全适合RWA赛道的发展，包括节点的抗审查性、公链性能不足等。尤其是各种不同的现实资产需要在代币标准和智能合约中实现，这需要一个全新的基础设置支持，以满足可编程性、可验证性以及符合现有监管体系的特点。目前看，RWA的垂直公链都考虑到了以上需求。但目前整个赛道发展缓慢，鲜有用户和开发者参与，公链底层还是基于现有公链技术开发，例如Polkadot和Cosmos。现有的公链竞争格局似乎已经敲定，吸引用户还是需要上层应用的加持。

5. 公链的尽头是联盟链？

联盟链的概念并不陌生，而且发展时间与公链不相上下，但由于其严格的准入和审核体系，对用户来说并没有财富效应，似乎被排除在加密世界之外。联盟链是指有若干组织或机构共同参与管理的区块链，每个组织或机构控制一个或多个节点，共同记录交易数据，并且只有这些组织或机构能够对联盟链中的数据进行读写和发送交易。知名的联盟链项目有超级账本（Hyperledger）、区块链服务网络（BSN）。

联盟链有以下几个特点：（1）“部分去中心化”，各个节点通常有对应的实体机构，只有得到联盟的批准才能加入或退出系统。节点数量有限，数据不会默认公开，但验证交易或发布智能合约需获得联盟许可；（2）可控性较强，公链的区块信息一旦形成将不可篡改，但在联盟链中只要所有机构中的大部分达成共识，即可将区块数据进行更改；（3）交易速度快，节点不多，达成共识容易。

联盟链的这些特点都无疑指向了RWA赛道的垂直公链，但是否联盟链就是RWA赛道的结局，我们并不这么认为：1. 加密行业的发展离不开去中心化和开放性，联盟链并不带来财富效应，只能作为技术手段，很难吸引投资者和机构入场；2. RWA赛道的发展，尤其在合规化和白名单上，确实具有联盟链的一些特征，但联盟链权力过于集中，无法实现民主化和公开化，集中也就代表了一定的不透明性；3. 联盟链体现的优势可以应用在实物资产上链的过程中，目前也确实有很多联盟链在做类似的事情，但效果不好，所以还是需要公链底层逻辑。

6. 风险与挑战

RWA市场预计在2025年达到5亿美元。在花旗银行最新一份研究报告中对RWA赛道给予厚望，并认为这是带动区块链行业进入数十万亿美元市场的杀手锏。BCG（波士顿咨询公司）一项统计数据显示，预计到 2030 年RWA赛道可能会达到 16 万亿美元的整体规模。RWA赛道带来的巨大潜力是我们无法忽视的。但是，如今的加密行业处于低谷期，整体市值都没有超过Apple公司，近一年行业频繁受到各国监管的打击。加密行业还处于早期阶段，要实现数十万亿的市场规模，行业还需要很长一段时间。

纵观RWA赛道的发展情况，问题还是多于优势。

**从现状上看，RWA项目普遍面临流动性差、管理成本高、清算过程复杂等问题。**项目还是没有解决机制问题，不如传统金融高效。有些协议本身只有极少用户，但原生代币估值却很高。

从项目种类上看，种类繁多，但头部协议业务范围过于局限，主要还是基于稳定币的信用借贷类项目。这些项目风险高于其它借贷协议，也并未真正得把链下资产带入链上，促使RWA赛道发展过于局限。基于证券、债券、实物资产的借贷协议并未有较大的发展。

**从用户行为上看，RWA项目可能无法在牛市蓄力。**用户真实的投资需求是链上RWA项目带来的高收益。由于熊市DeFi的低收益已经无法满足投资者，而美债收益率能够达到5%，甚至很多中心化理财产品就是投资美债美股，这使得美债概念的RWA项目能获得欢迎。但一旦加密行业步入牛市，这些RWA项目收益率是否还能普遍高于其它DeFi协议？

限制RWA赛道的扩张根本原因是，无论从技术还是流程上并未解决以下几个问题：

（1） 监管不确定性

监管是RWA赛道面临的最大困难，它的不确定性体现在两个方面：

• 加密行业法律的不完善，尤其是对代币是商品还是证券仍然未下定论。从目前来看，除比特币之外的所有加密货币都会被归为证券。这对资产、发行方、交易市场、甚至链上合约、公链节点都需要受到监管。为了配合现有监管体系，RWA项目大部分都会对用户进行KYC/ AML流程。

• 现实资产是受地域限制的。RWA 的核心在于信用机制，促成全球性流通的关键在于设立国际通用的法案，同时相关法案还应具备强制执行的能力。但目前来看，RWA 在合规上的阻力还是很大。也许一小部分加密友好地区会成为试点，比如香港和新加坡。

（2） 身份解决方案

基于KYC/AML流程，RWA项目需要对链下中心化实体和个人做严格的审查和验证，其中，地产项目Tangible有SPV法律实体作为可实现路径。但大部分还是项目方承担验证任务，这种可信任程度不得而知。目前 MAPLE、TrueFi 等不少私人信贷已经出现了坏账情况。解决这些问题，亟需第三方链下合规机构去处理链上身份和链下实体的关联。与此相关的，还有法律法规的完善、可能还需要身份和数据的隐私解决方案、连接链上和链下数据的解决方案等等配套的法律和技术支持。

（3） 去中心化与中心化的平衡

区块链技术的核心特点在于去中心化，而RWA项目如果要配合审查，不可避免要在各环节采用中心化手段，包括资产审查流程、垂直公链节点、用户资格审查等等，甚至很多流程都是由项目方自己执行，区块链的智能合约成了空中楼阁。RWA赛道的繁荣需要去中心化的加持，在这点上，引进更多的可信赖第三方参与可以解决过于中心化的问题，可以参照ABS的做法。

（4）链下资产的估值、清算、保护等机制

链下资产价格，尤其是实物资产的市场价难以估计，虽然有一些网站会提供估计市场价格服务，但真实价格只有在市场成交上才能体现。资产的估值也对清算机制有极大的影响，此外，但由于抵押品不是流动的 ERC-20 代币，清算这些资产以收回贷款人的资本会比使用加密抵押品的贷款要麻烦得多，很多私人信贷已经出现了坏账情况。一些资产保护机制也面临挑战，这些可能跨国的实物资产到底由谁保管，比如艺术品和房产。这些机制在弄清楚之前都很难取得用户的信任。

以上问题都是需要RWA赛道基础设施的完善，包括代币化流程的基础设施、数字抵押品基础设施、托管平台等等。虽然打通传统金融和加密金融的阻力很大，但随着加密行业不断发展，有更多的RWA项目出现并探索为web3引入更多有价值的资产，我们会看见更多更好的解决方案。RWA赛道仍有希望成为下一个牛市的叙事。

参考资料

1. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/hJguFEU9r1cL1O49600dDQ

2. https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/ADHl__hVvrcsqZooc2iMZw

3. https://research.binance.com/en/analysis/real-world-assets

4. https://icg.citi.com/icghome/what-we-think/citigps/insights/money-tokens-and-games

5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_offsets_and_credits

6. https://docs.toucan.earth/

7. https://docs.flowcarbon.com/introduction/context

8. https://docs.perl.eco/

关于火币研究院

火币区块链应用研究院（简称“火币研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火币研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火币区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火币区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火币区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火币区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

The emergence of the Ordinals protocol has created room for a new narrative of the BTC ecosystem. Recently, the recreation of the BRC-20 token standard on Ordinals has further extended the FOMO sentiment to zenith. This report from Huobi Research closely examines the origin of the Ordinals protocol, opportunities, recent data of the BRC-20 token, and the future of the BTC ecosystem.

• The Ordinals protocol endows BTC’s smallest unit, Satoshi, with a higher transaction and collection value, opening a new era for the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem. As the Ordinals NFT market continues to pile up, the infrastructure segment is becoming strategically significant.

• The attempt on BRC-20 token standard has sparked a new wealth effect with over 18,279 BRC-20 projects minted on-chain. The trading market is pumped exponentially; Unisat outcompetes others like a dark horse, conquering more than 50% of the trading volume.

• For greater opportunities always come with commensurate risk, even though the BRC-20 token is still flawed in many ways, it creates considerable possibilities for the future development of the BTC ecosystem. Since the BTC ecosystem is still in an early phase of development, it requires continuous input from both developers and community members to consummate the protocol design and complete the infrastructure settings.

The crypto market is never short of trending topics. Recently, BRC-20 has been continuously heated that the attention received is exceeding that of the token offering and airdrop of Arbitrum. Brc-20 is an experimental fungible token standard as a substitute for Bitcoin proposed by domo@domodata based on the Ordinals protocol. Ordinals unraveled a new narrative for the BTC ecosystem and decentralization.

Since inception, the intrinsic value of BTC has never deviated from decentralization and free trade, and it remains the only cryptocurrency recognized as commodities by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Although the BTC network is not Turing Complete, developers never stopped chasing the dream to build an ecological empire of BTC that is commensurate with Ethereum. For example, the BTC Layer 2 and the Web5 network proposed by Jack Dorsey are nothing but to produce more powerful ecological project based on the decentralization of BTC.

1. Ordinals Protocol: The Renaissance of BTC

Since Casey Rodarmor created the Ordinals protocol on December 14, 2022, more than 6.41 million NFTs and Tokens have been minted as of May 14, opening a new venue for the development of the Bitcoin ecosystem. BTC NFTs are defined based on Sats (Satoshi), the smallest unit in the BTC network. The Ordinals protocol assigns a unique ID to each Satoshi, i.e., number + comment, making each otherwise homogeneous Satoshi a unique “NFT”. The Ordinals protocol endows the Satoshi with a higher value for both trading and collecting.

BTC NFT minted based on Ordinals protocol is fundamentally different from ETH NFT. Users can inscribe messages on the chain, including text/images/audio/video, but each block has only 4MB of storage space, which is the maximum for Bitcoin inscriptions.

• NFTs on Ethereum are issued and traded using smart contracts based on ERC-721 or ERC-1155 standards, and the only information stored on the chain is a Token ID composed by integers. This string of numbers is mapped to a URL, which retrieves the Metadata (name, description, image address) of the NFT. The NFT Metadata is usually stored on IPFS or centralized servers.

• The information in a BTC NFT is fully on-chain with no necessity for off-chain storage of Metadata. An NFT consists of a serial number, i.e., the mining order starts from 0, ensuring the uniqueness of each Satoshi. Because the NFT is genuinely stored on the chain, the information contained in the NFT has a size limit and cannot be modified, which is also the reason behind the craze of BTC enthusiasts.

More and more blue-chip NFT projects are also flocking into the BTC NFT ecosystem, and the outcome is rather positive. Yuga Lab’s Twelvefold was sold as high as 7.115 BTC on the auction. According to a research report from Galaxy, the Ordinals NFT market is expected to reach $4.5 billion by 2025, and the market infrastructure for Ordinals NFT will become more mature by the second quarter of 2023. Explorations on Dapps or scaling of BTC will also be a continuous topic for developers.

2. BRC-20: Evolution of the Ordinals Protocol

On March 9, the BRC-20 protocol was informally proposed by the founder, domo, which triggered a massive FOMO effect. According to Ordinalspace.org, as of May 14, more than 18,279 BRC-20 projects were developed with a total market cap of more than $500 million. Currently, the volume of BRC-20 protocol-related transactions on the BTC network has surpassed the volume of non-Ordinals protocol transactions. On May 7 and May 14, BRC-20 protocol transactions accounted for as high as more than 65% of the volume, and market sentiment seems to be continuing.

The BRC-20 protocol is a technology that supports the creation and trade of fungible tokens (FTs) on the Bitcoin blockchain using the Ordinals protocol, which compiles JSON token contract, including the token’s name, symbol, total amount, number of decimal places, etc. The name “BRC-20” is an interpretation similar to Ethereum’s ERC-20 token standard, but BRC-20 tokens are unable to interact with smart contracts, nor can they perform any automated operations.

2.1 The Incredible Pricing of Ordi

Ordi was the first token issued with the BRC-20 standard, with a limit of 1,000 tokens per mint, for a total of 21,000,000 tokens. Ordinal wallets, such as Unisat, quickly deployed tools for the BRC-20 standard, and all 21,000,000 Ordi tokens were minted in less than 18 hours. The price soared over 100 times from $0.1 to $29.04 in merely three weeks.

2.2 The Boom of Trading Market of Ordinals

The BRC-20 token mechanism is somewhat complex and additional steps are required for storage and transactions. Specifically, users need to run full nodes when minting Ordinals; in addition, there is no on-chain automated market maker on Bitcoin, in other words, a secured secondary market should be in place. Vast user demand and lucrative opportunities on transaction fees have dramatically accelerated the emergence of Ordinals trading marketplaces, even ushering in fierce competition. These infrastructures and tools primarily aim at serving Ordinals NFT, BRC-20 tokens, and BTC domains.

Ordinals went through a two-month hibernation period after its inception, during which Magic Eden recovered from the trauma of Solana and moved to the BTC NFT trading market, winning first place in terms of trading volume. With the emergence of BRC-20, Unisat became a dark horse in the trading market. Currently, Unisat has become the champion in trading volume with has over 50% market share. The creation of these tools and trading markets facilitated the multiplication of more BRC-20 tokens, resulting in the minting of over 30,000 ordinal inscriptions in a single day.

3. A Carnival Promoted by Various Parties

The BRC-20 token has more room for hype than BTC NFT, and it is indeed a willingly carnival from the perspective of retail investors, exchanges, developers, and miners.

Victory of BTC miners

The minting and trading of BRC-20 has exerted unprecedented pressure on the BTC network. The minting and trading of a series of tokens, including BRC-20, has dramatically increased BTC’s transaction fees. According to data on Glassnode, the number of transactions on the BTC blockchain reached 680,000 and 670,000 on May 1 and May 10, respectively. 403.91 BTC was paid network-wide on May 7, compared to a daily total of 21.89 BTC a month earlier, an increase of nearly 18 times. The Bitcoin fee rate has thus hit the highest record in the past 6 years. The soaring fees and block rewards are generating astonishing abnormal returns for miners.

Participation of leading ecosystem and institutions

Blue-chip Ethereum NFT projects, such as Yuga Labs, Crypto Punks, and BAYC have joined the Bitcoin ecosystem by issuing NFTs. NFT marketplaces, such as Magic Eden and several head exchanges, are also supporting the Ordinals ecosystem. For exchanges, they will benefit from more opportunities in asset management potential and incremental revenue from transaction fees. In order to enter the BTC ecosystem in a comparatively early phase and establish relationships with the community and developers, exchanges are more willing than investment institutions to become the daredevil.

Boost from BSV Community

In fact, many ecological applications of BRC-20 currently stem from the community developers of the original BSV, including the Chinese development team behind the BRC-20 wallet, Unisat, which previously developed the smart contract solution, Sensible Contract, on BSV. Members from the BSV community have accumulated wealth again thanks to BRC-20. The prevalence of BRC-20 also cultivated development opportunities for developers focused on POW chains.

4. Opportunities and Threats

Current BRC-20 token development is still in its early stages, with strong meme attributes and novelties but no practical use cases. Furthermore, the BRC-20 standard is not as comprehensive and strict as the ERC token standard, which is not considered an alternative to Bitcoin with ordinal numbers. As the founder domo stated, it was just an experiment that could encourage the Bitcoin community to improve the standard design until a consensus on the best practice can be reached. Subsequently, the ORC-20 and BRC-721 token standard were in place, which added improvements in scalability, adaptability, and security.

BRC-20 may be an interesting social experiment, but the flaws cannot be neglected: (1) the ecological infrastructure of BRC-20 tokens is almost zero, and the tokens are mostly full of meme attributes that has little value in practice; (2) the BTC ecosystem does not have an exchange to provide liquidity and guarantee the security of token transactions; (3) as BRC-20 introduces more complex mechanisms, additional tools or platforms are mandated, which ties security to platforms, which are vulnerable to malicious attacks; it goes against the decentralization of BTC; (4) Regulatory risk. BTC is more of a commodity, but BRC-20 tokens may contribute to the formation of an unregistered securities market on the Bitcoin blockchain.

In addition, the FOMO sentiment triggered by the BRC-20 tokens has led to severe congestion on the Bitcoin network, with a rare phenomenon that no single block was generated within an hour on May 8. Also, when Bitcoin fee revenue continues to exceed the rewards for block generation, it may cause Time-Bandit Attacks, where miners are more motivated to process transactions with higher fees and ignore transactions with lower fees. The BTC network currently has over 300,000 pending transactions. Numerous BTC supporters are outraged with Ordinals and the BRC-20 ecosystem, and they perceive it as an attack and harm to the BTC network.

4.1 Future Development of the BTC Ecosystem

Any new attempt comes with controversy and sparks new thoughts. We see more possibilities of narratives on BTC through BRC-20, and some preparations can be done in order to embrace the next wave of wealth opportunities when it comes. As the BTC ecosystem has received more attention from developers, solutions to the congestion problem continue to spring up, and the BTC ecology will eventually be prosperous over time.

Better token standards and smart contract markets

Nowadays, several exchanges and wallets have joined the discussion of alternative BTC-based token standards. This includes alternative data structures of JSON to reduce occupation of block storage. The Ordinals protocol and other protocols mandate better tools for indexing and managing these tokens, which cannot be achieved without contributions from developers and industry leaders.

Attracting more investors to the game

The launch of BRC-20 is more of a product pushed by the secondary market, that being said, not very much interest or attention is received from institutional investors, mainly because it is still controversial on the emergence of BRC-20. However, the innovation of Ordinals is undoubtably an avant-garde attempt for possibilities of future development of the BTC ecosystem. Such renaissance of BTC will alter investors’ stereotype of the BTC eco.

BTC layer 2 may see a revival

The BTC Layer 2 network is also flooded with developers in light of the boom of the Ethereum Layer 2. Early and more well-known examples include the Lightning Network, whose use cases range widely from social platform reward payments, cross-border remittances, merchant payments to simple transfers, etc., which can meet the needs of diverse payment scenarios; it is also one of the promising solutions of current network congestion. In addition, Liquid, RSK, and Stacks are prominent projects in the ecosystem, but the whole ecosystem is still primitive.

This article is a product of diligent work by the Huobi Research Team that is currently under Huobi Venture. Huobi Research committed to advancing the understanding and application of blockchain technology since 2018. Huobi Research, guided by public welfare, rigor, and innovation, aims to contribute to the evolution and sustainability of the blockchain industry.

References

1. https://domo-2.gitbook.io/BRC-20-experiment/

2. https://mythbtc.xyz/BRC-20-token-standard-bitcoin/

3. https://ordspace.org/brc20

4. https://www.panewslab.com/zh_hk/articledetails/1tkh32vx.html

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

Ordinals协议的出现给BTC生态带来了新的叙事空间。最近，BRC-20代币标准基于Ordinals的再创造又将市场FOMO情绪推向高潮，Huobi Research在本篇研报中讨论了Ordinals协议的缘起、BRC-20代币的机会和当前数据、BTC生态的未来发展。

• Ordinals协议赋予了BTC最小单位聪更高的交易和收藏价值，为比特币生态发展打开了新的大门。Ordinals NFT市场规模持续增加，其基础设施将成为重要赛道。

• BRC-20代币标准的尝试引发了新的财富效应，已有超过18,279个BRC-20项目在链上铸造。交易市场迅速扩张，Unisat黑马杀出重围，交易量占比超过50%以上。

• BRC-20代币风险与机遇共存。BRC-20仍然存在很多缺陷，但也为BTC未来生态发展创造了一些可能性。BTC生态处于非常早期的阶段，需要开发者和社区不断修补标准设计、建立完善基础设施。

加密市场永远不缺少热点，最近BRC-20的热度逐渐攀升，已经取代了Arbitrum的发币和空投效应。BRC-20是由domo@domodata在 Ordinals 协议的基础上提出的比特币实验性可替代代币标准。Ordinals开启了BTC生态和去中心化的新叙事。

自诞生起，BTC的核心价值一直是去中心化与自由交易，也是美国证券交易委员会（SEC）唯一承认的具有商品属性的加密货币。BTC网络不具备图灵完备，但一直以来都有开发者想去发展BTC生态，建立类似以太坊一样的生态帝国。比如BTC二层网络项目、Jack Dorsey提出的Web5网络，都是希望基于BTC的去中心化发展更为强大的生态项目。

1. Ordinals协议：BTC的文艺复兴

自2022年12月14日Casey Rodarmor创造了Ordinals 协议，截止5月14日已经超过有641万枚NFT或者Token被铸造，这为比特币生态发展打开了新的大门。BTC NFT是基于BTC网络最小计量单位Sats（聪）来定义的。Ordinals 协议为每一聪分配了唯一的身份，即编号+注释，使得每一个原本同质化聪都成为了独一无二的「NFT」。Ordinals协议赋予了聪更高的交易价值和收藏价值。

基于Ordinals协议所铸造的BTC NFT与ETH NFT有着本质区别。用户可以在链上铭刻信息，包括文字/图片/音频/视频，但每个区块的存储空间只有4MB，这是比特币铭文的上限。

• ETH的NFT利用智能合约基于ERC-721或ERC-1155标准进行发行和交易，链上储存的唯一信息即由整数构成的Token ID。这串数字会映射到URL中，以此检索到关于该NFT的Metadata（名字、描述、图片地址）。NFT Metadata通常存储在IPFS或中心化服务器。

• BTC NFT中的信息完全上链，不需要链下存储Metadata。一个NFT包括了编号，即开采顺序从0开始，保证了每一个聪的唯一性。正是因为NFT是真正存储在链上，因此NFT所包含的信息有大小限制，且无法修改。这也是BTC爱好者追捧的原因。

越来越多的蓝筹NFT项目方也加入到BTC NFT生态中，而且获得了成功。Yuga Labs 的「Twelvefold」最高以 7.115 BTC 竞标成功。根据 Galaxy 的一份研究报告表明，到 2025 年，Ordinals NFT 市场规模将达到 45 亿美元，且到 2023 年第二季度 Ordinals NFT 的市场基础设施将趋于完善。开发者也将继续探索新型去中心化软件或比特币扩展技术等。

2. BRC-20：Ordinals协议进化

3月9日，由创始人domo非正式提出BRC-20 协议引发了FOMO效应，根据ordspace.org显示，截止5月14日，已经有超过18,279个BRC-20代币项目，总市值超过5亿美元。目前，BTC网络上BRC-20协议相关交易量已经超过了非 Ordinals 协议交易量。5月7日和5月14日，BRC-20 协议交易量一度占比超 65%，市场情绪似乎仍在继续。

BRC-20 协议是一种利用 Ordinals 协议在比特币区块链上创造和交易同质化代币（FT）的技术，它使用 JSON 数据代币合约的信息，包括代币的名称、符号、总量、小数位数等。 “BRC-20”这个名字是对以太坊的 ERC-20 令牌标准的一种演绎，但是 BRC-20代币不能与智能合约进行交互，不能执行任何自动化的操作。

2.1 Ordi代币的价格奇迹

Ordi是BRC-20 标准发行的第一个代币，每铸币限额 1,000 个代币，总计 21,000,000 个代币。Unisat等 Ordinal 钱包迅速部署了适用于 BRC-20 标准的工具，在不到 18 小时的时间里，所有 21,000,000 个 ordi 代币都已铸造完成。Ordi价格也在短短三周的时间内，从 0.1 美元涨至 29.04 美元，实现了百倍的涨幅。

2.2 Ordinals交易市场的迅速扩张

BRC-20 代币机制有一定复杂性，需要额外的步骤进行存储和交易。具体来说，用户在铸造Ordinals时，需要运行全节点；此外，比特币上没有链上自动做市商，需要安全的二级市场交易。用户的需求和潜在的巨大手续费收益急剧加速了Ordinals交易市场的出现，甚至迎来了激烈的竞争。这些基础设施和辅助工具主要服务于Ordinals NFT、BRC-20代币以及BTC域名。

Ordinals 诞生后经历了两个月的蛰伏期，这期间Magic Eden从Solana的创伤中恢复，转战BTC NFT交易市场，获得了第一的交易量。而后来的BRC-20的出现，Unisat成为了交易市场的黑马。目前，Unisat已经成为交易量排名第一，拥有超过50%的市场份额。这些工具和交易市场的诞生，促进了更多BRC-20代币的倍数，导致单日就由超过30,000个序数铭文铸造。

3. 多方助推的狂欢

BRC-20代币比BTC NFT具有更大的炒作空间，从散户、交易所、开发者、矿工角度出发，这都是一场你情我愿的狂欢。

• BTC矿工的胜利

BRC-20的铸造和交易给BTC网络带来了前所未有的压力。BRC-20等一系列代币的铸造和交易，大幅增加了BTC的交易费用。根据glassnode数据，5月1日与5月10日BTC链上交易笔数分别达到68万笔和67万笔。5月7日，比特币全网手续费403.91BTC，而就在一个月前，单日比特币全网手续费仅为 21.89 BTC，增长近 18 倍。比特币手续费率也因此创下过去 6 年以来的最高记录。高昂的手续费和区块奖励为矿工创造了惊人的收益。

• 头部生态和机构的加入

Yuga Labs、Crypto Punks、BAYC等蓝筹以太坊NFT项目都已经加入了比特币生态，发行NFT。Magic Eden等NFT市场以及多家头部交易所也在支持Ordinals生态。对交易所而言，他们可以拥有更多的管理资产机会和手续费收入。为了早期进入BTC生态，与社区和开发者建立关系，不少交易所比投资机构更愿意成为第一个吃螃蟹的人。

• BSV社区的助推

根据观察，目前BRC-20的大量生态应用来自于原BSV的社区开发者，包括BRC20 钱包Unisat背后就是此前 BSV 生态的华人开发团队，曾开发 BSV 上的智能合约方案 Sensible Contract。BSV社区成员在BRC-20赛道上再次获得了财富。BRC-20的爆火也为专注于POW链的开发者提供了发展机会。

4. 风险与机会

目前的BRC-20代币发展还是早期阶段，带有强烈的meme属性和创新概念，没有实际使用场景。并且，BRC-20标准并没有像ERC代币标准那样全面和严格，这并不被认为是比特币与序数的可替代性的标准。正如创始人domo所言，这只是一个实验，并鼓励比特币社区修补标准设计和优化，直到对最佳的实践表现达成普遍的共识。之后，相继出现ORC-20和BRC-721代币标准协议。这些代币标准在扩展性、适应性和安全性上进行了改进。

BRC-20或许是一项有趣的社会实验，但无法忽略它存在很多缺陷：（1）BRC-20代币的生态基础设施几乎为零，代币多为meme属性，并没有使用价值；（2）BTC生态没有提供具有流动性的交易所，无法保障代币交易的安全性；（3）由于BRC-20为管理资产引入了更加复杂的机制，需要额外的工具或平台，这导致安全性与平台挂钩，容易受到恶意攻击，这违背了BTC的去中心化；（4）监管风险，BTC 更像商品，但BRC-20 代币可能会在比特币区块链上促成一个未注册证券市场。

此外，BRC-20代币引发的FOMO情绪，导致比特币网络严重拥堵，5月8日出现了1小时未出块的罕见现象。同时，当比特币手续费收入持续超过出块奖励，那么可能会造成时间盗贼攻击（Time-Bandit Attacks），矿工会选择处理手续费更高的交易，而忽略手续费低的交易。目前BTC网络未确认交易已经超过了30万笔。众多的BTC支持者对Ordinals或者BRC-20的生态不满，并认为这是对BTC网络的一种攻击和伤害。

4.1 BTC未来生态发展

任何一个新尝试都会引发争议和带来新的思考，我们可以通过BRC-20看到BTC叙事更多的可能性，为下一波财富密码做好准备。随着越来越多的开发者关注BTC的生态赛道，解决链上拥堵问题的方案不断涌现，相信BTC生态会逐渐繁荣。

• 更好的代币标准和智能合约市场

如今，已经有一些交易所和钱包加入到基于BTC的可替代代币标准的讨论中。包括替代JSON的数据结构以减少块空间的消耗。Ordinals协议或其它的更多协议，需要更好的索引和管理这些代币的工具。这些都需要行业开发者和引领者参与讨论。

• 吸引更多投资者入局

目前BRC-20等代币的推出更多的是二级市场的推波助澜，目前投资机构参与的兴致并不高。主要原因是目前BRC-20等代币标准的出现还存在太多争议。然而，Ordinals协议带来的创新，也是对BTC未来生态发展的一次新尝试。BTC的文艺复兴将会重塑投资者对BTC生态的刻板印象。

• BTC二层或迎来第二春

BTC二层网络在以太坊二层的繁荣下也涌入众多开发者，早期比较知名的有闪电网络，闪电网络的用例包括社交平台打赏支付、跨境汇款、商户支付、转账交易等，能够满足多样化的支付场景需求。也是解决目前网络拥堵的最好方式之一。除此之外还有Liquid、RSK、Stacks项目，BTC生态仍处于早期阶段。

参考资料

1. https://domo-2.gitbook.io/BRC-20-experiment/

2. https://mythbtc.xyz/BRC-20-token-standard-bitcoin/

3. https://ordspace.org/brc20

4. https://www.panewslab.com/zh_hk/articledetails/1tkh32vx.html

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

Summary

This trending topic report reviews the status quo of the entire Layer2 ecosystem after the issuance of Arbitrum One tokens, conclusions are as the following:

• Arbitrum’s airdrop has triggered a boom on Layer2 interactions, especially on zkSync and StarkNet, as the wealth creation effect is enormous. zkSync’s gas consumption increased by 82% over the past week. ETH test token prices also increased on Goerli.

• Chinese users are obsessed with airdrops, which were ranked the first on Google Trends in the past month.

• Other Layer2 testnets, including Scroll, Base, and Linea, will become prominent despite late entry of the market.

• Due to the prosperity of BTC NFT on Ordinal protocol, the BTC Layer2 ecosystem started to become noticed; leading projects, represented by Stacks, are beginning to accumulate efforts.

• Layer2 is still under-developed that it still has room for technical and ecological improvement, which could postpone the real Layer2 Summer to 2024.

1. The feast during Arbitrum’s airdrop

The unparalleled excitement in March 2022 is undoubtedly the Arbitrum airdrop; the price of $ARB is in line with expectations, stabilized around $1~$1.5. According to the official airdrop rules, 625,143 addresses are qualified for the airdrop, and the supply of airdrops exceeded 1 billion, with each address receiving an average of 1,859 $ARB, valued $24,167, which is undoubtedly a fortune, and the interaction cost will not exceed $10. Since the release of the airdrop rules, the TVL of Arbitrum One has soared all the way to $2.25 billion, accounting for 66.86% of the whole Layer2 ecosystem; the number of unique addresses is over 4 million that the number of weekly active users reached as high as 1.38 million. Even after the airdrop and token offering, Arbitrum’s on-chain activity is still higher than other L1 chains as well as the Ethereum mainnet.

Some interesting things happened during Arbitrum’s airdrop:

(1) Arbitrum’s airdrop rules did not effectively screen sybil addresses, which means some certain individuals or groups received a considerable amount of fortune: 1007 addresses of this type received airdrops with a sum of 1 million $ARB. Moreover, the airdrop rules were not effective in banning the following four types of sybils:

• Sybils with less than 20 addresses;

• Sybils who access through exchanges, cross-chain bridges, and smart contracts;

• Sybils with obvious NFT or fund sweeping behavior after the snapshot;

• Sybils with obvious bulk processing behavior on other chains, e.g., OP, Ethereum.

(2) Due to the wealth effect, a large number of users flocked to other Layer2 projects that has not yet issued tokens for interactions, especially the remaining of the Layer2 Big Four: zkSync and StarkNet. Even the Goerli testnet has footprints of users, which endows the test tokens with a price.

(3) Layer2 interactions become frequent, ETH are burnt as gas, and ETH has seen stable deflation. Gas consumption of ZkSync has skyrocketed 82% in the past week to 1,003 ETH.

(4) Chinese users are obsessed with airdrops. From Google trends, China is ranked number one in the world for zkSync searches in the past month.

(5) The FDV reached $1.5B after the $ARB token offering, Arbitrum’s market cap of mainstream ecosystem dropped, and on-chain activity returned to the level before in this week. The industry is still in the shadow of bear market, and when the positive sentiment of token offering is exhausted, the pessimistic sentiment may be all that is left, and on-chain funds may be transferred to catch up with a new narrative.

2. Airdrop opportunities on Ethereum Layer2

The level of decentralization and performance of the underlying technology of OP system (such as node downtime, sequencer problem) is somewhat negligible because users care more about the wealth effect. Optimism and Arbitrum have accumulated considerable market share in the Layer2 segment through ecological retention and airdrops as incentives for user acquisition. Furthermore, as Layer2 becomes more and more mature, and with the help of EIP-4844, which significantly reduced cost on Layer2, other L1 chains have been outperformed by Layer2. Just as the bull market in 2021 was the spring of new L1 chains, the Layer2 Summer carries all the anticipations and fantasies from all users.

Witnessed the success of Optimism and Arbitrum, the remaining two projects of the Big Four in Layer2, zkSync and StarkNet, will have to demonstrate more sincere attitude for better user acquisition. The competition between projects and the wealth effect stemmed from the FOMO sentiment of users have already made the Layer2 Summer almost a reality. Below, the status quo and ecological development of various projects on Ethereum Layer2 is summarized for reference for the sake of airdrop seekers.

2.1 zkSync era

Developed by Matter Labs, zkSync leverages zero-knowledge proofs, specifically zk-Rollups, to bundle multiple transactions into a single proof that can then be validated on Ethereum. zkSync is a promising scaling solution in the blockchain ecosystem designed to address the challenges of costly fees and network congestion on Ethereum. It enables more practical and efficient use of decentralized applications and digital assets by providing a secure, scalable and low-cost alternative.

On March 24, the development team of zkSync, Matter Labs announced the official opening of the zkSync Era mainnet to users. zkSync Lite is version 1.0, and zkSync Era is essentially version 2.0 of zkSync, which allows users to build abstract mnemonic code, by upgrading from externally owned accounts (EOA) to smart contract accounts (CA), to schedule and automate payments and pay gas fees in any token — even on behalf of other users.

Currently, the TVL of zkSync Era network reaches $42.86M, and zkSync Era has risen 47,000% in the past week. According to Dune Analytics, the number of zkSync Era individual addresses has reached 241,765, and 58,554 ETH has crossed to the zkSync Era network. According to Defillama, 9 DeFi projects are archived, mainly DEXs. There have been 34 projects officially announced, including wallets, cross-chains, NFT, etc. However, fewer innovative projects are witnessed; current ecosystem is still somewhat behind the OP system. User interaction can be completed via:

• official cross-chain bridge;

• interactions with DEX to redeem tokens or become LP;

• participation in lending projects;

• participation in domain name or NFT minting.

2.1.1 Reviews of some projects in the zkSync eco

(1) DeFi

(2) NFT Marketplace & Projects

(3) Other

2.2 Starknet

StarkNet is an Ethereum layer 2 scaling network empowered by zero-knowledge proofs, specifically zk-STARK technology. It was developed by StarkWare, a company dedicated on creating cryptographic proof systems to improve the scalability and privacy of various blockchain networks. StarkWare created two projects using zk technology: StarkEx and StarkNet. StarkEx was officially launched in 2020, providing specific Rollup technology services to each application. Projects developed based on StarkEX include Sorare, immutableX, dYdX, etc. StarkNet is capable of deploying a generic Rollup for any smart contract; the mainnet was launched in November 2021, and over 50 ecological projects are active.

Given that StarkWare is currently valued at $8 billion, the value of projects in the ecosystem must be commensurate with the reputation. StarkNet has announced on November 16, 2022 that the deployment of native token $STRK on Ethereum mainnet was completed for voting, staking and processing of fee payment; token allocation is still to be decided.

2.2.1 Reviews of some projects in the zkSync eco

(1) DeFi

(2) NFT Marketplace & Projects

(3) DID

(4) Game

2.3 Young talents in Layer2

Among other Layer2 projects followed by the Big Four, Scroll is the only project that is slightly behind zkSync and Starnet in terms of popularity. Scroll received $30 million in Series A funding in April 2022 and $50 million in July 2023 respectively. Scroll’s goal is to build an EVM-compatible zk-Rollup, and the team is mostly Chinese. Currently, the development of Scroll is on track: the alpha testnet is in progress, achieving 1 million unique addresses and 16 million transactions during the pre-alpha release, and the total amount of ETH in the testnet continues to grow recently. The Scroll ecosystem is not yet in full shape, and users have few projects to participate in. For example, users with strong coding skills can deploy smart contracts on Uniswap, but Goerli test tokens must be in place to access.

Another Layer2 project that is worth some attention is the Base network developed by Coinbase, which was announced by Coinbase on February 23. Base is established on OPStack; the testnet has been released, and the mainnet is expected to be released in two months. In March, Base also saw far more contract deployments than Arbitrum and Optimism. The launch of Base facilitates the development of Coinbase’s own decentralized applications, and in the future, combined with the account abstraction technology of Coinbase Wallet and Smart Contract Wallet, Coinbase’s customers will be able to conveniently access the financial service protocols on Base.

Coinbase has announced four major directions supported by the Base ecological fund: 1) stablecoins that track inflation rates (flatcoins); 2) on-chain reputation platforms; 3) on-chain limit order book (LOB) trading platforms; 4) more secure DeFi, which includes tools that can prevent loop holes in smart contract code or protocol logic errors, and eventually on-chain insurance and insurance protocols, or any other products that can provide critical support to users in the event of a smart contract failure.

Recently, in addition to the increasing heat of the Polygon’s zkEVM mainnet launch, Consensys has also opened a testnet for its zkEVM project — Linea. Last week, Linea saw a record high of over 10,000 Goerli ETH flew in on a single day. There are currently over 110,000 addresses on Linea, with about 115,000 Goerli ETH deposited and over 590,000 transactions completed. Interaction on Linea is similar to that on Scroll, which mandates Goerli test tokens as a prerequisite. Currently, the applications that users can interact with are relatively limited, including hop (a cross-chain bridge), Uniswap and MES protocol (DEX), and ghostNFT (NFT).

3. Status quo and development path of BTC Layer2

With the prevalence of the Ethereum Layer2, the Bitcoin Layer 2 network has also seen an influx of developers. The Lightning Network was one of the earlier projects: use cases for the Lightning Network include tipping on social platform, cross-border remittances, merchant payments, transfer of funds, etc. that covers most payment scenarios. Since El Salvador monetized Bitcoin in 2021, the number of payments and amount paid by BTC via the Lightning Network rose rapidly. As of March 27, 2023, the Lightning Network has a total of 18,000 nodes and nearly 80,000 payment channels (source: bitcoinvisuals).

However, the Lightning Network is incompetent to carry diverse ecological applications as that on Ethereum. Since the Taproot upgrade, developers are able to embed metadata of assets so that BTC could become a data platform, which makes the BTC Layer2 a promising concept. In February, BTC NFT, which is based on Ordinal Protocol, has introduced the BTC native ecology and ordinal NFT concept to the market. Since then, the BTC ecology is once again under the spotlight. 3 famous projects on the BTC Layers2 are briefly summarized in below:

So far, the BTC ecosystem is still far behind Ethereum, many are optimistic about BitcoinFi for the following two reasons: (1) the decentralization of the BTC network, given that the POS nodes of the Ethereum mainnet are almost all deployed on Amazon, Microsoft and Google Cloud; (2) the Ethereum ecosystem has been excessively exploited, while the BTC ecosystem is still a blue ocean.

4. Conclusion and reflection

Arbitrum’s airdrop has started a craze in Layer2, however, a series of problems are also triggered by the FOMO sentiment behind: 1. The progress of projects are usually neglected since the enthusiasm is mostly motivated by speculative activities. Compared to AI, the development path of blockchain has produced too much abnormal return along the way so that users did not indeed appreciate the technological advancement by the product, which somewhat impedes the overall development of the industry. 2. Although it is still a bear market, the game and reave between various capital holders become more intense. 3. Layer2 carries more expectations than Layer1 chains. Too much capital is accumulated on Ethereum, but ZK has seen an extremely slow pace of development, especially on zkvm. 4. The competition of airdrop is unprecedently competitive, which shrinks the profit almost to zero. Powerful projects may choose IDO, which is subjective and justified, for example, Sui.

The other projects on the Ethereum Layer2, such as Starknet, which oversees a much richer ecosystem than zkSync, is not in a hurry for token issuance; the service charge from Starkware is lucrative enough for a positive return. Layer2 projects built with zkevm as the core technology should be more promising, such as Scroll and Linea, but interactions with these projects may be slightly complicated as ETH test tokens must be purchased.

The BTC Layer2 is slow in development and meanwhile controversial. In my humble opinion, BTC could become more realistic when taking the route as payment or NFT collection. Other ecological applications will also face the obstacles of gas fee, and network congestion will also impair user experience, and the Ethereum ecosystem is difficult to be cloned.

Will the Layer2 Summer take place this year? For those enthusiastic airdrop seekers, the answer is trivial, for the cost of on-chain interaction is negligible; but in terms of timing, it is still in a bear market, the entire market and exchanges have seen outflows of stablecoins, and the liquidity of BTC and ETH is also weak, which implies that the summer of 2023 may not be a good timing for projects to initiate token offering. As a result, this summer may not be the real Layer2 Summer, and it is expected to appear next summer. The EIP-4844 upgrade is completed, on-chain applications prosper, ushering in a brand-new start of next bull market.

References

[1]https://mirror.xyz/0x30bF18409211FB048b8Abf44c27052c93cF329F2/DSAO5lW92IWKUNnwoZJwZUpB8M3A8llSdkTN-dmeYyI

[2] https://consensys.net/blog/research-development/consensys-zkevm-is-ready-for-public-testnet/

[3] https://Goerli.linea.build/

[4] https://www.odaily.news/post/5186161

[5] https://www.wu-talk.com/index.php？m=content&c=index&a=show&catid=38&id=12865

[6] https://www.fx168news.com/article/150875

[7] https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articledetails/ws25r0c3.html

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

摘要

本篇热点报告主要复盘了Arbitrum one 发行代币后整个Layer2生态的现状，得到以下结论：

• Arbitrum的空投带来了造富效应，引发了Layer2交互热潮，尤其是zkSync和StarkNet。ZkSync的gas消耗在过去一周上涨了82%。Goerli ETH测试币价格上涨。

• 中国用户对空投情有独钟，过去一个月，google trends排名第一。

• 其它Layer2 测试网项目，包括Scroll、Base、Linea将成为后起之秀。

• 由于Ordinal 协议的 BTC NFT的火爆，BTC 二层生态开始受到瞩目，以Stacks为首的二层项目开始蓄力。

• 二层技术和生态还需不断完善，真正Layer2之夏要到2024年。

1. Arbitrum空投下的狂欢

2022年3月最令人兴奋的事情无疑是Arbitrum的空投，$ARB价格也符合大家的预期，稳定在$1~$1.5附近。根据官方空投规则，625,143个地址获得空投资格，空投供应量超过1b，每个地址平均获得1,859个$ARB，价值约为$24,167，这无疑带来了一大波财富效应，且交互成本不会超过$10。自发布空投规则后，Arbitrum One 的 TVL一路上涨至今已达到$2.25b，占据整个 layer2 生态的 66.86%，唯一地址数也超过400万，空投当周活跃用户数达到了1.38m。即使在空投和发币结束后，Arbitrum的链上活跃度也要高于其它公链及以太坊主网。

Arbitrum的空投带来了一些有趣的现象：

（1） Arbitrum的空投规则并没有有效的屏蔽女巫地址。这导致某些个人和团体获得了巨额的财富，有1007个合约地址也收到了空投，总数约100万，并且空投规则无法有效防止以下四种类型的女巫：

• 地址少于 20 个的女巫；

• 通过交易所、跨链桥接、智能合约存取款的女巫；

• 快照后具有明显的 NFT 或资金归集行为的女巫；

• 在其他链上具有明显批处理行为的女巫，如 OP，以太坊。

（2） 由于财富效应，大批用户涌入其它未发币的Layer2项目做交互，尤其是Layer2四大天王项目剩下的zkSync和StarkNet，甚至Goerli测试网的项目也吸引了用户的涉足，Goerli ETH测试币开始有了价格。

（3） Layer2交互频繁，ETH gas燃烧，ETH稳定通缩。ZkSync的gas消耗在过去一周上涨了82%，达到了1003枚ETH。

（4） 中国用户对空投情有独钟。从Google trends上看，中国在zkSync的搜索量在过去一个月排名全球第一。

（5） $ARB代币发行后，FDV达到$1.5B，Arbitrum的主流生态市值下降，链上活动本周也回到了发币前的状态。现阶段行业仍处于熊市，发币利好出尽后，可能就是利空。链上资金又迅速转移到新的叙事中。

2. 以太坊二层的空投机会

无论OP系的底层技术是否真的去中心化及高性能（比如节点宕机、排序器问题），用户关心的还是财富效应。Optimism 和 Arbitrum 通过生态积累加上空投抢用户的方式，获得了Layer2生态中很好的市场份额。并且，随着 Layer2 生态愈发成熟，加之EIP-4844 将大幅降低Layer2费用，Layer2与其它公链相比已占据了很大优势。2021年的加密行业牛市是新公链的大爆发，而Layer2之夏也是所有用户的期待。

在Optimism和Arbitrum成功的前提下，Layer2剩下的两个王者项目zkSync 和 StarkNet想要抢占市场需要拿出更多的诚意。项目间的竞争和用户的 fomo 带来的财富效应已经让 Layer2 Summer 呼之欲出。下面，我们梳理了以太坊Layer2项目的进展情况和生态发展，为各位空投用户提供参考。

2.1 zkSync era

zkSync 由 Matter Labs 开发，利用零知识证明，特别是 zk-Rollups，将多个交易捆绑到一个证明中，然后可以在以太坊区块链上进行验证。zkSync 是区块链生态系统中一个很有前途的扩展解决方案，旨在解决以太坊上高额费用和网络拥塞的挑战。 通过提供安全、可扩展且低成本的替代方案，它可以更实用、更高效地使用去中心化应用程序和数字资产。

3月24日，zkSync 开发团队 Matter Labs 宣布 zkSync Era 主网正式向用户开放。zkSync Lite是1.0版本，zkSync Era 本质上是 zkSync 的 2.0 版本，通过从外部拥有账户 (EOA) 升级到智能合约账户 (CA)，用户可以构建抽象助记词、安排和自动支付以及以任何代币支付 gas 费 — — 甚至可以代表其他用户支付 gas 费。

目前，zkSync Era网络TVL达$42.86M，zkSync Era过去一周涨幅达到47000%。，据 Dune Analytics 数据信息，zkSync Era单一地址数已达 241,765个，已有 58,554 枚 ETH 跨链进入 zkSync Era网络。根据Defillama数据，已收录的DeFi项目有9个，以DEX项目为主。而官宣上线的项目已有34个，包括钱包、跨链、NFT等，但创新项目较少，离OP系的生态还有一定的差距。用户交互可以选择：（1）使用官方跨链桥；（2）与DEX交互，兑换代币或成为LP；（3）参与借贷项目；（4）参与域名或NFT铸造。

2.1.1 zkSync生态部分项目盘点

（1）DeFi

（2）NFT Marketplace & Projects

（3）其它

2.2 Starknet

StarkNet 是利用零知识证明，特别是 zk-STARK 技术实现以太坊二层扩容网络。 它由 StarkWare 开发，该公司专注于创建加密证明系统以提高各种区块链网络的可扩展性和隐私性。StarkWare利用zk技术创建了两个项目StarkEx和StarkNet。StarkEx 为每一个应用提供专门的 Rollup 技术服务， 2020 年正式上线。基于 StarkEX 开发的项目有 Sorare、immutableX、dYdX等。StarkNet可以部署任意的智能合约的通用型 Rollup。2021 年 11 月上线主网，已经上线的生态项目超过50个。

鉴于StarkWare 目前估值 80 亿美金，StarkNet 生态项目的含金量不用多说。StarkNet 已经于 2022 年 11 月 16 日宣布在以太坊主网上部署了其原生代币$STRK，用于投票、质押和支付费用，代币分配仍待决定。

2.2.1 Starknet生态部分项目盘点

（1）DeFi

（2）NFT Marketplace & Projects

（3）DID

（4）Game

2.3 后起之秀的Layer2项目

紧追四大天王的Layer2项目中，Scroll是目前热度仅次于zkSync和Starnet。Scroll分别在2022年4月获得了3000万美元的A轮融资，以及2023年7月获得了5000万美元融资。Scroll的目标是构建一个兼容EVM的zk-Rollup，团队成为以华人为主。目前，Scroll项目进展顺利，alpha 测试网阶段正在进行中，在 pre-alpha 版本期间，实现了 100 万个唯一地址和 1600 万笔交易，近期测试网的ETH总量也在增加。Scroll生态尚未完全形成，用户能够参与的项目很少，比如Uniswap，代码能力强的用户可以部署智能合约，但是都需要获得Goerli测试币。

另外一个值得关注的Layer2项目是Coinbase开发的Base网络，该项目是Coinbase于2 月 23 日宣布推出。Base基于 OP Stack技术，目前 Base 已开放测试网并预计在两个月后发布主网。3月，Base的合约部署数量也远超Arbitrum和Optimism。Base的推出有助于 Coinbase 自己的去中心化应用的开发和部署，在未来结合 Coinbase Wallet 和智能合约钱包的账户抽象技术，可以让 Coinbase 的客户非常方便地进入 Base 承载的金融服务协议。

Coinbase公布了Base生态基金支持的四大方向：1、可跟踪通货膨胀率的稳定币（flatcoins）；2、链上声誉平台；3、链上限价订单簿（LOB）交易平台；4、更安全的 DeFi，这包括可以防止智能合约代码漏洞或协议逻辑错误的工具，以及最终的链上保险和保险协议，或任何其他在智能合约失败时可以为用户提供关键支持的产品。

近期，除了Polygon zkEVM主网上线热度高涨之外，Consensys也开放了其zkEVM项目Linea的测试网。上周，Linea 均有单日超过 1 万枚 Goerli ETH 流入，创下新高。目前 Linea 链上共有超过 11 万个地址，存入了约 11.5 万枚 Goerli ETH，完成了超过 59 万笔交易。Linea的交互与Scroll类似，需要去获取Goerli的测试币。目前，用户可以交互的应用比较有限，包括跨链桥hop，DEX: Uniswap、MES protocol，NFT: ghostNFT。

3. BTC二层网络发展及现状

随着以太坊二层方案的风生水起，比特币二层网络也涌入了众多开发者，早期比较知名的有闪电网络，闪电网络的用例包括社交平台打赏支付、跨境汇款、商户支付、转账交易等，能够满足多样化的支付场景需求。2021年萨尔瓦多将比特币法币化后，闪电网络的支付数量和金额迅速上升。截止至2023年3月27日，闪电网络一共有1.8万个节点，近8万个支付通道（数据来源：bitcoinvisuals）。

但闪电网络并不能承载类似以太坊多样的生态应用，自 BTC taproot 升级之后，开发人员可嵌入资产元数据，让 BTC 具备成为数据平台的可能。BTC 二层概念脱颖而出。2 月，基于 Ordinal 协议的 BTC NFT ，给市场带来了 BTC 原生生态及序数 NFT 概念，BTC 生态再度受瞩。这里整理了3个BTC 二层知名项目。

目前，BTC 生态距离以太坊还有很大的距离，很多人看好BitcoinFi的原因有以下两点：（1）BTC网络的去中心化，以太坊主网的pos节点几乎全在亚马逊和微软谷歌云；（2）以太坊生态已被过度开发，而BTC生态还是一篇蓝海。

4. 结论与思考

Arbtrum的空投引发了Layer2热潮，fomo的背后，也引发了一系列的问题：1. 投机者过于热情，反而忽略了项目本身的发展，区块链本身的技术进步，与AI相比，造富效应过于明显，而使得用户并没有享受产品带来的技术先进性，这其实非常不利于行业发展；2. 虽然是熊市，场内资金博弈和互割反而越发激烈；3. 大家对Layer2的期待远高于公链，以太坊生态承载了太多资金，但zk技术尤其是zkvm发展缓慢；4. 空投太卷，反而无利可图。更有实力的项目可能会选择IDO的方式，比如公链Sui，可能客观且公正的。

以太坊Layer2的其它项目，例如Starknet的生态要比zkSync丰富的多，但它不急于发币，Starkware公司收取的服务费也已完全能够使其盈利。笔者反而更加看好以zkevm为技术核心的Layer2项目，比如Scroll和Linea。但这些项目的交互略为复杂，需要购买ETH测试币。

BTC二层发展缓慢，也倍受争议。笔者认为BTC走支付赛道，或者NFT collection可能更具有实际意义。其它生态应用会有gas fee的阻碍，链上拥堵也会降低用户体验，以太坊生态也难以移植。

今年会不会发生Layer2之夏？对于刷空投的卷王来说，不管有没有，链上交互的成本可能是微不足道的，但从时间点来说，目前还处于熊市，整个市场链上和交易所的稳定币都在持续流出，BTC和ETH的流动性也不好，所以2023年的夏季不利于项目方发行代币。也许我们迎来的不是2023年的Layer2之夏，真正Layer2之夏，需要在2024年的夏天出现，以太坊EIP-4844已升级完成，链上应用百花齐放，这也许就是下一个牛市的开端。

参考资料

1.https://mirror.xyz/0x30bF18409211FB048b8Abf44c27052c93cF329F2/DSAO5lW92IWKUNnwoZJwZUpB8M3A8llSdkTN-dmeYyI

2. https://consensys.net/blog/research-development/consensys-zkevm-is-ready-for-public-testnet/

3. https://Goerli.linea.build/

4. https://www.odaily.news/post/5186161

5. 以太坊 L2 zkSync Era 主网上线，有哪些生态项目值得关注

6. https://www.fx168news.com/article/150875

7. https://www.panewslab.com/zh/articledetails/ws25r0c3.html

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

Summary

Traditional market-making first emerged in early 19th century, and it has now become mature in development, diversified in trading varieties, and relatively stable in business model and return. As critical as it is in the financial market, market-makers have provided unparalleled liquidity and efficiency to the market. As the market continues to expand, more and more institutions and investment banks have joined the market-making business, which has become an irreplaceable revenue stream. The overall market-making business is dense on the top, and the competition is intense. In order to obtain higher market share, market-makers are continuously upgrading algorithms, technology, risk management and compliance, and the scope has been extended to the crypto world.

Although the market-making business in crypto is not inherently distinct from that in traditional finance, there is a world of difference in terms of operations, technology, risk management and regulation. First, by scale, the crypto market is still relatively small compared to the traditional financial market, and so are the market-makers. The crypto market is volatile with relatively low liquidity level, market-makers have to be more meticulous and apply higher level of risk management. Second, market-makers in the crypto market are also known as the house. Since the trading process in the crypto market is difficult to be regulated and there is no strict code of conduct to be enforced on market-makers, the relationship between exchanges, project parties and market-makers becomes quite complicated. As a result, the market-making business does not only exist on CEXs, but also on-chain, which lays a foundation for some middleware and protocols to provide services to market-making activities. Last but not least, in terms of technical architecture, higher technical capability is desired to ensure the security of transactions in the crypto industry.

The market-making business in the crypto world is a Blue Ocean market that is full of opportunities yet with risks lie within. Currently, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the United States are tightening regulation on the crypto market so that many institutions and businesses are being affected. What’s worse, under the bear market, it was frequently seen crashes of large institutions, posing a stronger challenge to market-makers on their risk management capability. In addition, crypto market-makers are also exposed to fragmented market, low interoperability, low capital efficiency, regulatory uncertainty, and undeveloped exchange technology and connectivity.

Even so, room for development and profitability remain considerable for market-makers. Crypto market-makers will look more like market-makers in traditional finance in the future by demonstrating the following characteristics:

• diversification of participants;

• diversification of varieties;

• high leverage;

• the 80–20 rule will be more prominent.

For potential investment, centralized small market- making strategies or service-oriented projects, tools that address interoperability, and CeDeFi projects are worth some attention.

1. Traditional Market-making

A market-maker is an institution or individual that provides liquidity in the financial markets; the main responsibility is to provide liquidity and market depth to the securities trading market. Market-makers usually trade between buyers and sellers in the securities trading market and provide quotes in the market so that other traders can trade on that quote to buy or sell. Market-makers are usually made up of investment banks, securities firms or professional organizations that play an important role in the market and foster market stability and liquidity. Market-makers typically trade in one or more markets simultaneously and provide liquidity by buying and selling the same asset in order to provide trading opportunities for market participants.

A market-maker’s main goal is to profit from spread when asset prices fluctuate, therefore, algorithms and other techniques are normal tools for market-makers to analyze the market, identify opportunities, and conduct trading activities in a short period. Market-makers may trade in a variety of markets, including stocks, foreign exchange, commodities, and bonds.

1.1 Industry Overview

1.1.1 Industry functions and clients

The role of market-makers in financial markets is crucial and distinct from other market participants, especially in providing liquidity and market efficiency. Specifically, market-makers perform six main duties:

• Providing liquidity: provide liquidity between buyers and sellers to keep the market active.

• Quoting: providing bid and ask prices at all times to facilitate trading between market participants.

• Managing risk: market-makers manage trading risk and maintain a healthy risk to reward ratio to protect their own interests and those of their clients.

• Providing advice: Market-makers provide market information and analysis to help clients make better trading decisions.

• Improving market efficiency: Market-makers can increase market efficiency, reduce the spread between buyers and sellers, and improve the efficiency and competitiveness of the market.

• Providing innovative products: Introduce new products according to market demand to meet the different investment needs of clients.

Major types of clients for market-makers include the following:

• Traders: Market-makers provide liquidity to traders and help them trade quickly and efficiently.

• Investment Institutions: Market-makers provide liquidity and services to investment institutions to help them with asset allocation and risk management.

• High Frequency Trading Firms: Market-makers provide liquidity and services to high frequency trading firms to help them make fast, high frequency trades.

• Individual investors: Market-makers provide liquidity and services to individual investors to help them trade financial products such as stocks and futures.

• Other Financial Institutions: Market-makers also provide liquidity and services to other financial institutions, such as banks and insurance companies.

1.1.2 History of market-making

The development path of market-making can be divided into five phases:

• Before the 19th century: At the initial stage of market-making, trades were aggregated in the traditional over-the-counter market. The market-making system is one of the oldest securities trading systems, originated in the traditional over-the-counter market, where dealers took on the role of market-makers themselves to facilitate transactions and reduce transaction costs, providing bilateral quotes to other dealers or clients, and quoting mostly in the traditional way, such as field communication and telephone communication.

• 1900s-1970s: Regulated exchanges emerged and grew at a rapid pace that market-makers providing liquidity in floor trading. In the 19th century, the American Stock Exchange, the Chicago Stock Exchange and other major US exchanges were established. At that time, market-makers were mostly seen active on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE). During that period, market-making activities were mostly conducted manually rather than by computer programs. Market-makers list quotes from both buyers and sellers on the stock exchange’s trading book as a basis for providing market liquidity.

• 1970s-1980s: With the development of computer, market-makers began to gradually apply electronic trading systems, which made trading faster and more efficient. During the 1970s and 1980s, market-makers’ trading volumes grew rapidly, and their trading strategies and techniques continued to be innovative and optimized.

• The 1990s: The late 20th century saw the rise of institutional investors and retail discount brokers, and the market share of market-making internal aggregation platform trading continued to rise. On the one hand, the rise of institutional investors such as mutual funds and pension funds in the U.S. significantly increased the demand of institutional investors for block trades, and large investment banks represented by Goldman Sachs were able to provide comprehensive services for institutional investors, and had a comparative advantage in undertaking market-making business related to block trades; on the other hand, the volume of retail securities trading undertaken by retail discount brokers such as Robinhood and Charles Schwab has increased dramatically, and such discount brokers mainly transfer orders to the market-making platform in exchange for payment from the market-maker on this purpose (Payment for Order Flow). With the globalization of financial markets, market-makers began to expand their business globally and faced increasingly fierce competition. During this period, market-makers began to adopt more sophisticated and advanced trading strategies and technologies in order to increase trading efficiency and profitability.

• 21st century: As financial markets continue to innovate and evolve, the role of market-makers has been gradually expanded and consolidated. In the 21st century, market-makers began to enter emerging markets, such as cryptocurrency markets and options markets, while also adopting more advanced technical tools, such as artificial intelligence and machine learning.

1.1.3 Market size and competitive landscape

According to FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority), the regulator of financial industry, the number of legal market-makers registered in the United States exceeds 500 as of September 2021. These market-makers are regulated by FINRA. According to the Office of the Comptroller General of the Currency (OCC), the total combined revenue from transactions by holding companies of U.S. commercial banks remained at the level of $50 billion from 2012–2018 despite a year-over-year decline in trading revenue in some special years represented by 2018, which is dragged down by secondary market conditions, the fluctuation is relatively small and a trend of growth is spotted. The banking industry has seen further growth in revenue from transactions since 2019, the combined revenue by holding companies of US commercial banks in 2019, 2020, and 2021 is $75.126, $79.512, and $78.946 billion, respectively. The size, or market share, of a market-maker firm is often related to the extent to which it provides liquidity in that market, specifically, the market share of a market-maker can be measured by several metrics:

• Volume share: The volume share of a market-maker in a given market reflects its trading activity and influence in that market.

• Depth of quote: The depth of a market-maker’s quote in a given market, i.e., the volume and price at which it intends to trade, can reflect the extent to which it provides liquidity in that market.

• Trading efficiency: The efficiency of a market-maker’s trading in a given market, i.e., the capability to trade instantly and efficiently.

In all, the market share of market-makers is an important indicator of their performance in terms of trading activity, liquidity provision and trading efficiency in the market.

Some of the more prominent market-maker firms are as follows:

• Jane Street: A quantitative trading firm based in New York City, USA, founded in 2000, focusing on stocks, futures, and foreign exchange.

• Citadel Securities: A financial company headquartered in Chicago, USA, founded in 2002, is one of the largest market-makers in the world, mainly involved in trading stocks, futures, foreign exchange, bonds and other areas.

• IMC Trading: A financial company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, founded in 1989, is one of the world’s leading market-makers in stocks, futures and foreign exchange.

• Optiver: Financial company based in Amsterdam, Netherlands, founded in 1986, is one of the world’s largest market-makers in options, and also involved in other areas of trading.

• Susquehanna International Group: Financial firm based in Philadelphia, USA, founded in 1987, is one of the world’s largest market-makers in options, also involved in other areas of trading.

• Jump Trading: A quantitative trading firm based in Chicago, Illinois, USA, founded in 1999. The company is dedicated to trading using advanced algorithms and sophisticated technology to find profit opportunities. Jump Trading is involved in various markets such as stocks, futures, forex, and digital currencies on a global scale.

1.2 Prerequisites for a Market-making Company

Establishing a market-making firm is difficult because it requires a high degree of financial strength, technical capability and market insight, as well as the need to meet the regulatory requirements of financial regulators and the ability to survive a highly competitive market and high-risk management pressure.

1.2.1 Understand the market

Market-makers need to have an in-depth understanding of market rules, liquidity, trading varieties and behavioal patterns of traders in order to make the right trading decisions. They must be able to capture the trends and opportunities in the market in order to gain an edge in the market. There are several ways to understand the market.

(1) Researching market information and data: Market-makers need to research historical and current market trading data in order to understand the market and price fluctuations. Market-makers can obtain market information through the use of trading software or via market data providers.

(2) Tracking news and events: Market-makers also need to be aware of market-related news and events, such as reports from companies, political situations and macroeconomic data. This information may have an impact on market prices and help market-makers make better decisions.

(3) Communicating with other traders: Market-makers can learn about the market by communicating with other traders. For example, they can attend trading conferences or webinars to exchange views on market developments with other traders.

(4) Adopting trading strategies and models: Market-making firms may use trading strategies and models to predict market trends and price movements. These models may include methods such as technical analysis, fundamental analysis and quantitative analysis.

1.2.2 Establish a technological platform

An efficient and stable technological platform that could support real-time trading and data analysis is a must for market-makers. The platform needs to include algorithms for instant trade execution, high-speed data transmission and processing, and secure trade settlement. Specifically, market-making firms must possess the following five types of technology:

(1) Trading technologies: for securities, futures, options, etc., including the use of trading platforms, order management, risk control, etc.

(2) Data analytics: for getting a gist of market sentiment and trends, including data mining, machine learning, artificial intelligence, etc.

(3) Quantitative trading: enabling high frequency trading and instant trading, including algorithmic trading, high-frequency trading, programmed trading, etc.

(4) Risk management: ensuring the safety and stability of trading, including risk control, money management, market monitoring, etc.

(5) Software development: developing and maintaining trading systems and trading tools, including programming languages, database management, software testing, etc.

1.2.3 Determine capital requirements

Market-making firms require significant capital to support trading activities. The amount of capital as well as the source of capital must be identified prior to entering the market. Here is how to determine how much capital will be needed:

(1) Calculate market liquidity requirements: Market liquidity requirements are the amount of capital that market-makers must provide in order to make buy and sell transactions in the market. Methods for determining liquidity requirements include measuring indicators such as market trading volume, trading frequency and position size to estimate the amount of capital to be invested.

(2) Consider margin requirements: Many exchanges and markets require market-makers to provide a certain level of margin to ensure that market-makers are compliant with their trading rules in the market. Extra funds must be prepared to meet the margin requirements.

(3) Consider transaction costs: Transaction costs are the fees market-makers need to pay for trading in the market, including commissions, quote spreads, clearing fees, etc. The transaction costs must be taken into consideration when budgeting.

(4) Consider market volatility: Market volatility can cause market-makers to suffer losses. Sufficient capital must be reserved to cover market volatility.

In summary, determining how much capital a market-maker needs requires a variety of factors to be considered, and it needs to be analyzed and calculated on a case-by-case scenario. What’s worth noting is that capital requirements are a dynamic process; it needs to be constantly adjusted based on market changes and business expansions.

1.2.4 Implement risk management

Market-makers need to manage risk in order to ensure the safety and stability of trading. A risk management strategy that includes trading risk, liquidity risk, market risk and operational risk must be effective.

Market risk management is to ensure that trading activities remains on track despite the market condition is favorable or not. For example, market-makers may use hedging strategies, leverage controls and trading restrictions to manage market risk. Operational risk management is to confirm that no errors or mistakes are made in the trading process. For example, market-makers can manage operational risk by establishing good trading processes and trading rules, and by strengthening measures such as internal auditing and monitoring. Technical risk management is to eliminate the possibility that the stability and security of the trading system is undermined. For example, market-makers can adopt backup and recovery strategies, network security measures and data encryption to mitigate technical risk. Credit risk management is to prevent issues such as default or loss of non-performing assets from occurring during the trading process. For example, market-makers can employe credit assessment and monitoring, margin management and risk control to lower credit risk.

1.3 Operations and Market-making Mechanism

On a trading platform, market-makers provide liquidity through two-way quotes (buy and sell), which can be generally divided into the following steps.

(1) Select the target: choose one or more markets or products, such as stocks, futures, foreign exchange, etc., based on trading strategy, cooperation model and level of risk aversion.

(2) Analyze the market: analyze the selected market or underlying assets to understand characteristics, trends and changes, and assign the corresponding strategy based on the analysis.

(3) Provide quotes: Market-makers will provide two-way quotes, i.e., buy and sell quotes, to provide liquidity based on trading strategies and market conditions.

(4) Acceptance of trades: Market-makers will accept buy and sell orders from clients and place orders based on their own quotes. In some cases, market-makers may hedge to reduce risk.

(5) Risk Control: The market-maker will monitor and control the trading risk and perform risk management and hedging operations as needed.

(6) Profit: Market-makers make a profit through trading spreads and fees, but there is also the possibility of leading to losses.

Under the above operation model, there are two kinds of driving mechanisms: quote-driven and order-driven. The quote-driven mechanism is a counter-offer system in which market-makers provide investors with bilateral quotes for buying and selling, leading to changes in transaction prices through the updating of quotes. The order-driven system, also known as the bidding system, allows investors to transmit their buy and sell orders to the exchange through the internet, and the exchange’s computer hosts will aggregate buy and sell orders according to the priority principle of time and price to form a continuous transaction price.

1.4 Profit Model

The profit model of a market-maker is usually based on the bid/ask spread. A market-maker will quote both a bid and an ask price on the trading platform, called a “two-way quote”. When a customer places an order, the market-maker closes it instantly and then sells it at a higher price or buys the same security at a lower price, earning a profit from the spread, which is often called Spread revenues or Facilitation revenues. Market-makers can also make profits through high-frequency trading, hedging, and arbitrage. Among them, high-frequency trading is a trading strategy that uses high-speed algorithms and automated systems for instant trading. Hedging is the use of opposite trades to reduce risk, and arbitrage is the use of different prices in the market to absorb profit. In addition, market-makers have an inventory revenue, which reflects the gains and losses from changes in the value of securities and holding gains such as dividends and interest while the market-maker maintains the position.

The level of profitability usually depends on factors such as market volatility, liquidity and size of trading. With a stable market and sufficient liquidity, market-makers are usually able to make substantial profits.

The profitability of market-makers also requires consideration of transaction costs. The cost structure of market-making is constituted by 3 components: transaction cost, such as brokerage commissions and clearing fees paid when buying and selling securities, financing cost incurred from raising capital for market-making, and costs associated with risks, such as hedging to reduce risk exposure to assets held, and value at risk (VaR) from implacable credit risk and counter-party risk. However, because market-makers typically initiate a large number of transactions, transaction costs can be reduced by economies of scale and effective technologies.

Spread earnings are the main earnings of market-makers. According to publicly available data, most market-makers are relatively stable in terms of profitability, but the margins are not high.

1.5 Regulatory and Compliance Requirements

Market-makers are directly involved in the liquidity and price formation of the securities market, and their trading strategies and behaviors may have an impact on the market, hence, market-makers have to be regulated. Regulation can effectively ensure that market-making firms comply with trading rules and market order so that market manipulation and improper trading practices can be prevented, the interests of investors can be protected, and fairness, transparency and stability of the market can be achieved. At the same time, regulation can also promote the compliance level of market-making firms, strengthening the requirements of risk management and information disclosure, improving market confidence and transparency by reducing market volatility, and fostering the healthy development of the market at large. Therefore, market-makers should be regulated not only for the best interest of investors, but to ensure the healthy order of the overall market.

This article focuses on the regulations of market-makers in the US. In the United States, regulations on market-makers are relatively strict. These firms are required to fully comply with regulatory requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), as well as other securities regulations. In addition, market-making firms are subject to compliance and anti-money laundering requirements. The regulators closely supervise trading and business activities of market-maker firms, including review of trading systems and algorithms, examination of risk control mechanisms, and the requirements for data protection. In terms of regulation, the U.S. securities market is well regulated, and penalties are imposed for violations; market-making firms need to pay extra high attention to compliance in daily operations. The specific regulatory bodies and laws are as follows:

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): Overseeing the securities market, including the registration and regulation of market-making firms.

• Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA): Responsible for regulating securities brokers and market-making firms to ensure compliance with securities regulations.

• Securities Exchange Act: The primary statute that sets forth the rules and regulatory requirements for the operation of the securities market.

• Securities Act: Establishes the registration and issuance requirements for securities and relates to the business of market-makers.

• National Securities Markets Reform and Regulatory Improvement Act (NSRRA): A comprehensive revision of the regulation of the securities markets, which also has implications for the business of market-makers.

1.6 Future trends

Market-makers are side products by the maturing financial market, which has now been irreplaceable in the market. With the development of financial markets, the market demand for market-makers will continue to exist. However, at this stage, the market is complete and saturated, new institutions will find it difficult to enter, and they instead turn to the crypto market as the main battleground.

In general, market-makers will face the long-term challenges as the follows:

(1) Technical risk: As the market continues to change, market-making firms need to continuously upgrade and improve their technical architecture to ensure stable system operation and avoid losses caused by technical problems.

(2) Legal risk: Market-making companies need to comply with the laws and regulations of each country, including financial regulation, securities laws and intellectual property rights, otherwise litigations and losses may occur.

(3) Market risk: Market changes and uncertainties will pose risks and challenges to market-making firms, such as market volatility, declining trading volume, and lack of liquidity, all of which can affect the profitability of market-making firms.

(4) Competition risk: As market competition intensifies, market-making companies will face competition from other market-making companies and emerging technology companies; core competitiveness must be continuously enriched to maintain market position and profitability.

(5) Operational risk: Market-making firms need to handle a large volume of transactions and data and need to establish effective risk management and internal control systems to prevent risks and losses resulting from internal operational errors or irregularities.

Opportunities and challenges coexist. As global financial markets continue to evolve, the complexity and size of securities market transactions continue to grow, market-making firms will have more opportunities to participate in the market by providing liquidity services and market-making for higher profits. What’s more, with the rapid development of the crypto market, market-making firms are also exposed to more opportunities by providing market-making services and liquidity provision for crypto assets. At the same time, market-making firms can improve market-making capabilities by developing and applying new technological tools and algorithms to better adapt to market demand in order to earn more market share.

2. Crypto Market-makers

Market-makers in the crypto industry are not much different from traditional finance in essence: they both provide liquidity to the market, open and close positions instantly, and make profits out of bid-ask spreads. However, there is a world of difference in operation mode, technology, risk management and regulation. Firstly, in terms of market size, the crypto market is relatively small compared to the traditional financial market, and the crypto market-makers are also relatively small. Secondly, the crypto market is relatively less liquid and more volatile, so market-makers need to be more cautious on risk management; furthermore, market-makers in the crypto market are also the house. Because the trading process in the crypto market is difficult to be regulated and there is no strict code of conduct of market-makers to be enforced; last, in terms of technical architecture, the crypto industry mandates higher technical capability to ensure the security of transactions.

Market-makers are vital in the crypto market for (1) providing liquidity and depth to the crypto market and (2) maintaining stable price level in the market to attract more traders. In other words, market-makers are the ones who keep the crypto market function properly so that project owners, exchanges, and investors can fulfill their rules properly.

2.1 History

The development path of market-makers in the crypto markets can be divided into 3 phases:

(1) Initial phase (2009–2012): With the birth of Bitcoin, the first batch of cryptocurrency exchanges and market-makers began to emerge. These market-makers were mainly made up of individuals and small teams and were designed to provide liquidity and trading opportunities.

(2) Development phase (2013–2017): As the cryptocurrency market continued to develop and mature, more and more institutions began to be involved, cryptocurrency exchanges and market-makers became the focus of major institutions as time goes by. During this period, some professional market-makers appeared and started to provide more specialized and efficient services. Some representative companies that emerged during this period included Cumberland Mining, Jump Trading, DRW Trading, and others. These companies not only provide market-making services, but also offer a variety of services such as arbitrage and asset management.

(3) The catastrophe phase(2018-present): the crash of cryptocurrency market in 2018 led to the collapse of many exchanges and market-makers, but it also brought an opportunity and reshuffle to the market. After consolidation and adjustment, the trading volume of the cryptocurrency market gradually recovered, and the services and models of market-makers continued to be optimized and upgraded. At the same time, with the continuous introduction and improvement of policies and regulations in various countries, regulations and compliance of crypto market-makers have hence become the everlasting topic in the market. At this stage, some traditional financial companies started to get involved in the cryptocurrency market, such as Jane Street, Susquehanna, etc.

At present, the scope of crypto market-makers is not only limited to inside exchanges, but also expanded to areas such as OTC and decentralized exchanges, providing critical support and protection to ensure the development and maturity of the market.

2.2 Operations

Crypto market-makers operate in a similar fashion to traditional financial market-makers, primarily providing liquidity and market depth to the cryptocurrency market while making a profit out of it. Crypto market-makers typically trade on multiple exchanges, and the trading is often automated and connected to exchanges via API. Within the market, quotes are generated by self-owned funds and algorithmic models to attract buyers and sellers to trade. Some crypto market-makers will also offer over-the-counter trading services, supporting block trades and customized trades. Due to the volatility and uncertainty of crypto markets, crypto market-makers need to adjust market strategies in real time, including trade size, quote range and hedging.

The crypto market-making generally consists of the following steps.

(1) Selecting trading pairs: Selecting a group or groups of trading pairs, which is usually subject to market liquidity and the capacity of the market-maker.

(2) Quoting: set bid and ask prices and post them in the exchange’s trading depth tables.

(3) Matching: As soon as a trader is willing to match a market-maker’s quote, the market-maker will immediately match the trade and close it.

(4) Risk control: Risk control is the utmost important step for market-makers. Market-makers adopt various tools and strategies to control risk associate with trading, such as trade limits, stop orders and hedging.

(5) Settlement and Clearing: Once the transactions are completed, the market-maker needs to settle and clear the transaction, including charging fees and paying related taxes to buyers and sellers.

In addition to the above steps, market-makers must constantly monitor market conditions, including market liquidity, actions of competitors, and market risks in order to adjust strategies and quotes in a timely manner.

2.2.1 Market-making Strategy

Market-making strategy is a risk-neutral intraday spread arbitrage strategy, which is one of the quantitative trading strategies in high-frequency trading that follows the principle of “buy low and sell high”. The basic principle is: between the ask and bid price of a certain asset, insert a buy order and a sell order. If the inserted two orders are filled, the market-maker will absorb the spread between the actual price; the whole process is completed, the market-maker’s position does not change. If there is a surplus in the spread between the buy and sell orders after deducting various transaction fees, then the market-maker has earned a corresponding profit. Common market-making strategies include spread strategies, hedging strategies, quantitative trading strategies, etc.

Market-making strategies are divided into spot market-making and futures market-making depending on the type of market. The spot market-making strategy has four modules: short-term trend determination, market-making, rebalancing and main loop. The futures market-making strategy is more complex, it includes complex logic such as timing of market-making, net position handling, locking, moving, and reduction of holdings according to counter-party.

2.2.2 OTC

Crypto market-makers typically provide OTC trading services by establishing contact with counterparties to negotiate prices and trade details with them. Specifically, crypto market-makers post market-making prices on trading platforms or other OTC channels and wait for counterparties to accept and trade. In addition, crypto market-makers can utilize their own liquidity pools to provide real-time quotes and trading opportunities to counterparties when needed to meet liquidity needs. At the same time, crypto market-makers can also provide counterparty clearing and settlement services to ensure smooth trading and capital security.

2.3 Threshold of Technology

Crypto market-makers must be consistent with traditional market-makers in terms of technology, but crypto market-makers need to master additional technologies, namely blockchain. Cryptocurrency trading is based on blockchain, crypto market-makers must understand blockchain technology and its application to cryptocurrency trading in order to understand the nature and technical details of trading. Meanwhile, crypto market-makers must familiarize with how exchanges and wallets interact with the blockchain, and how to identify and resolve issues such as transaction delays due to network congestion or other issues.

Moreover, for the crypto industry, the security of assets cannot be neglected. Since there are certain security risks associated with cryptocurrency transactions, crypto market-makers need to master relevant security technologies to protect the security of the trading system. Specific technologies include multiple signature technology, cold wallet storage, secure communication protocols, transaction monitoring and anti-fraud technology, data backup and recovery technology, etc.

Including but not limited to:

(1) Digital currency exchange API: Crypto market-makers need to master the digital currency exchange API (Application Program Interface) in order to connect with the exchange and access market data, perform trading operations, etc.

(2) Data analysis and machine learning: The cryptocurrency market is highly volatile, so crypto market-makers need to have certain data analytical skills, including analysis of market sentiment and prediction of price movements. Machine learning can help market-makers make more accurate trading decisions.

(3) Social media and online marketing: The cryptocurrency market has demonstrated strong attribute of socialization, crypto market-makers need to have some social media and online marketing skills in order to interact and communicate with potential clients.

2.4 Exchanges and Market-makers

Digital currency exchanges have a subtle relationship with their market-makers. Some crypto exchanges may have their own market-making teams, but there are also many exchanges that choose to partner with third-party market-makers. Exchanges work with market-makers in two forms.

(1) Direct partnership with crypto exchanges

Market-makers work directly with crypto exchanges to provide market-making services for floor trading. Exchanges usually offer some specific market-maker programs that require the cooperation of these teams and provide customized trading interfaces, but these are passive trading interfaces and cannot actively execute orders; it can only be done internally by the exchange in order to implement active management, directly or indirectly embedded in the match-making system of the exchange.

At this point, market-makers need to access information, such as the exchange’s order book and market depth through API, and conduct pricing and match-making by self-owned algorithm and trading strategies.

The exchange needs to provide relevant module interface to the market-maker, which usually includes quote data, order withdrawal, deposit notice, etc.

(2) Indirect partnerships with crypto exchanges

Market-makers cooperate with crypto exchanges through other intermediaries or platforms to provide over-the-counter market-making services. In this case, the market-maker needs to negotiate with the intermediary or platform, determine the cooperation method and details of cooperation, and obtain the market information of the exchange through the API or other channels, and then conduct OTC trading.

It is important to note that market-makers are not necessary for crypto exchanges in terms of liquidity provision; some exchanges may use other methods to improve liquidity, such as depth pools or order book matching engines. When working with a crypto exchange, market-makers need to negotiate with the exchange on the details of the partnership, fee allocation, trading volume, etc., to ensure a smooth and profitable partnership. At the same time, market-makers need to strictly comply with the rules of the exchange and external regulations to ensure legal compliance of transactions.

In the lens of trading mechanism, market-makers that are internally connected with exchanges are largely involved in the price determination process, which can, to a certain extent, inhibit price manipulation, improving expectations of investors and project teams, and stabilizing the market sentiment.

The presence of market-makers contributes to the liquidity of an exchange. The more liquid an exchange is, the better the trading experience for users, the more loyal the users are, and the more profitable the exchange can be. As a result, an exchange is willing to give rebates to market-making activities.

Around 2017 and 2018, a large number of new exchanges were launched with the concept of “trading as mining”, and some of them even offered 120% rebates based on trading volume in the early stages of their operations to attract market-makers to participate in trading.

In order to attract market-makers to trade on exchanges, all major exchanges have launched their own solutions. First, the trading platform itself must possess diversified service offerings, including more spot trading pairs and futures, interest-bearing products (low-interest-rate lending services, etc.), more trading strategies and algorithmic services. Second, a reasonable and attractive commission rate is convincing. Last but not least, the risk control and reputation of the exchange are of utmost importance. Here is a list of some of the activities offered by exchanges for market-makers.

From the list above, Gate has continued to launch market-making campaigns to attract market-making teams since the launch of the Global Market-maker Program in 2021. At the same time, the market-making rates and GT positions are also being adjusted. In addition to that, some services are exclusively available to market-makers, including 0 interest credit lines.

Market-makers participate in the spot, futures, and options markets, and the threshold is getting higher. Accordingly, exchanges grant different privileges in different participating markets. In general, exchanges may grant market-maker privileges in the following items in:

• Fee discount

• Funds for leverage

• Limit on deposit and withdrawal

• API internal access

• Institutional accounts/accounting system

For market-makers, transaction fees are particularly critical, especially for high frequency trading. Admittedly, in the early days of an exchange, it is highly likely that some market-makers will be paid to conduct market-making activities, especially in futures and options.

2.5 Projects and Market-makers

In the crypto market, the liquidity of tokens is as vital as the product, team, and operations. The relationship between project parties and market-makers is mainly established by liquidity provision services of market-makers to project parties. Project parties, especially new projects in the ICO or IEO phase, are in need of price management for tokens by market-makers. Market-makers play 3 rules:

(1) to make up for the lack of market liquidity;

(2) to stabilize the price of tokens and prevent the project from failing when the price is too high or too low;

(3) to improve the market recognition of the project market capitalization management.

These tasks are assigned to a professional market-maker, which incurs less cost than the project team to operate on their own.

Due to the lack of regulation, market-makers can drive volume by buying and selling on the market. Evidently, this “forged” volume can attract the attention of some investors.

Project parties will choose some well-known crypto exchanges to work with market-makers for better liquidity and higher market recognition, which requires the project to provide a certain number of tokens to the market-maker for initial circulation. Market-makers agree to provide active liquidity to the order book for at least 90% of the contract term, in exchange for which they receive 2–5% of the project’s total token supply. For market-makers, working with well-known project parties can increase their visibility and reputation in the market-making sector and help attract more trading pairs. Therefore, the partnership between project parties and market-makers is unparalleled in the crypto market.

In addition to providing liquidity, market-makers provide additional services to project owners, including token pricing (especially STG) strategies and cash-out services.

2.6 Profit Model of Crypto Market-makers

Like traditional market-makers, crypto market-makers make their profits from the spreads of trading actions. However, in the absence of regulation in the crypto market, such spreads can be large; with high market volatility, the returns may also be uncertain.

There are two other sources of revenue for crypto market-makers:

(1) market-making for project parties;

(2) assisting exchanges in sustaining sufficient liquidity and trading volume.

A market-maker can profit from the following two modes when partnered with project parties:

• Market-makers provide over-the-counter trading services to help project parties increase liquidity level and increase trading volume, and make profit out of it; the profit comes from covering the bid/ask spread between the two sides of the transaction as well as transaction fees.

• Market-makers partner with project parties to become liquidity providers for tokens, and participate in liquidity mining of tokens. When the liquidity of the token increases, the market-maker will receive tokens in return. In addition, market-makers can also earn revenue by providing market depth and participating in the project’s airdrop and promotion.

There are also two profit models for working with exchanges:

• Market-making rewards: Some crypto exchanges offer market-making rewards to attract market-makers to participate in the market. Market-makers can receive a reward from the exchange when listing orders on the market and reach a certain volume of transactions, which becomes a revenue stream for market-makers. This part is also known as a trading rebate.

• Providing liquidity services: Market-makers help exchanges attract more users and accumulate trading volume by providing services for buying and selling cryptocurrencies to increase liquidity in the market. Some crypto exchanges pay additional fees on liquidity to market-makers.

As the number of market-makers increases, it has become more competitive; market-makers will narrow their quoted spreads in order to win over more markets, resulting in less revenue.

2.7 Criteria of Market-maker Evaluation

For market participants, it is vital to have the ability in evaluating the performance of market-makers and choose the right market-maker. Common metrics used to evaluate market-makers include market-maker’s trading volume and frequency, accuracy and stability of quotes, profitability and risk management capabilities, market share and reputation. Nevertheless, for exchanges, market takers and project parties, the performance of liquidity provision is valued the most. The performance can be evaluated by measuring depth of quotes, accuracy, frequency of updates, and efficiency of transactions.

Simple indicators are listed in each exchange’s market-maker activity, including market-maker volume of commission, bid/ask spreads, quotes, requested coverage, market-making duration, etc. However, some exchanges may use complicated indices, such as weighted depth multipliers and liquidity index.

3. Risk analysis and management of crypto market-makers

3.1 Regulation and Compliance

Crypto market-makers are still in a grey area, and they are not yet legalized by clear law and regulatory framework in most countries and regions. By all means, crypto market-makers are generally not subject to the strict regulatory standards set forth in traditional financial markets, nor are they regulated by the appropriate regulatory bodies. However, in some countries and regions, regulators have begun to explore ways to regulate crypto market-makers to ensure transparency, fairness and stability in the market.

The regulatory bodies that oversee crypto market-makers include the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the U.S., which have certain regulatory responsibilities for crypto markets, with the SEC regulating the securities nature of crypto assets and the CFTC regulating transactions such as crypto derivatives contracts. In addition, ESMA, the regulator of EU financial markets, has also begun to explore a regulatory framework for crypto markets, aiming to ensure transparency and stability in crypto markets.

In recent years, several cases have been made by the above regulators:

(1) The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced in July 2020 that Coinbase and other crypto exchanges can register as brokerage firms and exchanges, and offer market-making services for digital assets on their trading platforms. It indicates the SEC has begun to explore the regulation of crypto market-makers.

(2) The Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (FINMA) released a guide on cryptocurrency regulation in 2019, which mentions the compliance requirements for traders and market-makers, as well as what licenses are to be obtained in order to conduct such activities. This indicates that FINMA has started regulating crypto market-makers.

(3) The Singapore Stock Exchange (SGX) launched its digital currency trading platform SGX iSTOX in 2020 and developed a regulatory framework with market-makers to ensure their compliance and transparency. This indicates that SGX has begun to explore the regulation of crypto market-makers and has started to work with them.

From the above cases, it is evident that regulators have begun exploring on regulations of crypto market-makers and have developed some relevant guidelines and regulatory frameworks. In the future, as the crypto market continues to grow, regulations on market-makers will become a critical part in the industry.

In terms of compliance requirements, crypto market-makers are also subject to various regulations, which vary from country to country, but some common compliance requirements include:

(1) KYC (Know Your Customer): Market-makers need to comply with KYC regulations and ensure that identities of clients are verified and recorded.

(2) AML (Anti-Money Laundering): Market-makers are required to comply with AML regulations to prevent cryptocurrencies from being used for money laundering and other illegal activities.

(3) Data protection: Market-makers are required to comply with data protection regulations to protect the security and privacy of client data.

(4) Trading transparency: Market-makers need to provide trading transparency, including publicly available trading data, market depth and other information to ensure fair and transparent trading.

In addition, some countries or regions may have other regulatory requirements, such as regulations in areas such as taxation, securities or futures.

3.2 Market Risk

Market-makers are exposed to multiple risks in the crypto market, including:

(1) Price Risk: Due to the highly volatile nature of the cryptocurrency market, market-makers are exposed to price risk, meaning that cryptocurrencies held by market-makers may experience losses in the event of significant market price fluctuations.

(2) Liquidity risk: Market-makers need to provide liquidity to support trading in the market, but if there is selling or buying pressure in the market, it may be difficult for market-makers to provide sufficient liquidity in a timely manner, resulting in situations such as delayed or failed trades.

(3) Counterparty **risk: **Due to the anonymity and decentralized nature of the cryptocurrency market, market-makers may not be able to determine the creditworthiness and trading intentions of their counterparties, and are thus exposed to counterparty risk, i.e., market-makers are unable to fulfill orders from counterparties.

(4) Funds risk: Similar to traditional market-making, in plain words, the size of the market-making capital and the turnover of funds determines the hierarchy of market-makers. Especially when it comes to deposit and withdrawal of funds, which may become the first threshold for market-making. Market-making teams generally bank with Silvergate bank and Signature bank. But the two crypto-friendly banks recently faced bankruptcy, with many funds unable to be withdrawn. This raises the bar for future institutions to enter the crypto industry.

To cope with the above risks, every market-maker has certain strategies, such as retreat in extremely volatile markets, or hedging to preserve value on current positions, transferring risk to assets based on inventory model and information model.

3.3 On-chain and Off-chain Risks

Off-chain risks are generally trading risks, such as historical data integrity, flaws in strategy model design, system failures, lack of risk control, overfitting, and transaction cost-sensitive risks.

(1) Pricing risk: It determines whether the market-maker can offer an attractive price; whether the pricing is rational or not is directly related to a market-maker’s win/loss.

(2) Inventory risk with large fluctuations in asset prices: If the price of the underlying asset moves in a unilateral direction, for example, in an uptrend, a sell order is filled but a buy order is not filled, a market-maker will bear the risk of increase in selling price (sold cheap). In a downtrend, a buy order may be filled but a sell order is not, then a market-maker is exposed to the risk that the buying price may be cheap later (bought expensive).

(3) Trading platform risks:

• The frequency and number of buy and sell orders placed are random, which may result in the risk that the buy order is not completely filled after the sell order is filled.

• Exchange bugs, problems with trading pairs, and disabled protection measures may occur on the platforms.

(4) API risk: Including internal divulge, API breakdown, etc.

The source of risks in the crypto market is not only the risk from off-chain trading behavior, but more come from on-chain. First, if the smart contracts for market-making tokens are vulnerable and hacked, this could result in the loss of the market-maker’s inventory of assets. Secondly, crypto market-makers may need to participate in on-chain protocols or DeFi applications to provide liquidity, and all risks on-chain will be transmitted to each participant. For example, a fork in an L1 chain where the protocol is located or low speed for on-chain transactions.

3.4 Risk Management

In order to control the above risks, a market-maker should enforce strict strategies and disciplines.

(1) Focus on deal quality rather than quantity

While market-makers can earn a certain amount of commission by providing liquidity to the exchange, overtrading tends to waste more time and money; the key to effective trading is to focus on the quality of trades rather than the quantity of trades.

This is reflected in three aspects:

• Hoosing quality assets as targets;

• Choosing a reputable exchange as the trading place;

• Conducting thorough analysis to determine an appropriate trading strategy.

(2) Establishing partnerships

Market-makers need to establish good relationships with exchanges, project parties, investors, etc. to get more information and support and reduce their own risks.

(3) Strict discipline

This includes exit condition and not abusing leverage. Market-makers must control risk exposure and diversify as much as possible.

(4) Inventory Risk Management

• An appropriate position of inventory should be maintained in continuous buying and selling, the appropriateness of which is determined based on the market-maker’s risk aversion and judgment of price trends on cryptocurrency. It is this inventory risk and associated management that drives the market-maker’s motivation to trade, and it is what gives the market an inherent momentum. This is also the reason that market price will be more or less affected in the process of market-makers’ inventory management.

• Market-makers also utilize leverage to adjust inventory to meet their continuous trading and cost reduction requirements in order to manage inventory positions.

• By making portfolio investments and hedging in crypto markets.

In general, inventory volume and inventory risk are positively correlated in the market-maker system. A large amount of inventory is risky, and the correlation between the amount of inventory and price changes is the greatest; when there is an expectation of price increases, the amount of inventory increases, and vice versa.

However, when the price is at a high level, the amount of inventory is in need to be reduced, otherwise, the inventory purchased at high prices will tend to depreciate in value if the market price decreases, and the inventory risk is greater. Therefore, in order to reduce this risk, market-makers will tend to reduce their inventory on cryptocurrencies with higher appreciation. In this case, inventory volume is negatively correlated with price. In addition, the amount of inventory is positively related to the market-maker’s own capital.

(5) Monitoring the Market

Market-makers need to constantly monitor changes in market liquidity, including market depth, volume, trading pairs and other indicators, and adjust quoting strategies in a timely manner to ensure that there is sufficient liquidity to be injected to the market.

4. Typical case study of crypto market-maker

In recent years, crypto market-making firms have been on the rise as the cryptocurrency market continues to grow. These firms are dedicated to providing liquidity management, price discovery and brokerage services to meet the growing demand for cryptocurrency trading. Currently, there are many global professional crypto market-maker companies, which adopt various technologies and strategies to provide diverse trading services to market participants, contributing to the further development and maturity of the cryptocurrency market. Since the crypto market is still far from traditional finance, there is relatively less effort for market-makers to achieve monopoly, and the liquidity of cryptocurrencies is dominated by a few large market-makers, which includes Jump, Wintermute, Amber Group, B2C2, and DRW Trading.

4.1 The FTX Incident and Alameda Research

Alameda Research was founded in 2018 in California, USA. The company was founded by mathematician, Samuel Bankman-Fried, who worked at Jane Street, where he gained extensive experience in quantitative trading. In addition to market-making and quantitative trading in the crypto market, the company has developed several cryptocurrency trading tools and infrastructure, such as the crypto exchange FTX and Serum, a crypto trading protocol on Solana.

The FTX crash was followed by the bankruptcy of Alameda Research, and the market-making team at FTX suffered significant losses, as seen in Kaiko’s data on BTC pending orders after the FTX event, indicating a lack of liquidity. The digital assets suffered from the collapse of FTX and Alameda include FTT and SOL; these tokens led to a crunch of liquidity on Solana and liquidation risk for all tokens.

4.2 Wintermute and DeFi Hacking Incidents

Wintermute Trading is a cryptocurrency market-maker based in London. The company was founded in 2017 by Evgeny Gaevoy and Harro Mantel. Wintermute Trading’s main business is to provide liquidity services to cryptocurrency exchanges, institutions and individuals, as well as market-making services in a number of cryptocurrency derivatives markets. At this stage, Wintermute has partnerships with over 50 cryptocurrency exchanges. It is in a leading position in terms of trading volume on all exchanges. Core team members include:

• CEO: Evgeny Gaevoy, who previously headed the exchange-traded funds (ETFs) business for the European market at Optiver.

• Chief Technology Officer: Valentine Samko, who has worked as a software engineer at trading firms and banks, including Barclays and JP Morgan Chase.

In addition to its business in the cryptocurrency market, Wintermute Trading is actively involved in promoting the development and standardization of the cryptocurrency market. The company is a member of the London Digital Asset Trading Association (LSTA) and a member of the Association of Digital Asset Dealers (ADAM). In February 2021, Wintermute announced the closing of a $25 million funding round with investors, including Lightspeed Venture Partners and Pantera Capital. However, due to the bear market and hacking, Wintermute’s revenue in 2022 was around $300 million, far below the $1 billion in 2021.

In September 2022, Wintermute lost $160 million when its EOA wallet was stolen due to the possible use of the Profanity tool to create customized wallet.

4.5 GSR Market

GSR Markets is genetically an algorithmic digital trading company in Hong Kong. It provides liquidity by utilizing its own software on order execution solutions for several digital asset classes. The company deploys multiple trading models that integrate more than 30 liquidity pools, and its trading fees are relatively low in the market.

Features:

• Top-notch leadership and a strong team of technical and financial practitioners from world-class financial institutions.

• Intuitive risk management strategies designed for those who have difficulty managing them.

• Its proprietary trading technology can be modified to meet trading needs. Its sales and aggregation strategies are adjusted for real-time liquidity and volatility so that investors can enjoy the intrinsic best price.

Recently, GSR has been working frequently with various project parties, including Stargate, which will provide GSR with 8 million STG European-style options on the condition that the average STG price exceeds $1.15 in 24 months. After the proposal is passed, STG surged 36.2% in the last 14 days.

5. Decentralized Market-makers

Anyone participating in on-chain market-making behavior is a decentralized market-maker, mainly in three forms: (1) participation in the liquidity provision of decentralized exchange DEX, also known as mining behavior, which has a low threshold that anyone can participate, providing liquidity for trading pairs and receiving certain rewards; (2) participation in the decentralized derivatives market, similar to dydx; (3) some DeFi specialized services for market-making protocols, such as Elixir, which becomes liquidity distribution tools for the CLOB and AMM models.

The automated market-maker algorithm AMM is generally deployed inside DEX, where anyone can become a market-maker. It adopts an automated algorithm to balance the supply and demand for tokens in a trading pool. AMM functions by allowing liquidity providers to deposit tokens (usually in equal amounts) into the liquidity pool. The price of the tokens in the liquidity pool then follows a formula such as the constant market-maker algorithm x*y = k, where x and y are the number of tokens in the pool for both tokens and k is a constant. This results in the ratio of tokens in the pool becoming the determinant of the price, ensuring that the pool always provides liquidity regardless of the transaction size, and the amount of slippage is determined by the transaction size compared to the pool size. As the price in the liquidity pool deviates from the global market price, arbitrageurs will enter and push the price back to the global market price. Various protocols iterate on this basic AMM model or introduce new models such as Curve, Balancer, and Uniswap V3 to offer upgraded performance and extend it to derivatives.

Risk also exists in DeFi; LPs bear the risk of original bugs of smart contract, draining pool and default. The DEFI protocol offers different market-making strategies and liquidity pools to lure LPs and professional market-making teams along with higher yields. Even so, each of on-chain market-making and market-making in centralized exchanges has its own merits, and they cannot replace each other.

Another thing to mention is the specialized market-making protocol, represented by Elixir, which has two types of users: (1) project parties and (2) users who desire to become market-makers. The specific mechanism is as follows:

• Project parties can create bonds in Elixir without permission to receive liquidity, similar to the mechanism of Olympus DAO. Users could build liquidity by acquiring LP tokens through the liquidity pool and exchanging them for the project’s native tokens.

• Providing users with specialized market-making strategies that enable everyone to participate in market-making activities in CEX and DEX; these market-making protocols have opened up a niche track while lowering the barriers to market-making. However, since market-making strategies, quantitative strategies, and risk management strategies are frequently adjusted and updated in different market conditions, DeFi’s market-making protocols will take time to validate; it is not necessarily a bad way for someone who are willing to generate revenue from the market-making business.

So far, centralized market-makers cannot cooperate with project parties in an open and transparent manner, provided that the commission is high. However, through on-chain market-making protocols can it effectively improve the utilization of users’ funds and become liquidity providers; through suitable algorithms and strategies, liquidity problems can be solved for project parties, and users could benefit at the same time. However, the mechanism of on-chain market-making protocol is intricate and less flexible, which may be difficult to cope with market risks.

6. Opportunities and challenges for crypto market-makers (with a list of financing history)

The rapid growth of the cryptocurrency market has led to an increasing demand for cryptocurrency market-makers, and also given rise to more innovative technologies and business models. The future trends of crypto market-makers are reflected in the following areas:

• Enhancing risk management: As the cryptocurrency market continues to become mature and more regulated, risk management will become one of the key factors for market-makers in the competition. Market-makers will need to adopt more scientific methods and tools to reduce trading risk and credit risk, and to ensure the safety and stability of operations.

• Develop smarter trading systems: As artificial intelligence and machine learning continue to evolve, cryptocurrency market-makers can adopt smarter trading systems to improve efficiency and trade quality in order to better adapt to market changes and demands.

• Absorbing More Liquidity: As more institutions and investors enter the cryptocurrency market, market-makers have to continue to enhance their own liquidity to meet the demands of more diverse and complex trading. In this case, market-makers will also need to work closely with other market-makers, exchanges and liquidity providers in order to jointly drive the development and growth of the market.

• Exploring new business models: As the cryptocurrency market is everchanging, market-makers need to continuously explore new business models to cope with the changes and challenges in the market. For example, some market-makers have started to provide more specialized services to the market, such as data-analytics-based market-making and cross-chain market-making. Currently, there are also many market-makers who have started to get involved in other crypto businesses, such as custody, OTC, primary investment, etc.

• Active experimentation with on-chain protocol market-making: As the number of on-chain projects and users increases, market-makers will eventually enter the on-chain business, either to work with project parties or strive for higher yields. At the same time, more market-making activities similar to dydx will be spotted. In addition, market-makers will participate in more crypto products that yearn for liquidity. For example, crypto market-maker GSR started the NFT market-making project, which will focus on generative art. The company has already purchased 175 pieces (NFT), but is still working on how to trade through the algorithm.

Cryptocurrency markets demonstrate many unique characteristics, and face various challenges in liquidity. For example, crypto markets are open 24/7/365; retail investors could do self-custody and directly interact with exchanges (exchanges play the role of broker, exchange and custodian); instant settlement of virtual balances could be done at CEX; fast settlement of on-chain transactions at DEX can be achieved compared to T+2 in traditional financial settlement; stablecoins are in place to facilitate transactions with consideration of the volatility of BTC and still-cumbersome conversion of fiat to crypto. In addition, crypto markets remain highly unregulated, leaving loop holes for price manipulation; the market continues to be highly fragmented with liquidity diverging on-chain and off-chain. Besides, trading technology continues to evolve as the quality of API connectivity on exchanges varies and declines cyclically when the market is active. Finally, the crypto derivatives market is still growing, as derivatives are much smaller relative to spot compared to traditional financial markets. These characteristics pose challenges in providing liquidity, including market fragmentation/interoperability, capital inefficiencies, regulatory uncertainty, and exchange technology/connectivity that is still undeveloped.

In conclusion, as the cryptocurrency market continues the changes, market-makers need to continuously adjust strategies and business models to better adapt to the changes and demand of the market. At the same time, market-makers also need to strengthen cooperation and communication with other market participants in order to jointly promote the development and growth of the market.

7. Summary and Thoughts

Whether in the traditional industry or in the crypto market, market-makers must always immerse in the market in order to trade with “spreads” on hand, and different markets usually hint more profit opportunities. In the future, crypto market-makers will look more alike market-makers in traditional finance:

(1) More diversified. Comprehensive large investment banks and electronic trading platforms and other institutions may join;

(2) More varieties. Various types of spot and derivatives will be the target of market-making, and more varieties as the market grows;

(3) High leverage. Market-making business represented by spot and derivatives trading is a typical capital-intensive business, and investment banks mostly utilize leveraged funds to expand business scale; the leverage of market-making business is often higher than other businesses. Other crypto lending businesses will be hatched based on this, and the risk level of the whole industry is elevated.

(4) The 80–20 rule will be more prominent. Top-tier players usually have sufficient talent pool, strong capital strength, rich client resources, excellent pricing ability and large asset size. Large institutions could reduce risk and cost by diversification and hedging, which endows the institutions with more advantages in market-making business.

Although the size of crypto market-makers is expanding and the competition is getting fierce, in fact, crypto market-makers have relatively high technical barriers with higher risks. For example, in the FTX incident, Cumberland, GSR, Wintermute, Jump, folkvang and Nibbio all have open positions in FTX as market-makers. At the same time, the recent news on Silvergate Bank also pose unknow threat to all the market-makers. In all, the capital turnover means everything for a market-maker.

Traders must identify if a market-maker is colluding with a project so that the right price trend can be distinguished. Clues can be found from token price and trading volume.

Decentralized market-maker protocols, including DEX and others, are also competing on some market-making teams to participate on-chain market-making. In my humble opinion, order book could satisfy the diverse trading strategies of market-making teams, while AMM has certain limitations and low ability in control. Market-making teams will participate in on-chain market-making if the opportunity is considerably lucrative, yet it is not commensurate with the status of exchanges in the crypto world. Meanwhile, the impact of some innovative DeFi protocols cannot be ignored. It is worth noting that some market-makers have started to explore market-making in the NFT market, and more explorations will be seen on on-chain products and those derivatives with available secondary market.

However, a pitfall cannot be ruled out here. Similar to Alameda, large market-makers may incubate their own on-chain protocols, either DEX or lending protocols, such as DEX Bebop incubated by Wintermute. The large amount of capital can be a boost to the protocol per se, but it also poses a risk to the market as a whole.

7.1 Thoughts on Direction of Investment

Market-makers play a significant role in the trading segment, and their profitability are potential in both bull and bear cycles. In the market-making sector, the following investment directions are worth some attention:

• Centralized small market-making strategy or services, which provide tools, data, and customized strategic type of services to market-makers.

• Solving the interoperability problem: Thanks to the development of L1 chains and Layer2, a multi-chain landscape is in shape, which, however, is completely dispersed from users, not to mention market-makers. A potential solution is a Layer2 middleware provider that can interact trustlessly with different chains to discover the most efficient transaction route among many sources of liquidity without fees, settlement delays and liquidity mining wars of current system.

• CeDeFi: The boundaries between CeFi and DeFi may merge, including liquidity provision.

References

[1] “High-Frequency Trading and Market-making in the Bitcoin Ecosystem”, from the European Central Bank, analyzes high-frequency trading and market-making in the Bitcoin ecosystem.

[2] “The Market Microstructure of Currency Markets,” from the European Central Bank, analyzes the market microstructure and the role of market-makers in currency markets.

[3] “Market-making in the Corporate Bond Market,” from FINRA, explores market-makers in the corporate bond market.

[4] “How to Be a Market-maker,” from the Harvard Business Review, describes the fundamentals and strategies of market-making.

[5] “Market-making and Revenues of Stock Exchanges: A Survey of the Literature,” from the European Securities Market Supervisory Authority, provides an overview of the impact of market-makers on stock exchange revenues.

[6] “Market-making with Costly Monitoring: An Analysis of the SOES Controversy,” from the National Bureau of Economic Research, analyzes the market-maker strategy in the NASDAQ exchange SOES system controversy.

[7] Thinking about the Future of Market-makers, GSR, 2021.

[8] Digital Currency Market-makers Research Report, TokenClub, 2018.09

[9] Talking about cryptocurrency (digital currency) market-makers

[10] Why your ICO needs a market-maker. Evgeny Gaevoy (CEO at Wintermute) .

[11] Getting rid of market-makers: How to create on-chain liquidity?

[12] Pantera Partners: Read about cryptocurrency market-maker Wintermute

[13] The development path and experience of market-making business in the United States, Ping An Securities, 2022.08

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

摘要

传统金融做市商业务从19世纪初期开始萌芽，到现在呈现出发展成熟、交易品种多元、业务和收益相对稳定的特点。做市商作为金融市场上重要的参与者，在提供市场流动性和市场效率方面发挥了其独特的作用。随着市场规模的不断扩大，越来越多的机构和投行也加入了做市业务，并成为其重要的收入来源。整体市场做市业务也向头部聚集，竞争激烈。为了抢占市场和客户，市商在算法、技术、风控、合规上不断升级，也逐渐涉及加密领域。

加密市场做市商业务与传统金融相比，在本质上区别不大。但是运作模式、技术、风险管理和监管上却有天壤之别。首先，在市场规模方面，加密市场相对于传统金融市场还比较小，加密行业市商规模也相对较小。加密市场的流动性相对较低，波动较大，做市商需要更加谨慎做好风险管理；其次，在加密市场的做市商团队也称为庄家。因为加密市场的交易过程很难被监管，也没有严格的做市商制度来约束。交易所、项目方与市商之间的关系变得更加复杂。然后，市商业务不仅仅在中心化交易所产生，还涉及链上做市，并以此为基础开始出现一些为做市服务的中间件和协议；最后一点是，在技术架构方面，加密行业需要具备更高的技术能力，保证交易的安全性。

加密市场做市业务是一片蓝海，给予每个投资人机会但也伴随着风险。目前，美国的证券交易委员会（SEC）和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）对加密市场监管趋严，很多机构和业务都受到影响。再加上熊市行情，大型机构暴雷现象频发，对市商的风险管理更具有挑战性。除此之外，加密做市商还面临市场碎片化/互操作性、资本效率低下、监管不确定性以及仍在改进的交换技术/连通性等问题。

即使如此，加密市商仍然有很大的发展和盈利空间。加密做市商在未来也会呈现一些传统金融做市商的发展特点：

• 做市参与者逐渐多元化；

• 做市品种多元化；

• 业务杠杆高；

• 市商头部效应越发明显。

在投资领域，可以关注中心化的小型市商策略或服务类项目、解决互操作性的工具、以及CeDeFi项目。

1. 传统做市商赛道

做市商是指在金融市场上提供流动性的机构或个人。其主要职责是为证券交易市场提供流动性和市场深度。做市商通常在证券交易市场的买卖双方之间进行交易，并在市场上提供报价，以便其他交易者可以在该报价上进行买入或卖出交易。做市商通常是由投行、证券公司或专业机构组成的，他们在市场上扮演着重要的角色，有助于保持市场的稳定性和流动性。做市商通常会在一个或多个市场上同时进行交易，并且通过买入和卖出同一种资产来提供流动性，以便为市场参与者提供交易机会。

做市商的主要目标是在资产价格波动时从价格差中获利，因此他们通常会使用算法和其他技术来分析市场，找到机会，并迅速进行交易。做市商可能会在股票、外汇、商品、债券等各种市场上进行交易。

1. 1 行业概括

1.1.1 行业职能与服务客户

做市商在金融市场上的作用非常重要，有别于其它市场参与者的独特性。尤其是在提供流动性和市场效率方面。具体来说，做市商承担了6个主要的职能：

• 提供流动性：提供买卖双方之间的流动性，使市场更加活跃。

• 持续报价：做市商持续报价，随时提供买入和卖出的价格，方便市场参与者进行交易。

• 管理风险：做市商需要管理交易风险，保持健康的风险收益比，保护自身和客户的利益。

• 提供咨询：做市商可以提供市场信息和分析，帮助客户做出更好的交易决策。

• 增加市场效率：做市商的存在可以增加市场效率，减少买卖双方之间的差价，提高市场的效率和竞争力。

• 提供创新产品：根据市场需求推出新产品，以满足客户的不同投资需求。

做市商的客户主要包括以下几类：

• 交易员：做市商为交易员提供流动性，帮助他们进行快速、高效的交易。

• 投资机构：做市商为投资机构提供流动性和服务，帮助他们进行资产配置和风险管理。

• 高频交易公司：做市商为高频交易公司提供流动性和服务，帮助他们进行快速、高频的交易。

• 个人投资者：做市商为个人投资者提供流动性和服务，帮助他们进行股票、期货等金融产品的交易。

• 其他金融机构：做市商还为其他金融机构，如银行、保险公司等提供流动性和服务。

1.1.2 做市商赛道的发展历程

做市商赛道的发展历程可以分为五个阶段：

• 19世纪前：做市商初始阶段，在传统柜台市场撮合交易。做市制度是最古老的证券交易制度之一，起源于传统场外市场，交易商为促成交易和降低交易成本，自行承担做市商角色，为其他交易商或客户提供双边报价，报价方式也多为实地沟通、电话沟通等传统方式。

• 19世纪-20世纪70年代：规范化交易所出现并高速发展，做市商在场内市场提供流动性。19 世纪后美国交易所、芝加哥证券交易所等美国主要交易所纷纷建立。当时做市商主要活跃在美国纽约证券交易所（NYSE）。在那个时期，做市商主要是基于人工交易，而不是计算机程序。做市商会在证券交易所的交易簿上挂出买卖双方的报价，以此为基础提供市场流动性。

• 20世纪70年代-80年代：随着计算机技术的发展，做市商开始逐渐应用电子化交易系统，这使得交易更加快速和高效。在20世纪70年代和80年代，做市商的交易量快速增长，其交易策略和技术也不断创新和优化。

• 20世纪90年代：20 世纪后期，机构投资者和零售折扣经纪商崛起，做市商内部撮合平台交易市占率持续提升。一方面，美国共同基金、养老金基金等机构投资者崛起，机构投资者对大宗交易的需求明显提升，而以高盛为代表的大型投行能为机构投资者提供综合性服务，在承接大宗交易相关的做市业务方面具备相对优势；另一方面，Robinhood、嘉信理财等零售折扣经纪商承担的散户证券交易量激增，而此类折扣经纪商主要将订单流转至做市商平台，换取做市商为此的支付（称之为订单流支付Payment for Order Flow）。随着金融市场的全球化，做市商开始在全球范围内扩展其业务，同时也面临着越来越激烈的竞争。在这一时期，做市商开始采用更加复杂和高级的交易策略和技术，以提高交易效率和盈利能力。

• 21世纪：随着金融市场的不断创新和发展，做市商的角色也逐渐得到了扩展和巩固。在21世纪，做市商开始进军新兴市场，如加密货币市场和期权市场等，同时也采用更加先进的技术手段，如人工智能和机器学习等。

1.1.3 市场规模与竞争环境

根据金融业监管机构FINRA（金融业监管局）的数据，截至2021年9月，美国注册的合法做市商数量超过500家。这些做市商注册在FINRA，并受其监管。据美国货币总局办公室（OCC），2012 年-2018 年美国商业银行控股公司合计交易总收入维持在500亿美元左右，尽管以2018 年为代表的部分年份受二级市场行情拖累，交易收入同比有所下滑，但整体波动较小、呈现成长趋势。2019 年以来银行业交易收入进一步增长，2019、2020、2021 年美国银行控股公司合计总交易收入分别为751.26、795.12、789.46亿美元。做市商公司的规模或市场份额往往与其在该市场上提供流动性的程度有关，具体来说，做市商的市场份额可以通过以下几个指标进行衡量：

• 交易量占比：做市商在某一市场上的交易量占比，可以反映其在该市场上的交易活跃度和影响力。

• 报价深度：做市商在某一市场上的报价深度，即其准备进行交易的数量和价格，可以反映其在该市场上提供流动性的程度。

• 交易效率：做市商在某一市场上的交易效率，即其能够快速、高效地进行交易的能力。

总之，做市商的市场份额是一个重要的指标，可以反映其在市场上的交易活跃度、流动性提供能力和交易效率等方面的表现。

较为著名的做市商公司有以下几家：

• Jane Street：总部位于美国纽约市的量化交易公司，成立于2000年，主要专注于股票、期货、外汇等领域的交易。

• Citadel Securities：总部位于美国芝加哥市的金融公司，成立于2002年，是全球最大的做市商之一，主要涉及股票、期货、外汇、债券等领域的交易。

• IMC Trading：总部位于荷兰阿姆斯特丹的金融公司，成立于1989年，是全球领先的做市商之一，涉及股票、期货、外汇等领域的交易。

• Optiver：总部位于荷兰阿姆斯特丹的金融公司，成立于1986年，是全球最大的期权做市商之一，也涉及其他领域的交易。

• Susquehanna International Group：总部位于美国费城市的金融公司，成立于1987年，是全球最大的期权做市商之一，也涉及其他领域的交易。

• Jump Trading：总部位于美国伊利诺伊州芝加哥的量化交易公司，成立于1999年。该公司致力于运用高级算法和先进的技术来进行交易，以寻找利润机会。Jump Trading在全球范围内涉及股票、期货、外汇、数字货币等各种市场。

1. 2 做市商公司的必要条件

建立一家做市商公司需要具备高度的资金实力、技术能力和市场洞察力，同时需要满足金融监管机构的监管要求，且面对竞争激烈的市场环境和高度的风险管理压力，因此难度较高。

1.2.1 了解市场

做市商需要深入了解市场规则、流动性、交易品种和交易者的行为模式，以便做出正确的交易决策。他们需要了解市场中的趋势和机会，以便在市场中获得优势。了解市场的方法有以下几个：

• 研究市场信息和数据：做市商需要研究市场的历史和当前的交易数据，以便了解市和价格波动。做市商可以通过使用交易软件或市场数据提供商获取市场信息。

• 跟踪新闻和事件：做市商还需要了解与市场相关的新闻和事件，例如公司财报、政治局势和宏观经济数据等。这些信息可能会对市场价格产生影响，并帮助做市商做出更好的决策。

• 与其他交易者交流：做市商可以通过与其他交易者交流来了解市场情况。例如，他们可以参加交易会议或网络论坛，与其他交易者交流看法和市场动态。

• 借助交易策略和模型：做市商公司可以使用交易策略和模型来预测市场趋势和价格波动。这些模型可能包括技术分析、基本面分析和量化分析等方法。

1.2.2 建立技术平台

做市商公司需要一个高效、稳定的技术平台，能够支持实时交易和数据分析。该平台需要包括快速执行交易的算法、高速的数据传输和处理系统、以及安全的交易结算系统。具体来说，做市商公司需要具备以下5类技术：

• 交易技术：包括证券、期货、期权等。这些技术包括交易平台的使用、订单管理、风险控制等。

• 数据分析技术：了解市场的行情和趋势。这些技术包括数据挖掘、机器学习、人工智能等。

• 量化交易技术：实现高频交易和快速交易。这些技术包括算法交易、高频交易、程序化交易等。

• 风险管理技术：保证交易的安全和稳定。这些技术包括风险控制、资金管理、市场监测等。

• 软件开发技术：开发和维护交易系统和交易工具。这些技术包括编程语言、数据库管理、软件测试等。

1.2.3 确定资本需求

做市商公司需要大量的资本来支持其交易活动。你需要确定需要多少资本才能进入市场，并确定资本来源。以下是如何确定需要多少资本的方法：

• 计算市场流动性需求：市场流动性需求是做市商所必须提供的资金量，以便在市场上进行买入和卖出交易。确定流动性需求的方法包括测算市场交易量、交易频率和持仓量等指标，从而估计出需要投入的资金量。

• 考虑保证金要求：许多交易所和市场要求做市商提供保证金，以确保做市商在市场上的交易活动符合规定。你需要了解市场保证金要求，并且预留足够的资金来满足保证金需求。

• 考虑交易成本：交易成本是指在市场上进行交易所需支付的费用，包括手续费、报价价差、清算费用等。你需要计算交易成本，并且预留足够的资金来覆盖这些成本。

• 考虑市场波动性：市场波动性可能导致做市商遭受亏损。你需要考虑市场波动性，并且预留足够的资金来应对市场风险。

综上所述，确定做市商需要多少资本需要考虑多种因素，并且需要根据不同市场的具体情况来进行分析和计算。需要注意的是，资本需求是一个动态的过程，需要根据市场变化和公司业务扩展来不断调整。

1.2.4 实施风险管理

做市商需要管理风险，以确保交易的安全性和稳定性。您需要制定风险管理策略，包括交易风险、流动性风险、市场风险和操作风险等。

市场风险管理是确保在不利的市场条件下仍能保持交易的正常运行。例如，做市商可以采用对冲策略、杠杆控制和交易限制等措施来管理市场风险。操作风险是为了保证交易过程中不会发生错误或失误。例如，做市商可以建立良好的交易流程和交易规则，并加强内部审计和监控等措施来管理操作风险。技术风险管理是为了确保交易系统的稳定和安全。例如，做市商可以采用备份和恢复策略、网络安全措施和数据加密等措施来管理技术风险。信用风险管理是确保交易过程中不会发生违约或不良资产损失等问题。例如，做市商可以采用信用评估和监控、保证金管理和风险控制等措施来管理信用风险。

1. 3 运作模式与做市制度

在交易平台上，做市商通过双向报价（买入和卖出）来提供流动性，所以它的运作模式一般包括以下几个步骤：

• 选择标的：根据交易策略、合作模式和风险偏好选择一个或多个市场或者产品，比如股票、期货、外汇等。

• 分析市场：对所选择的市场或者标的进行分析，了解其特点、趋势和变化。并根据分析结果指定相应的策略。

• 提供报价：做市商会根据其交易策略和市场情况提供双向报价，即买入和卖出报价，以提供流动性。

• 接受交易：做市商会接受客户的买入和卖出订单，并根据自己的报价进行交易。在某些情况下，做市商可能会进行对冲以降低风险。

• 风险控制：做市商会对交易风险进行监控和控制，并根据需要进行风险管理和对冲操作。

• 盈利：做市商通过交易差价和手续费等方式盈利，但也存在风险导致亏损的可能性。

在以上的运作模式下，其实存在两种驱动制度：报价驱动制度与指令驱动制度。报价驱动（Quote driven）制度是由做市商为投资者提供买卖双边报价进行对赌交易，通过报价的更新来引导成交价格发生变化。指令驱动（Order driven）制度又称竞价交易制度，投资者通过网络，把买卖指令传输到交易所，交易所的电脑主机根据时间优先、价格优先的原则，将买卖指令撮合成交，形成连续的成交价格。

1. 4 盈利模式

做市商的盈利模式通常是从买卖差价中获得利润。做市商会在交易平台上同时报出买入和卖出两个价格，称为“双向报价”。当客户下单后，做市商会即时成交，然后以更高的价格卖出或更低的价格买入同一种证券，从中获得差价利润，这个差价通常称为Spread收益或者便利收入（Facilitation revenues）。做市商还可以通过高频交易、对冲、套利等方式进行盈利。其中，高频交易是指使用高速算法和自动化系统进行快速交易的一种交易策略。对冲是指用相反的交易来减少风险，套利则是指利用市场不同的价格来获得利润。除此之外，市商还有一种库存收入（Inventory revenues），库存收入反映做市商持有头寸时证券价值变动带来的损益和股利、利息等持有收益。

盈利水平通常取决于市场波动性、流动性和交易规模等因素。在市场稳定和流动性充足的情况下，做市商通常能够获得可观的盈利。

做市商的盈利还需要考虑交易成本，做市业务的成本主要包括三方面：买卖证券时支付的经纪佣金、清算费用等交易成本；为做市业务筹集资本的融资成本；为减少持有资产风险敞口而进行对冲带来的成本，以及无法清除的信用风险、交易方风险等风险成本。但由于做市商通常进行大量的交易，他们可以通过规模效应和高效的技术来降低交易成本，并从中获得盈利。

Spread收益是做市商的主要收益。根据公开数据，大部分做市商的盈利情况相对稳定，但利润率并不高。

1. 5 监管和合规要求

做市商直接参与到证券市场的流动性和价格形成，其交易策略和行为可能会对市场产生影响，因此需要监管机构对其进行监管。监管可以有效地确保做市商公司遵守交易规则和市场秩序，防范市场操纵和不当交易行为，保障投资者的利益，维护市场的公正、透明和稳定。同时，监管还可以促进做市商公司的合规运营，加强风险管理和信息披露等方面的要求，提高市场的信心和透明度，降低市场波动性，促进市场的健康发展。因此，做市商受到监管的必要性不仅是为了保护投资者的利益，更是为了维护整个市场的健康运行。

这里主要考虑在美国的做市商机构受到的监管政策。在美国，做市商公司的监管是相对严格的。这些公司需要严格遵守证券交易委员会（SEC）和金融业监管局（FINRA）的监管要求，并遵守证券法规。此外，做市商公司还需遵守合规和反洗钱等方面的要求。监管机构对做市商公司的交易和业务进行严格的监管，包括对交易系统和算法的审核、对风控制度的检查和对数据保护的要求等。在监管方面，美国证券市场监管体系完善，对违规行为会有相应的处罚措施，因此做市商公司在日常运营中需要高度重视监管合规风险。具体部门和监管法律有以下：

• 美国证券交易委员会（SEC）：负责监管证券市场，包括做市商公司的注册和监管。

• 金融业监管局（FINRA）：负责监管证券经纪人和做市商公司，确保其遵守证券法规。

• 《证券交易法》（Securities Exchange Act）：主要法规，规定了证券市场的运作规则和监管要求。

• 《证券法案》（Securities Act）：规定了证券的注册和发行要求，涉及到做市商的业务。

• 《全国证券市场改革和监管改进法案》（National Securities Markets Improvement Act）：对证券市场的监管进行了全面修订，也对做市商的业务有影响。

1. 6 未来发展趋势

做市商是一个随着证券市场逐渐成熟而发展起来的赛道，它在金融市场中发挥着重要的作用。随着金融市场的发展，做市商的市场需求还将持续存在。但是，现阶段已经发展较为成熟，市场也渐渐趋于饱和，新的机构很难再挤入这个赛道，所以越来越多的做市商团队以加密市场为其主要布局点。

总的来说，做市商赛道长期面临的挑战有以下几个方面：

• 技术风险：随着市场的不断变化，做市商公司需要不断升级和改进其技术架构，确保系统稳定运行，避免技术问题导致的风险和损失。

• 法律风险：做市商公司需要遵守各国的法律法规，包括金融监管、证券法律和知识产权等方面的法律，否则将面临法律制裁和损失。

• 市场风险：市场变化和不确定性将给做市商公司带来风险和挑战，如市场波动、交易量下降、流动性不足等问题，都会影响做市商公司的盈利能力。

• 竞争风险：随着市场竞争的加剧，做市商公司将面临来自其他做市商公司和新兴技术公司的竞争，需要不断提升自身的核心竞争力，保持市场地位和盈利能力。

• 操作风险：做市商公司需要处理大量的交易和数据，需要建立有效的风险管理和内部控制体系，防止内部操作错误或违规行为导致的风险和损失。

机遇与挑战并存。随着全球金融市场的不断发展，证券市场交易的复杂性和规模不断扩大，做市商公司将有更多机会通过提供流动性服务和市场制造来参与市场，以此获得更高的利润。并且，在加密市场的快速发展下，做市商公司也可以通过提供加密资产的市场制造服务和流动性提供来获得更多的机会。同时，做市商公司可以通过开发和应用新的技术工具和算法来提高其市场制造能力，更好地适应市场需求，获得更多的市场份额。

2. 加密市场做市商

加密行业的做市商与传统金融在本质上没有多大区别，都是为市场提供流动性，快速建仓和平仓，获得买卖价差。但是运作模式、技术、风险管理和监管上却有天壤之别。首先，在市场规模方面，加密市场相对于传统金融市场还比较小，加密行业市商规模也相对较小。其次，加密市场的流动性相对较低，波动较大，做市商需要更加谨慎做好风险管理；然后，在加密市场的做市商团队也称为庄家。因为加密市场的交易过程很难被监管，也没有严格的做市商制度来约束；最后一点是，在技术架构方面，加密行业需要具备更高的技术能力，保证交易的安全性。

加密市场的做市商起着重要的作用，包括：（1）为加密市场提供流动性和深度；（2）为市场提供稳定的价格，吸引更多的交易者。可以说做市商是让项目方、交易所、投资人在加密市场上正常运转的关键一环。

2. 1 发展历程

加密市场做市商的发展可以分为3个阶段：

• 初期（2009–2012年）：随着比特币的诞生，第一批加密货币交易所和做市商开始涌现。这些做市商主要是由个人和小团队组成，旨在提供流动性和交易机会。

• 发展期（2013–2017年）：随着加密货币市场的不断发展和成熟，越来越多的机构开始关注和介入，加密货币交易所和做市商也逐渐成为各大机构的关注点。这一时期，一些专业的做市商开始出现，并开始提供更加专业化和高效的服务。涌现出的一些代表性公司包括：Cumberland Mining、Jump Trading、DRW Trading等。这些公司不仅提供做市服务，还提供套利、资产管理等多种服务。

• 巨变期（2018年至今）：2018年的加密货币市场暴跌导致了很多交易所和做市商的倒闭，但同时也为市场带来了一次机遇和洗牌。经过整合和调整，加密货币市场的交易量逐渐恢复，做市商的服务和模式也不断得到优化和升级。同时，随着各国政策和法规的不断出台和完善，加密做市商的监管和合规也逐渐成为了市场的重要趋势。在这个阶段，一些传统金融公司开始涉足加密货币市场，例如Jane Street、Susquehanna等。

目前，加密做市商的服务不仅局限于交易所，还逐渐扩展到了场外交易和去中心化交易所等领域，为市场的发展和成熟提供了重要的支持和保障。

2. 2 加密做市商的运作模式

加密做市商的运作模式与传统金融做市商类似，主要是为加密货币市场提供流动性和市场深度，同时从中获取利润。加密做市商通常在多个交易所进行交易，加密做市商的交易通常是自动化的，并且通过API接口与交易所进行连接。在市场内，通过自己的资金和算法模型来提供报价，以吸引买方和卖方进行交易。一些加密做市商还会提供场外交易服务，允许大宗交易和定制化交易。由于加密市场的波动性和不确定性，加密做市商需要实时调整自己的市场策略，包括交易规模、报价范围和对冲风险等方面。

加密做市流程一般包括以下几个步骤：

• 筛选货币对：选择一组或多组货币对，这通常取决于市场流动性和做市商的交易量能力。

• 报价：制定买入和卖出价格，并将其公布在交易所的交易深度表中。

• 撮合交易：一旦有交易者愿意与做市商的报价相匹配，做市商就会立即撮合交易，完成交易。

• 风险管理：在做市商交易期间，风险管理是非常重要的一步，做市商会使用各种工具和策略来控制自己的风险，例如交易限额、止损订单和对冲等。

• 结算和清算：一旦交易完成，做市商需要进行结算和清算，包括向买家和卖家收取手续费和支付相关税费等。

除以上步骤，做市商还需要不断监测市场情况，包括市场流动性、竞争对手的行动以及市场风险等，以便及时调整自己的策略和报价。

2.2.1 做市策略

做市策略（market-maker strategy）是一种风险中立（risk-neutral）盘口价差套利策略，属于量化交易策略中的高频交易策略，遵循低买高卖原则。其基本原理是：在盘口的卖一和买一价之间，插入委买单和委卖单，如果插入的两个单子都成交的话，做市商就吃到了买卖单之间的价差，而整个过程结束后，做市商所持有的头寸并没有变化。如果买卖单之间的价差扣除各种交易手续费之后还有盈余，那么该做市商就获得了相应的盈利。常见的做市策略包括价差策略、对冲策略、量化交易策略等。

做市策略根据不同的市场，划分为现货做市和期货做市策略。现货做市策略有短期趋势判断、做市、再平衡和主循环四个模块。期货做市策略更为复杂，包括做市时机选择、净头寸处理、锁仓、移仓、对手盘减仓等复杂的逻辑。

2.2.2 场外交易

加密做市商提供场外交易服务的方式通常是通过与交易对手方建立联系，与其协商价格和交易细节。具体来说，加密做市商会在交易平台或其他场外渠道上发布其做市价格，等待交易对手方接受并进行交易。此外，加密做市商还可以利用自己的流动性池，在需要时向交易对手方提供实时报价和交易机会，以满足其流动性需求。同时，加密做市商还可以提供交易对手方的清算和结算服务，确保交易的顺利进行和资金安全。

2. 3 做市技术门槛

加密做市商需要与传统做市商在技术上完全重合，但加密做市商需要掌握更多的技术，最重要的是区块链技术。加密货币交易基于区块链技术，因此加密做市商必须了解区块链技术及其在加密货币交易中的应用，以便理解交易的本质和技术细节。了解交易所和钱包如何与区块链交互，以及如何识别和解决由于网络拥堵或其他问题导致的交易延迟等问题。

其次，对于加密行业来说，资产的安全性也是非常重要的。由于加密货币交易存在一定的安全风险，因此加密做市商需要掌握相关的安全技术，以保护交易系统的安全。具体技术包括多重签名技术、冷钱包存储、安全通信协议、交易监测和反欺诈技术、数据备份和恢复技术等。

其它技术不限于：

• 数字货币交易所API：加密做市商需要掌握数字货币交易所API（应用程序接口），以便与交易所进行连接并获取市场数据，执行交易操作等。

• 数据分析和机器学习：加密货币市场波动较大，因此加密做市商需要具备一定的数据分析能力，包括市场行情的分析、价格走势的预测等。机器学习技术可以帮助做市商更加精准地进行交易决策。

• 社交媒体和网络营销：加密货币市场存在较强的社交化特点，因此加密做市商需要具备一定的社交媒体和网络营销能力，以便与潜在客户进行互动和交流。

2. 4 交易所与市商

数字货币交易所与做市商团队关系微妙。一些加密交易所可能拥有自己的做市商团队，但也有许多交易所选择与第三方做市商合作。交易所与市商合作有两种形式：

（1）直接与加密交易所合作

做市商直接与加密交易所进行合作，提供场内做市服务。交易所很多时候会提供一些做市商的计划，需要这些团队配合，并提供交易接口，但这些都属于被动交易的接口，不能主动吃单。要想能主动报价并吃单，只能由交易所内部做，直接或间接地嵌入交易所撮合系统。

此时，做市商需要通过API接口获取交易所的订单薄和市场深度等信息，然后使用自己的算法和交易策略进行市场定价和交易撮合。

交易所需要给市商提供相关的模块接口，通常包括行情数据、下单退单、充值提醒等。

（2）间接与加密交易所合作

做市商通过其他中介机构或平台与加密交易所进行合作，提供场外做市服务。此时，做市商需要与中介机构或平台进行协商，确定合作方式和合作细节，并通过API接口或其他渠道获取交易所的市场信息，然后进行场外交易。

需要注意的是，加密交易所并不是必须使用做市商来提供流动性。有些交易所可能采用其它方式来提高流动性，例如使用深度池或订单薄匹配引擎等技术。在与加密交易所合作时，做市商需要与交易所就合作细节、费用分配、交易量等方面进行协商，以确保合作顺利进行并获得可观的收益。同时，做市商需要严格遵守交易所的规则和监管要求，以确保交易的合法合规性。

从交易机制分析，交易所内部对接的做市商很大程度上参与了价格决定过程，一定程度上能够抑制妄图操纵币价的人，改善投资者和项目方预期，稳定市场情绪。

市商的存在对交易所的流动性起到了促进作用。一个交易所的流动性越高，用户的交易体验越好，用户粘性增强，交易所也就能获得更多的利润，因此交易所愿意给一些专门做市商的人予以返利。

在2017年、2018年左右，大批新的交易所上线，带领了“交易即挖矿”的概念，部分交易所运营的初期甚至根据交易量返现120%用于吸引市商参与交易。

为了争取更多优秀的市商团队在交易所进行做市，各大交易所都有推出自己的服务方案。首先，交易平台本身需要有更多的服务产品，包括更多现货交易对和期货类型、保值类产品（低利率的借贷服务等）、提供更多的交易策略和算法服务。其次，合理且富有吸引力的返佣比例。最后，交易所的风险管理和信誉是最重要的。这里列举一些交易所的为市商提供的活动。

从以上活动列表能够看出，Gate从2021年推出全球做市商计划后，不断有做市商大赛的活动来吸引做市团队。同时，也在不断调整做市费率和GT持仓。除此之外，为市商也提供一些服务，包括0息借贷额度。

做市商在现货、期货、期权市场都会参与，而且门槛也是越来越高。相应的，交易所也会在不同的参与市场给予不同的特权。一般情况下，交易所可以在以下项目在中给予市商优惠：

• 手续费折扣

• 杠杆资金

• 出入金额度

• API内部通道

• 机构客户账户/账务体系

对于市商来说，手续费是特别关键的，尤其是高频交易过程。当然，在交易所刚成立初期，很大可能会花钱请一些市商做市，尤其是期货、期权。

2. 5 项目方与市商

在加密市场中，项目代币的流动性与产品、团队、运营处于同等重要的位置。项目方和做市商之间的关系主要是通过做市商为项目方提供流动性服务来建立的。项目方，尤其是新项目在ICO或者IEO阶段，需要做市商团队进行价格管理。做市商起到的作用有3点：

（1）弥补市场流动性不足的缺点；

（2）稳定币价，防止价格过高或过低导致项目失败；

（3）市值管理，提高项目的市场认可度。

这些工作交给专业的做市商团队，比项目团队自己运作需要的成本更低。

由于监管缺失，做市商可以通过在市场上买进和卖出，带动成交量。当然，这种“虚假”成交量可以吸引部分投资者的关注度。

项目方会选择一些知名的加密交易所与做市商合作，以获得更好的流动性和更高的市场认可度，这需要项目方向做市商提供一定数量的代币作为初始流通。做市商同意在至少 90% 的合同期限内为订单簿提供活跃的流动性，作为交换，他们可以获得项目总代币供应量的 2–5%。对于做市商来说，与知名项目方合作可以提高其在市场中的知名度和声誉，有助于吸引更多的交易对进行交易。因此，在加密市场中，项目方和做市商之间的合作关系非常重要。

除了提供流动性之外，市商还会为项目方提供额外的服务，包括制定代币价格（尤其是STG）策略以及帮助团队套现

2. 6 加密做市商的盈利模式

与传统做市商一样，加密做市商也是通过买卖交易行为的价差获得利润。但是，在加密市场缺乏监管的情况下，这种价差可能会很大，市场波动性大，收益也会更加不稳定。

加密做市商还有两部分收益来源：

（1）帮助项目方做市；

（2）协助交易所维持足够流动性和交易量。

其中，与项目方合作，市商的盈利模式通常为以下两种：

• 做市商提供场外交易服务，帮助项目方提高流动性，获得交易量，从中获得收益。做市商通过承担交易双方之间的买卖差价以及交易手续费来盈利。

• 做市商与项目方合作成为代币的流动性提供者，参与代币的流动性挖矿。当代币的流动性增加时，做市商将获得代币作为回报。此外，做市商还可以通过提供市场深度、参与项目方的空投和推广等方式获得收益。

与交易所合作，也有两种盈利模式：

• 做市奖励：一些加密交易所为吸引做市商参与市场做市，会提供做市奖励。做市商在交易所提供的市场中挂单，并且有一定的交易量时，可以获得交易所提供的奖励，这也成为做市商获得收入的一个途径。这部分也可以是交易返佣。

• 提供流动性服务：做市商通过提供加密货币的买卖服务，提高市场的流动性，从而帮助交易所吸引更多的用户和交易量。一些加密交易所会向做市商支付额外的流动性费用。

随着做市商的数量越来越多，竞争性越强，为了赢得更多的市场，做市商会缩小报价价差，导致收益减少。

2. 7 市商评估要素

如何选择市商团队或者评价市商表现对加密市场参与者是十分重要的。评价做市团队的常用指标包括做市商的交易量和交易频率、报价的精度和稳定性、利润率和风险管理能力、市场份额和声誉。但是对交易所、市场接受者、项目方而言，更看重的是做市商提供流动性的表现。流动性表现的参考指标包括报价深度、准确性、更新频率和成交效率。

简单的指标在各交易所的做市商活动中会有列举，包括做市商委托量、买卖价差、报价、标识要求覆盖率、做市时间等。也有一些交易所采用比较复杂的指数，比如权重深度乘数、流动性指数等。

3. 加密做市商的风险分析与管理

3. 1 监管与合规

加密做市商目前仍然处于监管的灰色地带，尚未在大多数国家和地区得到明确的法律和监管框架的支持。这意味着加密做市商通常不需要遵守传统金融市场中所规定的严格监管标准，也没有受到相应的监管机构的监管。不过，在某些国家和地区，监管机构已经开始探索如何监管加密做市商，以确保市场的透明度、公平性和稳定性。

加密市场做市商所涉及到的监管机构包括，美国的证券交易委员会（SEC）和商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）对加密市场有一定的监管职责，其中SEC负责监管加密资产的证券性质，CFTC则监管加密衍生品合约等交易。此外，欧盟的金融市场监管机构ESMA也开始探索加密市场的监管框架，旨在确保加密市场的透明度和稳定性。

近些年，这些监管机构的案例有：

• 美国证券交易委员会（SEC）于2020年7月宣布，Coinbase和其他加密交易所可以注册为经纪商和交易所，并在其交易平台上为数字资产提供做市商服务。这表明SEC已经开始对加密做市商的监管进行探索。

• 瑞士金融市场监管局（FINMA）于2019年发布了一份加密货币管理指南，其中提到了加密交易商和做市商应该如何合规，并需要申请许可证来从事这些活动。这表明FINMA已经开始对加密做市商进行监管。

• 新加坡证券交易所（SGX）于2020年推出数字货币交易平台SGX iSTOX，并与做市商制定了一套监管框架，以确保其合规和透明。这表明SGX已经开始对加密做市商的监管进行探索，并开始与做市商合作。

这些案例表明，监管机构已经开始对加密做市商的监管进行探索，并制定了一些相关的指导方针和监管框架。未来随着加密市场的不断发展，监管机构对加密做市商的监管也将越来越重要。

在合规性上，加密做市商同样需要遵守各种法规，各国存在差异，但一些常见的合规性要求包括：

• KYC（了解客户）：做市商需要遵守KYC法规，确保客户的身份得到验证和记录。

• AML（反洗钱）：做市商需要遵守AML法规，防止加密货币被用于洗钱和其他非法活动。

• 数据保护：做市商需要遵守数据保护法规，保护客户数据的安全和隐私。

• 交易透明度：做市商需要提供交易透明度，包括公开的交易数据、市场深度等信息，以确保交易公正、透明。

此外，一些国家或地区可能还有其他的监管要求，例如税务、证券或期货等领域的法规等。

3. 2 市场风险

做市商在加密市场上面临着多重风险，包括：

• 价格风险：由于加密货币市场的高度波动性，做市商面临着价格风险，即做市商持有的加密货币在市场价格大幅波动时可能会出现亏损。

• 流动性风险：做市商需要提供流动性来支持市场的交易，但如果市场出现了大量的卖方或买方压力，做市商可能难以及时提供足够的流动性，从而出现交易延迟或失败等情况。

• 对手风险：由于加密货币市场的匿名性和去中心化特点，做市商可能无法确定其对手方的信用状况和交易意图，从而面临着对手风险，即做市商无法兑现其对手方的交易。

• **做市资金风险：**做市资金与传统金融做市类似，直白点，就是做市资金规模和资金流转效率决定了市商的级别。尤其是涉及到出入金，对做市来说就是第一个门槛。做市团队一般开户银行以Silvergate bank和Signature bank为主。但这两家加密友好银行最近面临破产危机，很多资金无法取款。这加大了未来机构入局加密领域的门槛。

为了应对以上风险，每个市商都会有一定的策略，比如在极端动荡市场中，更倾向于抽身而退。或者采用风险对冲的策略对头寸进行保值，依据存货模型、信息模型将风险转移到资产。

3. 3 链上与链下的风险

链下的风险一般是交易风险，如历史数据的完整性、策略模型设计上的缺陷、系统故障、风险控制缺失、过度拟合以及交易成本敏感性风险。

（1）定价风险：决定了做市商能否提供富有吸引力的价格，以及定价的正确与否直接关系到做市商的赢亏。

（2）资产价格波动巨大的存货风险：如果标的资产的价格朝着单边方向发展，例如在上涨趋势里，卖单成交后买单没有成交，就会承担卖出价格上涨的风险。在下跌趋势里，买单成交后卖单没能完全成交，就会承担买入价格下跌的风险。

交易平台风险：交易平台的风险也有很多种。

• 买卖指令下达频次和数量都具有随机性，也许会造成卖出单成交以后买入单还没有完全成交的风险。

• 交易所bug，交易对出现问题，交易平台并没有开启保护措施。

（3）API风险：这里包括了内部泄露问题、API中断等。

加密市场的风险来源不仅仅是链下交易行为带来的风险，而更多可能出现的风险来自链上。首先，如果做市代币的智能合约存在漏洞，被黑客攻击，这样会造成市商存量资产受到损失。其次，加密做市商可能需要参与链上协议、DeFi 应用等，以提供流动性，链上的一切风险都会传导到每一位参与者头上。比如，协议所在公链出现分叉或者链上交易的速度变慢。

3. 4 风险管理

为了控制以上可能出现的风险，市商也会设定严格的策略与纪律。

• 注重交易质量而不是数量

做市商虽然能通过为交易所提供流动性获取一定的佣金，但是过度交易往往浪费更多的时间和金钱，因此有效交易的关键是选择交易质量而非交易数量。这体现在三个方面：（1）选择好的资产标的；（2）选择信誉良好的交易所；（3）分析市场，确定合适的交易策略。

• 建立良好的合作关系

做市商需要与交易所、项目方、投资者等建立良好的合作关系，以获得更多的信息和支持，减少自身的风险。

• 严格的纪律性

这里包括退出机制、不过度使用杠杆。做市商需要控制自己的风险暴露度，尽可能分散风险。

• 存货风险管理

（1）在连续不断的买卖中保持存货的适当头寸。存货风险及其管理促进了做市商的交易积极性，也对市场价格产生一定影响的主要原因。

（2）运用价格变动杠杆来使存货能够满足其连续交易和降低成本的要求。

（3）通过在加密市场进行组合投资、套期保值。

• 监控市场

做市商需要不断监控市场流动性变化，包括市场深度、成交量、交易对等指标，及时调整自己的报价策略，以确保市场中有足够的流动性支持。

4. 加密做市商典型案例分析

近年来，随着加密货币市场的不断发展，加密做市商公司逐渐崛起。这些公司致力于提供流动性管理、价格发现和交易撮合等服务，以满足日益增长的加密货币交易需求。当前，全球范围内已有众多专业的加密做市商公司涌现，它们采用各种高效的技术和策略，为市场参与者提供多样化的交易服务，促进了加密货币市场的进一步发展和成熟。由于加密市场与传统金融还有很大差距，对市商来说，更容易形成垄断，加密货币的流动性被几家大型市商主导。这里包括Jump、Wintermute、Amber Group、B2C2、DRW Trading。

4. 1 FTX暴雷与Alameda Research破产

Alameda Research成立于2018年，总部位于美国加利福尼亚州。该公司由数学家Samuel Bankman-Fried创立。Samuel Bankman-Fried曾在Jane Street工作，并在那里积累了大量的量化交易经验。除了在加密市场上进行做市和量化交易外，该公司还开发了一些加密货币交易工具和基础架构，如加密交易所FTX和Solana区块链上的加密交易协议Serum。

FTX暴雷事件后，是Alameda Research的破产，在FTX的做市团队遭遇到了很大的损失，从Kaiko的数据中可以看到FTX事件后，BTC的挂单情况，表明流动性缺失。FTX与Alameda的数字资产包括FTT和SOL，这些代币的崩盘导致了solana链上所有代币的流动性紧缩和清算风险。

4. 2 Wintermute 与DeFi黑客攻击事件

Wintermute Trading是一家总部位于伦敦的加密货币做市商。该公司成立于2017年，由Evgeny Gaevoy和Harro Mantel共同创立。Wintermute Trading的主要业务是为加密货币交易所、机构和个人提供流动性服务，同时也在一些加密货币衍生品市场提供做市服务。现阶段，Wintermute 以及与 50 多个加密货币交易所达成合作关系。而且在各交易所的交易量排行中处于领先。团队核心成员包括

• 首席执行官：Evgeny Gaevoy，他之前曾在 Optiver 公司负责欧洲市场的交易所交易基金（ETF）业务；

• 首席技术官：Valentine Samko，他曾在交易公司和银行（包括巴克莱银行和摩根大通银行）担任软件工程师。

除了在加密货币市场上的业务，Wintermute Trading还积极参与推动加密货币市场的发展和规范化。该公司是伦敦数字资产交易协会（LSTA）的成员之一，也是数字资产交易商协会（ADAM）的成员。在2021年2月，Wintermute宣布完成了2.5千万美元的融资，投资者包括Lightspeed Venture Partners和Pantera Capital等。但由于熊市和黑客攻击的影响，Wintermute在2022年的收入在3亿美元左右，远低于2021年10亿美元。

2022年9月，由于Wintermute可能使用Profanity工具来创建靓号钱包，导致其EOA钱包被盗，损失1.6亿美元。

4. 3 GSR Market

GSR Markets从根本上说是一家属于香港的算法数字交易公司。它利用自己的软件为几种数字资产类别的订单执行解决方案，从而提供流动性。 该公司部署了多种交易模型，与30多个流动性池相集成，其交易费用在市场上相对很低。

特点：

• 一流的领导力和来自世界一流的金融机构的强大技术与金融从业人员团队。

• 设计了直观的风险管理策略，专为那些难以管理的人设计。

• 其专有的交易技术可以根据交易需求进行修改。 其销售和汇总策略会根据实时流动性和波动性进行调整，从而使投资者能够真正获得最佳价格。

最近，GSR与各项目方频繁合作。包括Stargate，Stargate将向GSR提供800万枚STG的欧式期权，条件为24个月后STG均价超过1.15美元。在提案通过后，STG 在过去 14 天暴涨 36.2%。

5. 去中心化做市商

参与链上做市行为都可以成为去中心化做市商，这里有三种形式：

• 参与去中心化交易所DEX的流动性提供者，又称为挖矿行为，门槛低，任何人都能参与，提供交易对的流动性，获得一定的奖励；

• 参与去中心化衍生品市场，类似dydx模式；

• 一些专门服务做市的DeFi协议，例如Elixir，这些协议成为了CLOB和AMM模式的流动性分配工具。

DEX里面一般采用自动做市商算法AMM，任何人都能成为市商。它使用自动化算法来平衡交易池中代币的供需关系。AMM的工作原理是允许流动性提供者将代币（通常等量）存入流动性池。然后，流动性池中代币的价格遵循一个公式，例如常量产品做市商算法 x*y = k，其中 x 和 y 是池中两个代币的数量，k 是一个常数。这导致池中代币的比例决定了价格，确保无论交易规模如何，池始终可以提供流动性，并且滑点量由交易规模与池大小相比决定。由于流动性池中的价格偏离全球市场价格，套利者将进入并将价格推回全球市场价格。各种协议迭代这个基本的 AMM 模型或引入新模型，比如Curve、Balancer、Uniswap V3等提供改进的性能，并扩展到衍生品。

但在DEX里面，也存在一定的风险，LP需要承担智能合约本身的漏洞风险，流动性池被掏空，无偿损失问题等。DEFI协议中，为了吸引LP和专业的市商团队，提供了不同的做市策略和流动性池以供选择，同时给出了更高的收益率。即使如此，我认为链上做市和中心化交易所做市还是各有优缺点，彼此也无法取代。

另外要提到的就是专门的做市协议，这里以Elixir为例。Elixir的用户主要有两个：（1）项目方；（2）想成为市商的用户。具体实现机制如下：

• 项目方在Elixir中可以无许可创建债券以获取流动性，这类似于Olympus DAO的机制。用户可以通过流动性池获得LP代币，兑换成项目方的原生代币，以此建立代币的流动性。

• 为用户提供专门的做市策略，使每个人都能够参与到CEX和DEX中的做市活动中，这些做市协议在降低做市门槛的同时，也开辟了一个小众赛道。但由于做市策略、量化策略、风险管理策略都是在不同市场情况下经常调整和更新，所以DeFi的做市协议还需要时间验证，但对一些想要从市商业务中获取收益的用户来说，不失为一个好的方式。

目前，中心化市商无法以公开透明的方式与项目方合作，而且佣金高，但通过链上做市协议可以有效提高用户资金利用率，成为流动性提供者，通过合适的算法和策略，为项目方解决流动性问题，用户受益，项目方也能达到目的。但链上做市协议机制复杂、灵活性较差，可能难以应对市场风险。

6. 加密做市商发展与挑战（附投融资列表）

加密货币市场的快速发展，促使加密货币做市商的需求不断增加，同时也催生了更多创新的技术和商业模式。加密做市商的未来发展趋势体现在以下几个方面：

• 加强风险管理：随着加密货币市场的不断成熟和规范化，风险管理将成为做市商竞争的重要因素之一。做市商需要采用更加科学的方法和工具，来降低交易风险和信用风险，并确保运营的安全性和稳定性。

• 开发更加智能化的交易系统：随着人工智能和机器学习技术的不断进步，加密货币做市商可以采用更加智能化的交易系统，以提高效率和交易品质，并更好地适应市场的变化和需求。

• 加强流动性：随着越来越多的机构和投资者进入加密货币市场，做市商需要不断加强自身的流动性，以满足更加多元化和复杂化的交易需求。在此过程中，做市商还需要与其他做市商、交易所和流动性提供商等紧密合作，以共同推动市场的发展和壮大。

• 探索新的商业模式：随着加密货币市场的不断发展和变化，做市商需要不断探索新的商业模式，以应对市场的变化和挑战。例如，一些做市商开始向市场提供更加专业化的服务，如基于数据分析的做市、跨链做市等。目前，也有很多市商开始涉及其它加密业务，比如托管、OTC业务、一级投资等。

• 积极尝试链上协议做市：随着链上项目和用户的增加，无论是与项目方合作，还是为了获得更高的收益率，做市商都会开始步入链上。同时，类似dydx的做市商活动也会越来越多。除此之外，市商会参与更多需要流动性的加密产品。比如，加密做市商GSR启动NFT做市项目，将专注于生成艺术。该公司已经购买了 175 件(NFT)，但仍在研究如何通过算法进行交易。

加密货币市场具有许多独特的特征，在提供流动性时面临各种挑战。例如，加密市场 24/7/365 开放，提供自我托管能力，零售直接与交易所互动（交易所扮演经纪人、交易所和托管人的角色），在 CEX 提供虚拟余额的即时“结算”，与 T+2 传统金融结算相比，在 DEX 提供链上交易的快速结算，并使用稳定币促进交易， 考虑到BTC的波动性和仍然笨拙的法定货币到加密货币的转换。此外，加密市场在很大程度上仍然不受监管，导致价格操纵的可能性，并且继续高度分散，流动性在许多链上和链下场所分叉。此外，交易场所技术仍在不断发展，因为交易所的API连接质量参差不齐，并且在市场活跃度高的时候会周期性下降。最后，加密衍生品市场仍在不断发展，与传统金融市场相比，衍生品相对于现货要小得多。这些特征在提供流动性方面带来了各种挑战，包括市场碎片化/互操作性、资本效率低下、监管不确定性以及仍在改进的交换技术/连通性。

总之，随着加密货币市场的不断发展和变化，做市商需要不断调整自身的战略和业务模式，以更好地适应市场的变化和需求。同时，做市商也需要加强与其他市场参与者的合作和交流，以共同推动市场的发展和壮大。

7. 总结与思考

无论是传统行业还是加密市场，做市商需要永远置身于市场之中，才能手握“价差”进行交易，所以不同的市场意味着更多的盈利机会。加密做市商在未来也会呈现一些传统金融做市商的发展特点：

• 做市参与者逐渐多元化，包括综合大型投行、电子交易平台等。

• 做市品种多元化，包括各类现货、衍生品等。尤其是加密衍生品市场在不断发展。

• 业务杠杆高，以现货和衍生品交易为代表的做市业务是典型的资本消耗型业务，投行大多使用杠杆资金扩大业务规模，因此做市业务杠杆倍数往往高于其他业务。这往往会催生其它加密借贷业务，也提升了整个行业的风险水平。

• 市商头部效应越发明显，头部机构人才储备充足、资本实力雄厚、客户资源丰富、定价能力优秀、资产规模较大，可以通过分散资产组合、使用对冲工具等方式降低风险成本，因此头部机构在做市业务方面更具优势。

虽然加密做市商的规模在不断扩大，竞争也越来越激烈，但实际上，加密做市商的技术壁垒相对较高，承担的风险较大。尤其FTX暴雷事件，Cumberland、GSR、Wintermute、Jump、folkvang、Nibbio这些市商在FTX有头寸。同时，最近Silvergate银行的暴雷风险，对市商来说产生多大的影响还犹未可知。由此可以说明，资金的流动效率对市商特别重要。

作为交易者，我们也需要去识别做市商是否与项目方进行合作，以正确判断代币价格走势，这个可以从代币价格和交易量上发现端倪。

去中心化做市商协议，包括DEX等，也在不断地争取一些做市团队参与链上的活动。在我看来，订单簿形式能满足做市团队的多样交易策略，而AMM形式存在一定的局限性，且不好把控。如果有较大的收益优势，做市团队会用一部分资金参与链上做市。但我认为还是不会威胁到中心化交易所的地位。当然，也不能忽略一些创新的DeFi协议带来的影响力。值得关注的是，一些市商已经开始探索在NFT领域做市。他们也在探索更多的链上产品或者有二级交易市场的衍生品做市。

但是，这里不排除一个隐患。类似于Alameda，更多大型做市商机构可能会主动下场，自己孵化链上协议，或是DEX或是借贷，比如Wintermute孵化的DEX Bebop。他们提供的雄厚资金对协议本身会起到促进作用，但也对整个市场带来风险。

7. 1 投资方向思考

市商作为交易环节中的重要角色，并且其盈利能力在牛熊周期中都能有很大的发挥空间。在做市商赛道上，可以重点看以下投资方向：

• 中心化的小型市商策略或服务类项目，这类项目为做市商提供工具、数据、定制化策略类服务。

• 解决互操作性问题：由于公链和Layer2的发展，目前呈现出一个多链世界，这导致流动性割裂。一个潜在的解决方案是第二层中间件提供商，它可以与不同的链进行无信任的交互，以在许多流动性来源中找到最有效的交易路线。

• CeDeFi：CeFi和DeFi之间的界限可能会合并，包括流动性供应。

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

1.1 Technical solutions and features

The Arbitrum solution was proposed and created by Offchain Labs. It was originally a purely research-based academic project, and then gradually turned into practice after continuous optimization and improvement. This solution is also a solution based on Optimistic Rollup, which maintains security through the game model of economic incentives and maintains transaction validity through fraud proofs. The main difference lies in the challenge mechanism and implementation form. Optimism only needs the sorter and validator to perform a fraud proof interaction to determine the result, but Arbitrum believes that an interaction may cause the fraud proof to contain a large number of transactions and exceed the gas limit, and proposes that the fraud proof is caused by an abnormal execution of a single instruction. Not all instructions need to be executed. Therefore, Arbitrum divides the fraud proof into multiple rounds of steps. It only needs to prove that the sorter is abnormal when executing a certain instruction, which can prove that the sorter is evil and save costs.

Arbitrum’s scheme is consistent with the main features of Optimism Rollup, so we won’t go into details here, and we can focus on the changes brought about by the changes in the fraud proof mechanism.

• Multiple rounds of fraud proof interactions. Arbitrum uses multiple rounds of fraud proofs to verify the validity of transactions, reducing the gas consumption required for a single challenge, and there is no need to worry about gas fees exceeding the limit.

• Stronger compatibility with EVM. Although the Optimism team’s OVM is compatible with the EVM, it is not 100% compatible. Existing projects still need to modify the code when migrating from the first layer. The Arbitrun team’s solution is almost 100% compatible.

• Multi-step transactions may have security issues. The verification of the validity of Arbitrum transactions requires multiple rounds of interaction, and the built-in virtual machine needs to support an asynchronous mechanism, which is more complex, with a larger amount of code, and may have security issues.

2. Current status of Arbitrum

The performance of Layer2 is second to none at the beginning of 2023, which is in line with the predictions of most institutions and influencers. In terms of token prices, Optimism, Polygon and token on Arbitrum eco are also superior, for example, the token $OP peaked at $3.17 in February and $MATIC peaked at $1.32. As new L1 chains, such as Solana and Terra, are volatile under the influence of the incidents in bear market, the future will still be dominated by Ethereum; it is arguably that the competition yet to come will be between new L1 chains and Layer2. With a small climax in the crypto market, Arbitrum is the vanguard among others.

Currently, Arbitrum is the project with highest TVL in Ethereum’s Layer 2 scaling solution, reaching $3.85B, accounting for 3.63% of all networks combined, and 55.97% in Layer2. And after the Airdrop and economics leaked out, its TVL increased by 21.29%. Arbitrum Rollup is an off-chain protocol managed by on-chain Ethereum contracts, to be precise, Arbitrum is not a blockchain but an off-chain transaction uploaded to the main Ethereum network through a compression algorithm. This approach can partially solve the congestion problem faced by Ethereum, in order for creation of advantages on fast transaction, low gas fee, security guarantee and good user experience.

On March 16, 2023, Arbitrum announced its token $ARB, the DAO governance token for the Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova networks. The total initial supply of the Arbitrum token $ARB is 10 billion, with a maximum inflation of 2% per year. In terms of token airdrops, 11.62% of the initial total supply will be airdropped to Arbitrum users, and 1.13% will be airdropped to the DAO treasury that builds applications on Arbitrum. The specific token distribution is as follows:

3. Technical upgrade

In 2022, Arbitrum has been active. In addition to the Odyssey event, technical upgrades were frequently announced, including the launch of the Arbitrum Nova, Arbitrum One and the introduction of a new programming environment, Stylus. Core technical features and applicable scenarios will be dissected in below.

3.1 Arbitrum Nova — An AnyTrust Chain

On July 12, 2022, Arbitrum Network announced the completion of a new chain, Arbitrum Nova. This chain is built on AnyTrust and designed specifically for gaming, social applications and more cost-sensitive scenarios. AnyTrust is rooted on the assumption of minimal trust ensured through the Data Availability Committee. This committee will be responsible for managing off-chain transaction data and providing that data to support batches. As a result, AnyTrust eliminates the 7-day withdrawal period that users have to wait and improves the overall user experience. The core technical feature include:

• Sign data availability certificates (DACerts) for bulk transactions and issue DACert.

• If the committee is unable to reach consensus, the chain will revert to an Arbitrum aggregation protocol.

• Data execution will be performed on L2, and after a challenging period, the new aggregated state will be confirmed on Ethereum.

3.2 Nitro

At the end of August 2022, Arbitrum One was successfully upgraded to the Nitro version, which significantly improves network speed and reduces transaction costs. In general, the following technical upgrades have been made to Nitro:

• Some modifications to previous AVM architecture and ArbOS.

• The trending WebAssembly (WASM) architecture will replace the older, custom-designed AVM architecture.

• Customized EVM simulator is replaced by Geth.

• ArbOS will be downsized and rewritten in Go to provide a more optimized bulk-processing and compression system for transactions.

The core of the Arbitrum Nitro technology is a new prover that enables interactive fraud proofs of Arbitrum on WASM code, which is constructable and programmable by standard languages and tools. Also, Gethcore is compiled directly into Arbitrum to be more compatible with EVM.

3.3 Stylus

Offchain Labs, the official Arbitrum development team, has announced the launch of Stylus, a next-generation programming environment for Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova. Stylus empowers users to deploy applications with their favorite programming languages (including Rust, C and C++) through WebAssembly smart contract functionality so that EVM programs on Arbitrum can run simultaneously. Stylus is exponentially faster with lower cost and fully interoperable with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Although Offchain Labs calls Stylus EVM+, Stylus will not replace EVM.

4. Collaborations across the ecosystem

In the past year, the market share of Arbitrum has grown significantly, and this growth comes from: 1. continued bullishness of Layer2; 2. the expected token offering of Arb; and 3. the growth of applications in the eco, especially native applications. Since the mainnet Arbitrum One went live last September, applications such as Uniswap, Sushiswap and Curve, the leading DeFi protocols on the Ethereum Layer1 mainnet, have been integrated and deployed on Arbitrum One, as well as some well-known cross-chain protocols. The influx of these applications also demonstrates that developers are bullish on the Arbitrum scaling solution.

In June 2022, organizers of the Odyssey event selected the 14 most active projects on Arbitrum, including Cross-Chain Bridge, DeFi, NFT, and Games. The duration of the event was originally planned to be 8 weeks, but was suspended after the first week. The primary cause of the suspension was network congestion in the second week, which resulted in soaring gas fee. At that time, the gas fee has exceeded that on mainnet Ethereum. In fact, it has fully explained that Arbitrum was incompetent for such user capacity in its state at that time.

Although the Odyssey was only held for a week, the event still attracted considerable attention. Arbitrum, combined with NFT, in the form of an event week inspired users to participate and fostered the learning curve of users on Arbitrum’s ecology; not only the overall user base is enriched, but also traffic is injected into the ecosystem. At the same time, it is a smart move that expectation of future token offerings is preserved rather than the hasty way of giving out tokens as airdrops.

According data from browsers, 207K addresses were added on Arbitrum from the beginning of the Odyssey on June 21 to the end of the first week. On June 27th, the number of daily new addresses hit the record of 55K, which further proves the success of the Odyssey.

After the Odyssey event, Arbitrum has extended its technical efforts and launched projects with innovative mechanisms in the eco, elevating the degree of expectation for a mini-bull at the end of January to full. Currently, Arbitrum’s average monthly active address count for October 2022-January 2023 is 608,365, an increase of 51.2% from September. A corresponding rise in Arbitrum’s transaction volume and user base are also in presence.

5. Analysis of trending projects

In the past 2 months, native ecological projects on Arbitrum have been the center of the whole crypto market. Some projects are sorted out in below that the market cap on each of these projects is lower compared with projects in the same category on other L1 chains, which implies that these projects may be undervalued. Along with the token offering and future development of Arbitrum, there will be plenty of room for improvement.

5.1 DeFi

There are already well-known projects deployed on Arbitrum with multi-chain deployments, such as Uniswap and AAVE, but instead, Arbitrum’s native projects have exhibited stunning momentum, such as the perpetual contract exchange GMX, revenue aggregators for derivatives and the vault Jones DAO. Arbitrum has found the holy grail for sustaining a lucrative model: derivative protocols are similar to casinos with ongoing business revenue; various types of revenue aggregators adopt tactics to lure more capital inflow and expand the revenue streaming; therefore, as more people jump into revenue aggregators, more liquidity is available, thus creating more revenue.

5.1.1 Trending Project 1: GMX

GMX is a decentralized perpetual contracts exchange. Users are provided with options to trade ETH, BTC, LINK and UNI perpetual contracts with up to 30x leverage on a decentralized platform rather than shoring or longing with leverage on centralized exchange, such as Binance or FTX.

In terms of execution, it is more complex than that on centralized exchanges, and price feeding is needed by oracles. Therefore, external forces will engage to perform opening and closing; Keeper (similar to crowdsourcing) serves as the external force to help GMX with these functions.

When a user performs a close action on GMX, it is divided into two parts: one is to send a transaction, and the other to execute, which is done by GMX Keeper.

In addition to the Gas fee for sending the transaction, the sender is required to pay a Gas fee to Keeper for executing it.

TVL of GMX has accumulated to $496 million, representing 27.53% of the TVL of all DeFi protocols on Arbitrum (date on Mar.20, 2023). The protocol generated $33.9 million in revenue over the past year, making GMX tokens one of the best assets in the volatile 2022, returning 84.0% in USD and 428.5% in ETH.

5.1.2 Trending Project 2: Camelot

Camelot, as Arbitrum’s native DEX, has completed token sales in December 2022, which is a regular Uniswap V2 + Curve type of DEX overall but with more features available, such as adding Launchpad, incorporating custom transaction fees, combining LP with NFT, and allowing project parties to set incentives. A brief conclusion of the features is as the following:

• The same AMM DEX as Uniswap V2 with liquidity dispersed over the entire interval from zero to infinity.

• Similar stablecoin trade pairs to Curve.

• Support dynamic targeted transaction fees. Camelot allows project parties to set the percentage of transaction fees based on market conditions and specific protocol requirements.

• Provides revenue and incentives through NFT. Users providing liquidity will receive spNFT representing staking positions.

• The protocol is license-free and project parties can set incentives through the incentive pool of Nitro Pools. These are additional incentive pools.

• With Launchpad, project parties can benefit from many operations, not limited to raising funds and guiding liquidity.

The project with highest TVL on OP is Velodrome, with $77.14 million in liquidity. This figure even surpasses Uniswap V3, which is currently at $44.87 million, but with an FDV of only $9.46 million and an FDV/TVL of 0.21. Relative to Camelot, Velodrome has a higher TVL, but a lower valuation.

5.1.3 Trending Project 3: RDNT

RDNT, a lending protocol on Arbitrum, has two major innovations: multi-chain lending with LayerZero and revolve lending (unavailable for now). It is currently the leader of the kind on Arbitrum, with higher TVL than the Arb version of AAVE V3, but the competition in the long run will still be intense.

Since it is an all-chain lending protocol, users can deposit any major asset on any major chain and borrow various assets with different underlying assets across chains. Here is how it works: the lender deposits the assets, then the borrower can choose to borrow; 50% of the fees (platform revenue) goes to the lender, and the remaining 50% will be in the form of RNDT as a reward, but locked. The protocol is currently in v1, while v2 will make the following upgrades:

• Full cross-chain lending will be enabled for BTC, ETH and USDC, followed by additional assets voted on by Radiant DAO.

• Fee structure will be more centered toward LPs, thereby increasing liquidity and reducing slippage.

• Introduction of the “Dynamic Liquidity” mechanism, which is promising for long-term investors.

• Withdrawal from the liquidity pool will trigger a penalty.

5.2 Gaming

Arbitrum has a booming GameFi ecosystem, especially prominent on three trending projects: Treasure DAO, The Beacon, and Trident DAO. The GameFi eco on Arbitrum does not have the absolute advantage as the derivative sector compared to other chains, on the contrary, it is merely a temporary comparative advantage; the future development depends on the performance in the next.

5.2.1 Treasure DAO

Treasure desires to build a “decentralized Nintendo,” a series of on-chain games that are interconnected through the interoperability of in-game assets and Treasure’s native token, MAGIC, as a shared currency. Some of the most popular games include the strategy game Bridgeworld, The Beacon and Smolverse, as well as the resource management and strategy game Realm.

These games can be accessed through Trove, which is the hub of the Treasure ecosystem, and the marketplace for in-game assets and treasure NFT collectibles. The most popular collections are Smol Brains (the basis of the Smolverse) and The Lost Donkeys, which is also the name of the game.

5.2.2 Trident DAO

Arbitrum’s latest project, Trident, proposed a sustainable GameFi economic model of “Risk to Earn”, which stimulated the interest of players and communities, and became the most sought-after project in the Arbitrum eco after its public offering of tokens.

PSI is Trident’s official utility token that can be used to purchase items, redeem NFTs, and place bet between players, etc. Trident will charge a fee for each successful bet and then destroy it permanently; once the integration of Risk to Earn is completed, the supply of PSI will see deflation.

6. Future Development of Layer2

6.1 Bottleneck and Prospect of Rollup Solution

Rollup is a highly anticipated expansion solution, and its transaction gas consumption is greatly reduced compared to the Ethereum mainnet. According to actual statistics, the cost of Optimism and Arbitrum is only 10%-30% of the Ethereum mainnet, and the cost of ZK rollups is less than 5% of Ethereum. On the one hand, it reduces the consumption of resources on the chain, and on the other hand, it can maintain the availability of data, that is, the main network of Ethereum can check and ensure that no one can tamper with transactions under the chain. Rollup can inherit the decentralization and security of Ethereum , has become the mainstream technical solution of Layer 2.

At present, there are still some shortcomings in the Rollup technical solution, which prevents it from developing on a large scale. These shortcomings include the following points:

Poor user experience:

It is manifested in (1) There is a challenging period for OP withdrawals. Currently, the withdrawal waiting period of the official cross-chain bridges of the four major OPs is 7 days; (2) The interoperability between Rollups is low, and some assets supported by cross-chain bridges The types are very limited; (3) OP lacks cost advantages. According to l2fees data, OP’s ETH transfer, token transfer and token exchange fees are all higher than 1$; (4) The recharge steps are cumbersome.

Low capital efficiency:

It is manifested in (1) the problem of liquidity fragmentation reduces capital efficiency, and different Rollup platforms and applications built on them will further fragment liquidity. (2) OP’s challenging period reduces capital efficiency.

Potential security risks:

Both Layer 2 and Rollup are relatively cutting-edge technologies, and many users have doubts about its security, mainly in the following aspects: (1) There are loopholes in the smart contract of Rollup itself, which leads to the theft of user funds; (2) Rollup’s The operator fails or does evil intentionally, resulting in the freezing of user funds; (3) the cross-chain bridge is attacked or the operator does evil, resulting in the theft of locked funds from users.

From the above three aspects, we can look forward to the key directions for the future development of the Rollup solution:

(1) To improve user experience, wider use of fast cross-chain bridges and more convenient exchange deposits and withdrawals can reduce the impact of the waiting period for OP withdrawals, reduce the amount of uploaded data and improve off-chain processing efficiency to reduce costs.

(2) To improve capital efficiency, capital efficiency can be improved by gathering liquidity.

(3) Improve security by promoting the decentralized operation of Rollup and setting up a mandatory withdrawal mechanism to ensure security.

6.2 The continued outbreak of Arbitrum in 2023

The success of Arbitrum bodes well for Layer2 to be the starting point of the next bull market. But before that, technical challenges remain in both Optimistic Rollup and zk Rollup. In the future, Arbitrum will see major developments from 3 perspectives: (1) continuous technical upgrades; (2) continuous support to ecological projects; and (3) attracting users utilizing their expectations on token offering.

First of all, Optimistic Rollup is still criticized by semi-centralized sequencers. Arbitrum currently has centralized sequencers and whitelist proof verification, along with scalable contracts. While these do not pose threats on security at the moment, and competent in protecting user assets, the risk of censorship and loss of user funds remain rising concerns. As a result, decentralized sequencers and proof verification without permission are the ultimate solutions. Offchain Labs has also provided the appropriate technical routes addressing these issues:

• Continue to reduce costs and improve tps

• Decentralization

• Decentralize of the management and licensed software upgrade

• Decentralization of validators

• Decentralization of sequencers

In terms of the eco, Defi, cross-chain bridging and gaming categories are Arbitrum’s signature applications. However, in the future, as the developer community and user base continue to pop up, more new applications will be deployed on the platform, and the most anticipated are projects in the social and NFT categories. In the meantime, provided that the success of Treasure and the growth potential of Arbitrum Nova, Arbitrum is destined to find its favorable position in gaming.

In terms of the tokenomics, it cannot be more anticipated, as the token offering is critical to the long-term success of Arbitrum, including (1) the token distribution plan, (2) the airdrop and incentive plan, and (3) the rule of governance. A good economic model will lead Arbitrum to a more positive direction, which is appealing to developers and users. Token distribution is also crucial in determining the governance of L2 and the long-term concentration of power within the ecosystem. In addition, tokens can also be applied to decentralize key network functions, such as sequencers — the entities that sort, bulk-process, and submit transactions to L1.

From the above analysis, it is eminent that 2023 will be a year of continued booming era for Arbitrum: The Odyssey event may be extended; current DeFi and gaming will be strengthened, as well as distinctive native applications in social and NFT sector are expected to emerge. At the same time, the anticipated tokens will be in place to reward users and protocols, and Nova will see practical initiation and protocol deployment.

References

1. Arbitrum Odyssey Strategy From Candy Dao

2. https://www.bitance.net/category/jingzhengbizixun/18081.html

3. Summary of cheating tokens routines

4. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/p/arbitrum-is-mooning

5. Optimism Bedrock vs Arbitrum Nitro — PANews (panewslab.com)

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

1.1 技术方案及特点

Arbitrum方案是由Offchain Labs提出并创建的，最早是一个纯粹的研究型学术项目，后经过不断优化和改进，逐渐转入实践。该方案也是基于Optimistic Rollup的解决方案，通过经济激励的博弈模型维护安全性并通过欺诈证明来维护交易有效性，主要区别在于挑战机制和实现形式。Optimism只需要排序者和验证者执行一次欺诈证明交互即可判断出结果，而Arbitrum认为一次交互可能导致欺诈证明需要包含大量的交易从而超出gas限制，并且提出欺诈证明是由于单条指令执行异常导致，无需执行全部的指令。因此，Arbitrum将欺诈证明分为多轮步骤，只需要证明排序者在执行某条指令时出现异常，即可证明排序者作恶，节省成本。

Arbitrum的方案与Optimism Rollup的主要特点是一致的，我们不再赘述，主要可以关注欺诈证明机制的变化带来的改变。

• 多轮欺诈证明交互。Arbitrum采用多轮欺诈证明验证交易的有效性，降低单次挑战需要消耗的gas，不必担心gas费用超出限制。

• 对EVM的兼容性更强。虽然Optimism团队的OVM对EVM兼容，但其实不是100%兼容，已有的项目从一层迁移过来仍然需要修改代码，Arbitrun团队的方案则是几乎100%兼容。

• 多步交易可能存在安全性问题。Arbitrum交易的有效性验证需要多轮交互，内置虚拟机需要支持异步机制，该机制更加复杂，代码量更大，可能存在安全问题。

2. Arbitrum现状

2023年初表现最亮眼的赛道莫过于Layer2，这也符合大部分机构和影响力人物的预测。在币价上，Optimism, Polygon以及Arbitrum上的生态币也都表现不错，比如代币$OP在2月最高$3.17，$MATIC最高也达到$1.32。在Terra和Solana这类新公链在熊市的暴雷事件影响下，未来还将是以太坊的主场，可以说更多是新公链和Layer2的竞争。随着加密行情出现的小高潮，在2月Arbitrum一马当先，创造了瞩目的成果。

目前，Arbitrum是以太坊二层扩容方案中TVL最大的项目，达到3.85B，占所有网络的3.63% TVL份额，在L2中还拥有55.97%的TVL份额，尤其是空投之后，增长了21.29%。Arbitrum Rollup是一种由链上以太坊合约管理的链下协议，所以准确地说Arbitrum并不是一条区块链，而是把链下交易通过压缩算法上传到以太坊主网。这种方式能够部分解决以太坊面临的拥堵问题，以达到快速交易、低gas fee、安全性保证、用户体验好等优势。

2023年3月16日，Arbitrum宣布了其代币$ARB，这是 Arbitrum One 和 Arbitrum Nova 网络的DAO治理代币 。Arbitrum 代币 $ARB 初始总供应量 100 亿枚，每年最多通货膨胀 2%。代币空投方面，初始总供应量的 11.62% 会空投给 Arbitrum 用户，1.13% 将空投给构建在 Arbitrum 构建应用的 DAO 金库。具体代币分配如下：

• 42.78%（42.78 亿枚）Arbitrum DAO 金库；

• 26.94%（26.94 亿枚）分配给 Offchain Labs 团队 / 未来团队和顾问；

• 17.53%（17.53 亿枚）分配给 Offchain Labs 投资者；

• 11.62%（11.62 亿枚）通过空投分配给 Arbitrum 用户；

• 1.13%（1.13 亿枚）分配给在 Arbitrum 上构建应用的 DAO（通过空投）。

3. 技术升级

2022年，Arbitrum动作频出，除了奥德赛活动之外，其在技术升级上也是不断推陈出新，其中包括启动Arbitrum Nova和Arbitrum One双链、推出新的编程环境Stylus。下面我们一一介绍这些技术核心和解决的问题。

3.1 Arbitrum Nova — AnyTrust链

2022年7月12日，Arbitrum网络宣布构建了新链「Arbitrum Nova」。这条链基于AnyTrust技术搭建，专为游戏、社交应用程序和对成本更敏感的用例而设计。AnyTrust 技术基于通过数据可用性委员会确保的最小信任假设。该委员会将负责管理链下交易数据并提供该数据支持批次。因此，AnyTrust省去了用户需要等待的7天提币期，提高了用户体验。主要技术核心有以下几点：

• 为批量交易签署数据可用性证书 (DACerts) 并发布此 DACert；

• 如果委员会无法达成共识，该链将恢复为 Arbitrum 汇总协议；

• 数据执行将在 L2 链上执行，经过一段充满挑战的时期后，新的汇总状态将在以太坊上得到确认。

3.2 Nitro

2022 年8月底。Arbitrum One成功升级到Nitro版本。Nitro升级大大提高了网络速度并降低了交易成本。总的来说，Nitro主要做了以下技术升级：

• 对之前的AVM架构和ArbOS进行了一些修改；

• 流行的 WebAssembly (WASM) 架构将取代旧的、定制设计的 AVM 架构。

• 定制的 EVM 模拟器被 Geth 取代；

• ArbOS 将缩小尺寸并用 Go 重写，从而为交易提供更优化的批处理和压缩系统。

Arbitrum Nitro 技术的核心是一个新的证明器（prover），可以在 WASM 代码上进行 Arbitrum 的交互式欺诈证明。这样就可以使用标准的语言和工具来构建和编译。同时，Gethcore也直接编译到Arbitrum中，使得其更兼容EVM。

3.3 Stylus

Arbitrum开发团队Offchain Labs宣布将为Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nova推出下一代编程环境Stylus，Stylus通过WebAssembly智能合约功能，允许用户使用他们最喜欢的编程语言（包括Rust、C和C++）部署应用程序，以便与Arbitrum上的EVM程序一起运行。Stylus的速度快了一个数量级，并且能够降低费用，并且与以太坊虚拟机（EVM）完全互操作。Offchain Labs将Stylus称之为EVM+，但是，Stylus不会取代EVM。

4. 生态合作

在过去一年，Arbitrum 市场份额大幅增长，这种增长来源于：1. Layer2的持续看好；2. Arb的发币预期；3. 生态应用的增长，尤其是原生应用的增长。自去年9月主网Arbitrum One上线以来，以太坊Layer1主网上的头部DeFi协议Uniswap、Sushiswap、Curve等应用纷纷在Arbitrum One上集成部署，还有一些知名的跨链协议。例如Synapse和Stargate。这些应用的涌入也表明了开发者对Arbitrum扩容方案的看好。

2022年6月，奥德赛活动主办方挑选了Arbitrum上的14个最活跃项目，包括跨链桥、DeFi、NFT 、游戏。活动时间原本计划为期 8 周，但实际只进行了第一周就暂停了。奥德赛暂停的根本原因是在第二周的时候，网络拥堵，导致gas fee太高。当时已经超过了以太坊主网的gas fee. 其实这已充分说明Arbitrum 当时的状态没办法承载这么多的用户。

但是，奥德赛虽然只举办了一周，但这次的活动还是吸引了足够多的关注。Arbitrum 结合 NFT 以活动周的形式，激发了用户参与的热情，也有助于用户了解 Arbitrum 的生态，在提高用户量的同时，也给其生态的项目带来了流量。同时又保留了未来对发币的预期，而不是匆匆发币给空投的方式。

根据浏览器上的数据显示，自 6 月 21 日奥德赛活动开始到第一周任务结束时，Arbitrum 的新增地址达 20.7 w 个。并在 6 月 27 日单日新增达到了 5.5 万个，成为单日新增地址最多的一天。可见奥德赛活动之成功。

奥德赛活动之后，Arbitrum在技术上持续发力，在生态上不断推出创新机制的项目，使得其在1月底的小牛市期待值拉满。目前，Arbitrum 2022年10月-2023月1月的平均月活跃地址数为608.365k，较9月上涨了51.2%。Arbitrum的交易量与用户数也有相应的上升。

5. 热门项目分析

近2个月，Arbitrum上的原生生态项目获得了整个加密市场的关注。这里梳理了部分表现亮眼的项目，这些项目的市值与其它公链的同类型项目比较还有一定的差距，还是处于低估值状态。随着Arbitrum的发币和未来发展，都会有很大的提升空间。

5.1 Defi类

Arbitrum上有多链部署的知名项目，例如Uniswap和AAVE。但是，Arbitrum的原生项目反而展现出惊人的爆发力，例如永续合约交易所GMX 、衍生的收益聚合器和机枪池项目Jones DAO等。目前 Arbitrum 已经跑通了一个可以持续赚钱的飞轮：衍生品协议类似赌场，有持续的业务收入；各类收益聚合器利用自身策略持续吸引资金，并扩大收益；更多人参与收益聚合器，流动性更充足，收入也越来越多。

5.1.1 热点项目一：GMX

GMX 是一个去中心化永续合约交易所。其允许用户在一个去中心化的平台上进行高达 30 倍杠杆的 ETH、BTC、LINK 和 UNI 永续合约交易，而不是通过 Binance 或 FTX 等中心化交易所使用杠杆来进行做空或做多。

在执行上，它相比中心化交易所操作要更复杂些，并且需要使用预言机进行喂价。所以，它需要借助外部力量来执行开仓平仓操作，GMX 正是借助 Keeper（类似于众包）完成这项工作。

用户在 GMX 进行平仓操作的时候，会分为两部分：一个是用户发送交易，另一个是执行操作，而执行操作则是由 GMX Keeper 完成的。

用户不但需要交发送交易的 Gas 费外，为了能保证交易能正常执行，还需要为 Keeper 执行操作交 Gas 费。

GMX TVL 达 4.96 亿美元，占 Arbitrum 所有 DeFi 协议 TVL 的 27.53%（2023年3月20日数据）。该协议在过去一年中产生了 3390 万美元的收入，使 GMX 代币成为在动荡的 2022 年表现最佳的资产之一，对美元和 ETH 的回报率分别为 84.0% 和 428.5%。

5.1.2 热点项目二：Camelot

Camelot作为Arbitrum的原生DEX，在2022年12月已经完成了代币销售，整体上还是常规的Uniswap V2+Curve类型的DEX，在此基础上增加了Launchpad、结合了自定义交易手续费、将LP与NFT结合、允许项目方设置激励措施，它的功能和特点总结如下：

• 和Uniswap V2一样的AMM DEX，流动性分散在从零到无穷大的整个区间内；

• 和Curve类似的稳定币互换交易对；

• 支持动态定向交易费用。Camelot让项目方可以根据市场条件和协议的具体情况设置交易手续费比例；

• 通过NFT提供收益和激励措施。用户提供流动性获得代表质押头寸的spNFT；

• 协议是无需许可的，项目方可以通过激励池Nitro Pools设置激励措施。这是额外的奖励池。

• 具备Launchpad功能，项目方可以借此进行融资并引导流动性。

OP上的同类型项目TVL最高的为Velodrome，有7714万美元的流动性。这一数字甚至超过了Uniswap V3的4487万美元，但FDV只有946万美元，FDV/TVL为0.21。相对于Camelot，Velodrome的TVL更高，但估值更低。Camelot的TVL也在近期增长了57%左右，达到9879万美元。

5.1.3 热点项目三：RDNT

Arbitrum 上的借贷协议 RDNT 有两个创新：利用 LayerZero 进行多链借贷；可以循环贷（暂不能使用）。目前在 Arbitrum 上是龙头，TVL 超过了 aave V3 的 Arb 版本，但是长期来看竞争依然非常非常大。

由于是全链借贷协议，用户可以在任何主要链上存入任何主要资产，并跨链借入各种受支持的资产。 lender 存入资产，borrower可以借贷，产生的手续费（平台收益） 50%给到lender，剩下50%给到锁仓 RNDT作为奖励。目前该协议是V1版本，而V2版本将做出以下升级：

• 将允许对 BTC、ETH 和 USDC 进行完全跨链借贷，随后由 Radiant DAO 投票选出的更多资产。

• 将会把协议费用向LP倾斜，从而提高流动性和降低滑点；

• 引入“Dynamic Liquidity”机制，奖励长期投资者；

• 退出流动性池将触发惩罚机制。

5.2 游戏类

Arbitrum 拥有一个快速发展的 GameFi 生态系统，尤其是三个爆火的项目：Treasure DAO，The beacon，Trident DAO。目前 Arbitrum 上的 GameFi 生态并不像其衍生品赛道拥有和其他链比的绝对优势，只是相对领先，一切都需要看后续的发展。

5.2.1 Treasure DAO

Treasure想要构建一个「去中心化任天堂」，这是一系列链上游戏，这些游戏通过游戏内资产的互操作性和 Treasure 的原生代币 MAGIC 作为共享货币相互连接。这些游戏中最受欢迎的包括战略游戏 Bridgeworld、The Beacon 和 Smolverse 等角色扮演游戏，以及资源管理和战略游戏 Realm。

这些游戏可以通过 Trove 访问。Trove 是宝藏生态系统的中心，是游戏内资产和宝藏 NFT 收藏品的市场。这些系列中最受欢迎的是 Smol Brains（Smolverse 的基础）和另一个 NFT 系列 The Lost Donkeys，它有自己的同名游戏。

5.2.2 Trident DAO

Arbitrum 上一个项目「Trident」提出了「Risk To Earn」的可持续 GameFi 经济模型，引起了玩家和社群的关注，并在其 Token 公售后飙升为 Arbitrum 生态热度最高的项目。

PSI 是 Trident 的官方实用 Token，将使用于其未来版本中的各种游戏，可用于购买物品、兑换 NFT，玩家之间的投注等，并且 Trident 将从每次成功的下注中收取费用然后将其永久销毁，一旦 Risk To Earn 集成完成，PSI 的供应就会通货紧缩。

6. Layer2未来发展

6.1 Rollup方案瓶颈与展望

Rollup是被寄予厚望的扩容解决方案，其交易消耗的gas相比于以太坊主网大大减少。根据实际统计，Optimism 和 Arbitrum 的费用只有以太坊主网的10%-30%，而ZK rollups 的费用还不到以太坊的5%。一方面减少了链上资源的消耗，一方面又能保持数据的可用性，也就是以太坊主网能够查看并保证任何人都不能篡改链下的交易，Rollup可以继承以太坊的去中心化和安全性，成为了Layer 2的主流技术方案。

目前Rollup技术方案还存在一些短板，使其没有大规模发展，这些短板包括以下几点：

用户体验不佳：

表现在（1）OP提款存在挑战期，目前4大OP的官方跨链桥的提款等待期都是7天；（2）Rollup之间的互操作性低，部分跨链桥支持的资产种类非常有限；（3）OP缺乏费用优势，根据l2fees数据，OP的ETH转账、代币转账和代币兑换费用都高于1$；（4）充值步骤繁琐。

资本效率低：

表现在（1）流动性碎片化问题降低资本效率，不同的Rollup平台和建立在其上的应用会让流动性进一步碎片化。（2）OP的挑战期降低资本效率。

存在安全隐患：

Layer 2和Rollup都还是比较前沿的技术，很多用户对它的安全性怀有疑虑，主要体现在以下方面：

• Rollup本身的智能合约存在漏洞，导致用户资金被盗；

• Rollup的运营者出现故障或者故意作恶，导致用户资金被冻结；

• 跨链桥被攻击或者运营者作恶，导致用户锁定的资金被盗。

从上述3个方面我们可以展望Rollup解决方案在未来的发展重点方向：

• 提升用户体验，更广泛地采用快速跨链桥和更方便的交易所充提可以降低OP提款等待期的影响，减少上传数据量和提高链下处理效率来降低费用。

• 提升资本效率，可以通过聚集流动性来提升资本效率。

• 提升安全性，通过推进Rollup的去中心化运营和设置强制提款机制保障安全性。

6.2 Arbitrum在2023年的持续爆发

Arbitrum的成功预示着Layer2赛道将会成为下个牛市的起点。但在此之前，无论是Optimistic Rollup路线还是zk Rollup路线，在技术上仍然存在一些问题需要解决。在未来，Arbitrum项目将会在三个方面进行发展：

• 继续技术升级；

• 不断支持生态项目；

• 借助发币预期吸引用户入场。

首先技术上，Optimistic Rollup技术仍然被略为中心化的排序器所诟病。Arbitrum 目前拥有中心化的排序器和白名单证明验证，同时拥有可升级的合约。虽然这些在目前并没有出现安全问题，也足以保护用户资产。但仍然增加了审查和损失用户资金的风险。所以，去中心化排序器和无需许可的证明验证都是必然之路。offchain labs在这些问题上也给出了相应的技术路线：

• 继续降低费用，提升 tps

• 去中心化

• 将管理和授权软件升级去中心化

• 验证者去中心化

• sequencer 去中心化

在生态方面，目前Defi、跨链和游戏类是Arbitrum主打应用。但未来随着开发者和用户的不断增长，会有更多的新应用部署在该平台，而最值得期待的是社交类和NFT类的项目。同时，鉴于 Treasure 的成功和 Arbitrum Nova 的增长潜力，Arbitrum Nova链将会真正用起来，让Arbitrum 在游戏领域处于有利地位。

在经济模型上，其实这是最为期待的一个部分。代币的推出对于 Arbitrum 的长期成功至关重要，包括：（1）代币分配方案；（2）空投和激励生态方案；（3）治理方案。好的经济模型将会让Arbitrum朝着更加正向的方向发展，吸引用户和开发者。代币分配也将在决定 L2 的治理和生态系统内的长期权力集中方面发挥重要作用。此外，代币还可以用于分散关键网络功能，例如排序器 — — 排序、批处理和向 L1 提交交易的实体。

从以上分析可以看出，2023年将会是Arbitrum持续爆发的一年。它可能继续奥德赛项目，并强化目前的DeFi和游戏类项目，也会推出有特色的原生社交类项目和NFT类项目。同时，随着推出期待已久的代币经济模型，用于奖励用户和协议，后期真正启用Nova链，并开始部署协议，这些都是Arbitrum的利好消息。

参考资料

1. Arbitrum Odyssey 奥德赛攻略

2. https://www.bitance.net/category/jingzhengbizixun/18081.html

3.《骗币套路汇总，骗子如何榨干韭菜最后一滴汁的？ 》

4. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/p/arbitrum-is-mooning

5. Optimism Bedrock VS Arbitrum Nitro — PANews (panewslab.com)

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

Ethereum will complete the Shanghai Upgrade in April, staking and withdrawing option will be enabled on Beacon Chain. The Shanghai Upgrade is a hard fork of the Ethereum execution layer, which is expected to fulfill 9 EIPs. As of March 14, 2023, approximately 17.5M ETH have been in staking, accounting for 15.25% of the total ETH supply. Validators on Ethereum has accumulated more than 2 ETH as staking rewards on average, and more than 1 million ETH will be released to the market after the Shanghai upgrade. The impact of the Shanghai upgrade on the Ethereum ecology is undoubtedly significant. This report will mainly discuss the withdrawal design and related risks of Ethereum and LSD protocols after the Shanghai Upgrade, as well as the impact on the price of ETH and other tokens related to the LSD protocol.

1. Official withdrawal process of Ethereum

Withdrawal is achieved by the simultaneous upgrade of the execution layer and consensus layer, and two options are available: “Partial Withdrawal” and “Full Withdrawal”. Partial Withdrawal is to withdraw only the part of proceeds, whereas Full Withdrawal is to withdraw from the validator node and withdraw all the proceeds plus that in staking. There is no priority between these two types of withdrawals, which will be executed automatically as long as the necessary conditions are met.

• Necessary condition: Validator must have 0x01 Credential (also known as proof of deposit for active validators, currently 42% of validators have this proof)

• Partial withdrawal conditions: Validator is active and the balance is greater than 32ETH

• Full withdrawal conditions: Validator is in the Withdrawable state (this usually means the Validator already quitted the network)

The number of withdrawal requests executed by the Ethereum Beacon Chain in a fixed period of time is strictly limited, and each block can process a maximum of 16 withdrawal requests. After a validator meets the withdrawal conditions and makes a request, a withdrawal list is created to contain all validators who submitted withdrawal requests, which includes the withdrawal order, receipt address on execution layer and withdrawal amount. Withdrawal requests are all initiated on the consensus layer and do not proceed independently or enter the memory pool of transactions, and the withdrawals are exempt from the gas, nor do they increase the gas.

2. Will there be a selling climax of ETH?

According to Beaconcha.in, as of March 14, 17,573,625 ETH have been in staking on the Beacon Chain. The number of active validators is 549,181, and staking per validator is currently 33.98 ETH on average at a total of 18,661,170.4 ETH on the Beacon Chain.

Based on the withdrawal conditions and process, there are 512 validators per Epoch to withdraw (32 slots per Epoch, one block per slot) and 115,200 validators will participate in the withdrawal in a day (12 seconds per block, 7,200 blocks per day); the total withdrawal capacity is 3,686,400 ETH per day, ceteris paribus, it takes about 5.06 days to withdraw all the ETH in staking on the chain, based on the current number of ETH in staking. However, the process of executing the withdrawals demands some time, and all exiting validators need to wait at least 27.3 hours before they can start a withdrawal.

ETH staking started in November 2020 when the price of ETH is between $500-$600, and these long-term staking would be eager to pull out the principal and the rewards. Stakings starting from February 2021, on the other hand, are losing money relative to the current price. Most withdrawal requests will be Partial Withdrawal. Therefore, a selling climax is not inclined to appear as the selling will be mostly early stakers, which is still minority.

The withdrawal process is not always smooth, for some withdrawals are invalid if the withdrawal conditions are not met, especially in the case that the proof of deposit, 0x00 Credential, is to be converted to 0x01 Credential after the Shanghai upgrade. this conversion is also limited to 16 requests per block. 0x00 Credential validators are on average older with more staking rewards, which leads to a gradual increase in the total amount of ETH withdrawn per block. In the extreme case, exodus from validator nodes is not likely to occur, and each staking protocol is enforced by the Churn Limit Quotient, which reduces the selling pressure to some extent. From the above analysis, the selling pressure is likely to peak 3 to 4 days after the Shanghai upgrade.

In addition, according to data from Glassnode, the total number of nodes willing to relieve from the validator role is about 920. Meanwhile, due to regulatory reasons, the majority of ETH tokens in staking through centralized institutions, which may include Kraken (6.52%) and Binance (4.92%) that have over 2 million ETH in staking, will be released; and in extreme cases, it will be cleared. It will take a month for all withdrawals to be completed according to the Churn Limit Quotient of validators. However, these ETH will not be fully circulated in the market and instead end up in staking on other protocols.

3. Status and withdrawal design of various LSD protocols

3.1 Performance of Liquidity Staking Token (LST)

Currently, the total ETH staking volume of all types of LSD protocols accounts for 42.97% of all staking volume, and Lido alone has accounted for over 30%. The tokens derived from these protocols for staking, LST, have been circulating in the secondary market prior to the Shanghai upgrade with considerable yield in DeFi.

LST tokens have accounted for about 65% of the staking volume; these staking tokens, on the other hand, have seen significant discounts over the past two years. Currently, the overall liquidity of LST is positive due to the approaching Shanghai upgrade. The opening of withdrawals is favorable for LST price, but it also tests the risk management ability and withdrawal process design of each LSD project.

stETH is currently the LSD token with the best liquidity. As demonstrated by the stETH/ETH price curve in the chart below, the price of stETH/ETH saw a massive discount during March 2021 and June 2022, corresponding to the 3AC and FTX incident, respectively, which are triggered by the immobility of liquidity. The sell-off in 2021 coincided with the climax of the market, which are mostly users staking at the end of 2020; they exited at a higher profit.

Coinbase’s LST token, cbETH, has previously been in a discounted state. cbETH is mainly in Uniswap, and it currently reached an approximate TVL of $7.5M; low daily trading volume is encountered, and a liquidity crisis may occur. However, the performance has been outstanding recently. It is possible that as the Shanghai upgrade approaches, arbitrageurs could profit by buying cbETH at a discounted price.

Rocket pool holds the third largest market share among the LSD protocols, with a market cap of $391M and a circulation supply of 210K for its derivative token, rETH. After the Shanghai upgrade, rETH can be returned to the protocol and redeem the ETH in staking as well as the corresponding rewards, in this case, rETH has been priced higher than ETH in the secondary market.

3.2 Comparison of the withdrawal process of each LSD protocol

The design of withdrawal scheme of each LSD protocol is subject to uncertainty, and the Shanghai upgrade of Ethereum is a refinement of the PoS mechanism yet a challenge to the LSD protocol as the protocol needs to balance between user experience, processing speed and security. The overall PoS withdrawal process on Ethereum is complicated, especially the different time allocation on various withdrawal protocols. After the Shanghai upgrade, various LSD protocols may be exposed to attacks due to flaws in design. Most of the withdrawal designs will address the following two aspects:

• Avoidance of attacks and arbitrage: the exchange of LST tokens for ETH may have room for arbitrage activities, reducing the protocol APR; ensure there are sufficient amount of ETH for users to redeem, etc.

• Setting of thresholds for withdrawal and improve user experience at the same time, especially on waiting time.

3.2.1 Lido

Lido v2 has been approved by the community. The withdraw design has two modes: Turbo and Bunker. Lido creates a withdrawal buffer for withdrawals, which is mainly composed of 3 parts: execution level rewards, ETH as withdrawal and ETH in staking. After the Shanghai upgrade, Lido will have 200k ETH available for immediate withdrawal (without going through the exit of validator node process), and this amount can be the initial buffer.

• Turbo mode: Once there is sufficient ETH, the protocol will fulfill the withdrawal request. The request time varies from 1 hour-3/4 days; the waiting time depends on whether there is sufficient ETH as the buffer (requires exit of the validator node).

• Bunker mode: This mode is triggered if there is a widespread forfeiture of the Lido validator nodes; once the mode is activated, the losses will be distributed to users when the forfeited validator nodes exit and the losses can be estimated. Meanwhile, the stETH:ETH redemption calculation must perform accurately. Withdrawals under this mode may take more than 36 days.

Once a user’s withdrawal request enters the queue, an NFT will be given, which represents the position in the queue. This NFT can be traded in the secondary market, where bidders could buy a position in the front of the queue. If the price of ETH is volatile in April, there will be plenty room for imagination on secondary market. Once there is a forfeit during the request period, users in the queue also have to bear the burden to share the penalty equally. However, there is no reward for stETH withdrawal requests in the queue in order to avoid malicious arbitrage attacks.

In addition to the above design, in order to avoid attacks and arbitrage activities, Lido mandates more terms on withdrawals, such as withdrawal requests cannot be cancelled, and the redemption rate of the request cannot precede the redemption rate at the time the request was created.

3.2.2 Rocket pool

Rocket Pool introduces minipools, which reduces the capital requirements for validators, requiring only 17.6 ETH to operate as a minipool; and when the pool is withdrawn, the validator’s capital will be the first to experience losses so that the rETH holders are endowed with insurance at 110%.

For withdrawal requirements, a deposit pool is in place that rETH redemptions can be achieved from the deposit pool and partial withdrawals; but once drained, rETH can be converted to ETH at discount on the secondary market, which is an arbitrage opportunity for minipool operators as rETH can be purchased from the secondary market at a discounted price, and Rocket Pool’s burning mechanism will help exit minipools, thus guaranteeing an exchange rate of rETH:ETH=1:1. Therefore, the operator of minipools can choose whether to exit or withdraw the reward, which is entirely determined by market behavior.

For Rocket Pool, the withdrawal process is not complicated: the operator only needs to revoke minipools; what’s more important, the liquidity of the protocol’s deposit pool must be ensured so that rETH can be redeemed smoothly. At the time of the Merge of Ethereum, Rocket Pool handled it well while one of the node operators of Lido experienced severe downtime. Evidently, Rocket pool will perform better in dealing with the withdrawal process during the Shanghai upgrade. The Atlas upgrade launched by Rocket Pool will lower the threshold to become a validator, further driving rETH liquidity and RPL price.

3.2.3 Frax Finance

frxETH does not accumulate staking rewards when users staking ETH via Frax; instead, ETH can be redeemed within the protocol. In order to receive the staking rewards, users need to re-deposit frxETH into the protocol and exchange for sfrxETH. As a result, Shanghai upgrade will not have influence on redemption within Frax; it is more critical to consider whether the protocol could provide enough ETH for redemptions. Especially when Frax can no longer attract users by higher returns, there may be a large number of redemptions.

3.2.4 StakeWise

StakeWise offers a liquidity staking service similar to Lido, except that StakeWise has a new v3 to mitigate the risk of centralized validators; but this version is not yet available. There are two mechanisms of staking on StakeWise: Pool and Solo. The Pool mechanism is a staking pool for any ETH holder to participate, and the Solo mechanism is a non-custodial staking service for each user with 32 ETH.

In terms of exit, users under the Pool mechanism cannot destroy sETH2 and rETH2 within the protocol and receive ETH 1:1 until the completion of the Shanghai upgrade. Prior to the Shanghai upgrade, there was a secondary market for sETH2 and rETH2. Solo users could choose to voluntarily exit before the Shanghai upgrade, but the balance was inaccessible and not eligible to re-enter the staking; by choosing to voluntarily exit after the Shanghai upgrade, fees would continue to accrue until fully exited, which could take a few days.

4. Conclusion and thoughts

The Shanghai upgrade will exert an impact on the LSD protocol in three aspects: (1) token prices, including ETH, various LSD protocol tokens, and derivative token prices; (2) withdrawal design tests the technology of each LSD protocol, and users may choose a different protocol; and (3) more DeFi protocols based on Ethereum staking or LSD protocol derivatives will emerge.

Once users are able to re-select staking protocols, the competitive landscape of Ethereum staking will be reshuffled. Moreover, new LSD protocols or staking-based mechanisms will be introduced, such as DVT-based applications and EigenLayer’s re-staking concept, which may have better yields. For most ETH staking users, the initially decided staking method and object can be changed after the Shanghai upgrade, and the market share of ETH staking will be redetermined.

Users will pay attention on more liquidity staking protocols in terms of smoothness of withdrawal design, staking revenue, license-free, and security. Other than Lido, Rocket Pool may be the LSD protocol with the best growth; the number of minipools and the token price are recommended to be traced after the Shanghai upgrade, especially the withdrawal design, reward mechanism and scalability are addressed in the Atlas upgrade.

LSD-based index tokens have already emerged. For example, gtcETH is jointly launched by Gitcoin and Index Coop, a new Ethereum staking index token. It aims to provide a proxy that users could receive mixed earnings from multiple liquidity staking protocols. At the same time, it facilitates the growth of multiple LSD so that Ethereum can be further distributed. In addition, more DeFi applications will be created: (1) LST can be deemed as the original pool for minting new derivatives; (2) the emergence of futures products anchored to the yield or inflation rate of ETH; and (3) the emergence of stablecoin based on staking ETH. The release of Ethereum staking may also create incremental volume to lending protocols, and many articles have dissected the possibility of high returns because of recurrent lending and borrowing.

References

1. http://bit.ly/3LztoeO

2. https://tim.mirror.xyz/zLdl8bEiDmobHZ5RlvG2LrlZLWV9c2XvkuKQ-vpljSU

3. https://coinvoice.cn/articles/29918

4. Gitcoin Launches gtcETH Index Token To Bolster Funding — The Defiant

5. https://hackmd.io/@lido/SyaJQsZoj

6. Partial withdrawals after the Shanghai fork

https://dataalways.substack.com/p/partial-withdrawals-after-the-shanghai

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Contact us：

Website：http://research.huobi.com

Email：research@huobi.com

Twitter：https://twitter.com/Huobi_Research

Telegram：https://t.me/HuobiResearchOfficial

Medium：https://medium.com/huobi-research

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

以太坊将在4月完成上海升级，届时开放信标链质押ETH提款功能。上海升级是以太坊执行层的一次硬分叉，预计共实现9个EIP。截止2023年3月14日，大约有17.5M ETH被质押，占ETH总供应量的15.25%。以太坊验证者平均已经积累了超过2个ETH的质押奖励，上海升级之后将会有超过100万个ETH将会流向市场。上海升级对以太坊生态带来的影响无疑是重大的。本次主要探讨上海升级后，以太坊和LSD协议的提款设计及相关风险，以及对ETH的价格和LSD协议相关衍生代币的价格的影响。

1、以太坊官方提款流程

提款（Withdrawal）由执行层和共识层共同升级实现，有两种规则：「部分提款」和「全部提款」。部分提款是只提取收益部分；全部提款是退出验证者节点，收益+质押全部提取。这两种提款方式无优先级上的区别，只要满足必要条件将自动执行：

• 必要条件：Validator 具备 0x01 Credential（活跃验证者存款证明，目前具有该证明的验证者比例为42%）

• 部分提款条件：Validator 是 Active 状态，同时 Validator 的余额大于 32ETH

• 全部提款条件：Validator 是 Withdrawable 状态（这通常意味着 Validator 已经退出网络）

以太坊信标链在固定时间内执行的取款请求数量是严格限制的，每个区块可以最多处理16个提款请求。验证者满足提款条件并提出申请后，会创建一个提款列表，以包含所有提出提款请求的验证者，该列表中列出了提款顺序、执行层收款地址和提款金额。提款请求都是在共识层发起的，不会独立进行也不会进入到交易内存池中，所以提款行为不需要gas也不会提高以太坊的gas。

2、是否会迎来以太坊抛售潮？

根据Beaconcha.in的数据，截止3月14日，Beacon链上已质押17,573,625 ETH。活跃验证者数量为549,181，当前每个验证者平均质押的ETH为33.98个，Beacon链上ETH总数为18,661,170.4 ETH。

基于提款条件和流程，每个Epoch有512个验证者可以取款（每个Epoch有32个slot，一个slot一个区块），一天有115,200个验证者会被执行取款（12秒一个区块，一天7200个区块）。每天总提款上限为3,686,400 ETH。如果不考虑其它因素，根据当前质押ETH的数量估算，链上质押的ETH全部提取完毕需要大约5.06天。但是，执行提款的过程需要时间，所有退出的验证者需要等待至少27.3小时才能开始可提款。

ETH质押开始的时间是2020年11月，当时ETH价格在500–600美元之间，这些长期质押的用户很大可能会急于提取它们的ETH和奖励。而从2021年2月开始的质押，相对于现在的价格是亏损的。大部分提款请求会是「部分提款」。预计开放提款后，ETH的抛压并不会太严重，主要还是早期玩家的抛售行为。

提款的流程并非总是顺利的，还有一些不满足提款条件的情况是不允许提款的，尤其是只有0x00 Credential存款凭证的需要在上海升级之后，把其凭证换为0x01 Credential。这种转换也是一个区块只能有16个请求。0x00 认证的验证者平均年龄较大，并积累了更多的质押奖励，这将导致每个区块提取的 ETH 总量逐渐增加。极端情况下，全部退出验证者节点的情况不可能出现，各质押协议需要满足流失限制函数，这在一定程度上减少了抛压。由以上分析可以预测，在上海升级后的第3–4天抛压较大。

此外，根据glassnode的数据显示，有退出验证者意愿的节点共有大约920人。同时，由于监管原因，通过中心化机构质押的ETH代币大部分将会进行解锁，极端情况下需要完全退出。这里可能包括Kraken（6.52%）和Binance（4.92%），这有超过200万ETH，由于验证者流失限制函数，全部提款完成也需要一个月的时间。但这些质押的ETH并不会完全流通于市场，很大可能会继续存入其它质押协议中。

3、各LSD协议现状及提款设计

3.1 流动性质押代币（LST）表现

目前，各类LSD协议的ETH总质押量占所有质押量的42.97%，单是Lido协议占比已过30%。而这些协议的抵押衍生代币LST，已经早于上海升级在二级市场上流通了，它们目前在DeFi协议中的收益率都有很好的表现。

LST代币已经占总抵押量的65%左右。而这些抵押衍生代币，在过去两年的时间内，出现过大幅度的折价。目前，由于上海升级的临近，LST整体流动性较好。提款开放对LST价格回归是一个利好, 但同时也很考验各个LSD项目方的风险管理能力和提款流程设计。

stETH是目前流动性最好的LSD代币，由下图的stETH/ETH价格曲线可以看出，stETH/ETH的价格在2021年3月和2022年6月期间出现了大规模的折价，分别对应3AC和FTX事件。这主要原因是流动性不足导致的。2021年的这部分卖出，时间点刚好也是大盘的高点，这部分卖出用户大多为2020年底的抵押用户，在此退出获利较多。

Coinbase的LST代币cbETH之前一直是折价的状态，cbETH主要在Uniswap中，目前大约TVL为$7.5M，每日交易量较低，可能会出现流动性不足的情况。但最近表现强势。可能随着上海升级的临近，套利者可以通过购买折扣价的cbETH获利。

Rocket pool在LSD协议中占有第三大的市场份额，其衍生品代币rETH市值$391M，流通量21万。上海升级之后，用户可以将rETH归还至协议，从而赎回质押的ETH和相应奖励，所以rETH在二级市场的价格一直高于ETH。

3.2 各LSD协议提款流程对比

各LSD协议的提款方案设计存在不确定风险，以太坊上海升级是对PoS机制的完善，也是对LSD协议的挑战。协议需要在用户体验、操作速度和安全性之间进行平衡。整体看以太坊PoS提款流程非常复杂，尤其是各种不同提款协议上的时间分配不同。上海升级之后，各LSD协议可能会因为设计缺陷导致协议被攻击。大部分的提款设计会针对以下两个问题：

• 避免攻击和套利行为：主要是LST代币与ETH的协议兑换和二级市场可能存在价格波动进行套利，降低协议APR。如何满足协议有足够ETH供用户赎回等。

• 在设置提款门槛的时候又能提高用户体验，尤其是用户等待时间。

3.2.1 Lido

Lido v2版本已经通过社区投票。Lido提款设计有两个模式：Turbo和Bunker。Lido为提款建立了一个提款缓冲区，主要由执行层奖励、提款ETH和用户抵押ETH，3部分构成。上海升级后，Lido会有20w个ETH可以被立即提取（不需要走退出验证节点流程），这部分可以被用于缓冲区的建立。

• Turbo模式：一旦有足够的ETH，协议会满足提款请求。请求时间在1小时-3/4天不等，根据缓冲区是否有足够ETH，等待时间不定（需要验证者节点退出）。

• Bunker模式：如果Lido验证者节点出现大范围罚没，即触发该模式，需要等到被罚没节点退出后，能够预测损失，从而将损失分摊给用户。并且要确保stETH:ETH的赎回计算可以准确进行。这个模式下，提款可能需要36天以上的时间。

用户的提款请求进入队列后，用户可以获得一个NFT，这代表了其在请求提款队列的位置。该NFT可以在二级市场进行交易，愿意出价的用户可以购买位置靠前的NFT。如果ETH价格在4月波动大，这种二级市场可以有很多玩法。在请求期间如果出现罚没，队列中用户也要均摊被惩罚比例。但处于队列中的stETH提款请求是没有奖励的，这也是为了避免恶意套利攻击。

除了以上设计之外，为了避免攻击和套利出现，Lido提款还有其它要求，比如提款请求不能取消，请求的赎回率不能优于创建请求时的赎回率等。

3.2.2 Rocket pool

Rocket Pool引入了minipools，降低了验证者的资本要求，只需要17.6个ETH就能运营一个minipools，而当撤销池子时，验证者的资金将会首先发生损失，使rETH的持有者得到110%的保险。

对于提款要求，Rocket Pool设计了一个存款池，rETH的赎回可以从存款池和部分提款来提供ETH，rETH也可以从二级市场低价折换成ETH，这对minipools运营商是一个套利机会，因为其可以从二级市场上购买折扣价的rETH，并利用Rocket Pool的燃烧机制退出minipools，从而保证rETH:ETH=1:1的汇率。所以，Minipools的运营商可以自主选择是否退出或提取奖励，这完全由市场行为决定。

对于Rocket Pool来说，提款流程并不复杂，运营商只需要撤销minipools即可，但重要的是提高协议存款池的流动性，让rETH能够顺利赎回。在以太坊合并时，Rocket Pool协议很好得处理了合并，而Lido协议的节点运营商之一经历了停机。所以，在应对上海升级的提款流程中，Rocket pool会表现得更好。Rocket Pool推出的Atlas升级将会降低成为验证者的门槛，进一步推动rETH的流动性和RPL的币价。

3.2.3 Frax Finance

用户把ETH交由Frax进行质押，frxETH并不会累积质押奖励，而是在协议内1:1赎回ETH。为了要获得质押奖励，用户需要把frxETH再次存入协议并得到sfrxETH。所以Frax的赎回并不会受到上海升级的影响，更重要是考虑协议是否能提供足够的ETH进行赎回。尤其是在Frax无法再基于更高收益吸引用户的时候，可能会有大量赎回。

3.2.4 StakeWise

StakeWise提供的流动性质押服务与Lido类似，不同的是，StakeWise新升级V3版本用以应对中心化验证者的风险，但该版本还未上线。StakeWise的质押有两种机制：Pool和Solo。Pool机制是给任何ETH持有者参与的质押池，Solo机制是给每个拥有32个 ETH的用户提供的非托管质押服务。

在退出机制上，Pool机制的用户需要在上海升级之后，才能在协议内销毁 sETH2 和 rETH2，并以 1:1 的比例获得 ETH 作为回报。在上海升级前有二级市场能够交易sETH2 和 rETH2这两种质押衍生代币。Solo用户在上海升级前可以选择自愿退出，余额无法访问且无法重新进入质押，上海升级后选择自愿退出，费用将继续累计直至完全退出，大约需要几天时间。

4、结论与思考

上海升级对LSD协议产生的影响主要有三个方面：（1）币价，包括ETH、各类LSD协议代币、协议衍生品代币价格；（2）提款设计考验各个LSD协议的技术，用户开始重新布局；（3）基于以太坊质押或者LSD协议衍生出的更多DeFi协议。

一旦用户能够重新选择质押协议，新一轮的以太坊质押又开始重新洗牌。而且，新的LSD协议或者基于质押的机制将会推出，比如基于DVT技术的应用和EigenLayer的再质押概念，这些很可能会有更好的收益。对于大多数 ETH 质押者来说，上海升级后，他们可以改变最初决定的质押方式和对象，整个以太坊质押的市场份额重新分布。

在提款设计流畅性、质押收益、无许可、安全性上，用户会考虑更多的流动性质押协议。除Lido之外，Rocket Pool可能是上升最快的LSD协议，可以重点关注其minipools在上海升级后建立的数量以及其币价走势。尤其是它在Atlas升级，在提款设计、奖励系统和可扩展性上都有所涉及。

现在已经出现基于LSD的指数代币。比如，Gitcoin与Index Coop合作推出了gtcETH的新以太坊质押指数代币。目的是为用户提供一个从各种流动性质押服务中获得混合收益的地方。同时，有助于促进多种LSD，进一步分散以太坊。除此之外，还有更多的DeFi应用将会诞生：（1）利用LST来铸造新的衍生品；（2）锚定ETH的收益率的期货产品；（3）基于质押ETH出现的稳定币项目。以太坊质押解锁也可能为借贷协议带来增量，很多文章已经分析了循环借贷带来的可能性高收益。

参考资料

1. http://bit.ly/3LztoeO

2. https://tim.mirror.xyz/zLdl8bEiDmobHZ5RlvG2LrlZLWV9c2XvkuKQ-vpljSU

3. https://coinvoice.cn/articles/29918

4. Gitcoin Launches gtcETH Index Token To Bolster Funding — The Defiant

5. https://hackmd.io/@lido/SyaJQsZoj

6. Partial withdrawals after the Shanghai forkhttps://dataalways.substack.com/p/partial-withdrawals-after-the-shanghai

7. StakeWise document: https://docs.stakewise.io/stakewise-pool

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。

As the interest rate hike of the Federal Reserve slows the pace, a mini-bull market was spotted in the crypto market at the end of January, with Bitcoin rising to a six-month high, surpassing $23,700. Arbitrum has created new momentum to the entire crypto market on top of the unfading favor in Ethereum Layer 2. For one thing, Arbitrum released an update in 2022 to cope with more frequent trading activity； for the other, projects from Arbitrum’s ecosystem have received unprecedented attention due to the Arbitrum Odyssey. This report will focus on development of Arbitrum based on technical upgrades and future possibilities. Meanwhile, from the perspective of the Arbitrum ecosystem, reasons for the success and future development of the burgeoning projects in DeFi and gaming are analyzed and concluded, such as GMX, which demonstrates disruptive power on mechanism that it empowered GMX to outperform others in terms of protocol revenue in the bear market. With the help of the favorable contributors, Arbitrum’s token offering is expected to remain in a positive position.

Overview

The performance of Layer2 is second to none at the beginning of 2023, which is in line with the predictions of most institutions and influencers. In terms of token prices, Optimism, Polygon and token on Arbitrum eco are also superior, for example, the token $OP peaked at $3.17 in February and $MATIC peaked at $1.32. As new L1 chains, such as Solana and Terra, are volatile under the influence of the incidents in bear market, the future will still be dominated by Ethereum; it is arguably that the competition yet to come will be between new L1 chains and Layer2. With a small climax in the crypto market, Arbitrum is the vanguard among others.

Currently, Arbitrum is the project with highest TVL in Ethereum’s Layer 2 scaling solution, reaching $2.98B, accounting for 3.01% of all networks combined, and 49.51% in Layer2. Arbitrum Rollup is an off-chain protocol managed by on-chain Ethereum contracts, to be precise, Arbitrum is not a blockchain but an off-chain transaction uploaded to the main Ethereum network through a compression algorithm. This approach can partially solve the congestion problem faced by Ethereum, in order for creation of advantages on fast transaction, low gas fee, security guarantee and good user experience.

1. Technical upgrade

In 2022, Arbitrum has been active. In addition to the Odyssey event, technical upgrades were frequently announced, including the launch of the Arbitrum Nova, Arbitrum One and the introduction of a new programming environment, Stylus. Core technical features and applicable scenarios will be dissected in below.

(1) Arbitrum Nova — An AnyTrust Chain

On July 12, 2022, Arbitrum Network announced the completion of a new chain, Arbitrum Nova. This chain is built on AnyTrust and designed specifically for gaming, social applications, and more cost-sensitive scenarios. AnyTrust is rooted on the assumption of minimal trust ensured through the Data Availability Committee. This committee will be responsible for managing off-chain transaction data and providing that data to support batches. As a result, AnyTrust eliminates the 7-day withdrawal period that users have to wait and improves the overall user experience. The core technical feature include:

• Sign data availability certificates (DACerts) for bulk transactions and issue DACert.

• If the committee is unable to reach consensus, the chain will revert to an Arbitrum aggregation protocol.

• Data execution will be performed on L2, and after a challenging period, the new aggregated state will be confirmed on Ethereum.

(2) Nitro

On July 12, 2022, Arbitrum Network announced the completion of a new chain, Arbitrum Nova. This chain is built on AnyTrust and designed specifically for gaming, social applications and more cost-sensitive scenarios. AnyTrust is rooted on the assumption of minimal trust ensured through the Data Availability Committee. This committee will be resp

At the end of August 2022, Arbitrum One was successfully upgraded to the Nitro version, which significantly improves network speed and reduces transaction costs. In general, the following technical upgrades have been made to Nitro:

• Some modifications to previous AVM architecture and ArbOS.

• The trending WebAssembly (WASM) architecture will replace the older, custom-designed AVM architecture.

• Customized EVM simulator is replaced by Geth.

• ArbOS will be downsized and rewritten in Go to provide a more optimized bulk-processing and compression system for transactions.

The core of the Arbitrum Nitro technology is a new prover that enables interactive fraud proofs of Arbitrum on WASM code, which is constructable and programmable by standard languages and tools. Also, Gethcore is compiled directly into Arbitrum to be more compatible with EVM.

(3) Stylus

Offchain Labs, the official Arbitrum development team, has announced the launch of Stylus, a next-generation programming environment for Arbitrum One and Arbitrum Nova. Stylus empowers users to deploy applications with their favorite programming languages (including Rust, C and C++) through WebAssembly smart contract functionality so that EVM programs on Arbitrum can run simultaneously. Stylus is exponentially faster with lower cost and fully interoperable with the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). Although Offchain Labs calls Stylus EVM+, Stylus will not replace EVM.

2. Collaborations across the ecosystem

In the past year, the market share of Arbitrum has grown significantly, and this growth comes from: 1. continued bullishness of Layer2; 2. the expected token offering of Arb; and 3. the growth of applications in the eco, especially native applications. Since the mainnet Arbitrum One went live last September, applications such as Uniswap, Sushiswap and Curve, the leading DeFi protocols on the Ethereum Layer1 mainnet, have been integrated and deployed on Arbitrum One, as well as some well-known cross-chain protocols. The influx of these applications also demonstrates that developers are bullish on the Arbitrum scaling solution.

In June 2022, organizers of the Odyssey event selected the 14 most active projects on Arbitrum, including Cross-Chain Bridge, DeFi, NFT, and Games. The duration of the event was originally planned to be 8 weeks, but was suspended after the first week. The primary cause of the suspension was network congestion in the second week, which resulted in soaring gas fee. At that time, the gas fee has exceeded that on mainnet Ethereum. In fact, it has fully explained that Arbitrum was incompetent for such user capacity in its state at that time.

Although the Odyssey was only held for a week, the event still attracted considerable attention. Arbitrum, combined with NFT, in the form of an event week inspired users to participate and fostered the learning curve of users on Arbitrum’s ecology; not only the overall user base is enriched, but also traffic is injected into the ecosystem. At the same time, it is a smart move that expectation of future token offerings is preserved rather than the hasty way of giving out tokens as airdrops.

According data from browsers, 207K addresses were added on Arbitrum from the beginning of the Odyssey on June 21 to the end of the first week. On June 27th, the number of daily new addresses hit the record of 55K, which further proves the success of the Odyssey.

After the Odyssey event, Arbitrum has extended its technical efforts and launched projects with innovative mechanisms in the eco, elevating the degree of expectation for a mini-bull at the end of January to full. Currently, Arbitrum’s average monthly active address count for October 2022-January 2023 is 608,365, an increase of 51.2% from September. A corresponding rise in Arbitrum’s transaction volume and user base are also in presence.

3. Analysis of trending projects

In the past 2 months, native ecological projects on Arbitrum have been the center of the whole crypto market. Some projects are sorted out in below that the market cap on each of these projects is lower compared with projects in the same category on other L1 chains, which implies that these projects may be undervalued. Along with the token offering and future development of Arbitrum, there will be plenty of room for improvement.

3.1 DeFi

There are already well-known projects deployed on Arbitrum with multi-chain deployments, such as Uniswap and AAVE, but instead, Arbitrum’s native projects have exhibited stunning momentum, such as the perpetual contract exchange GMX, revenue aggregators for derivatives and the vault Jones DAO. Arbitrum has found the holy grail for sustaining a lucrative model: derivative protocols are similar to casinos with ongoing business revenue; various types of revenue aggregators adopt tactics to lure more capital inflow and expand the revenue streaming; therefore, as more people jump into revenue aggregators, more liquidity is available, thus creating more revenue.

（1）Trending Project 1: GMX

GMX is a decentralized perpetual contracts exchange. Users are provided with options to trade ETH, BTC, LINK and UNI perpetual contracts with up to 30x leverage on a decentralized platform rather than shoring or longing with leverage on centralized exchange, such as Binance or FTX.

In terms of execution, it is more complex than that on centralized exchanges, and price feeding is needed by oracles. Therefore, external forces will engage to perform opening and closing; Keeper (similar to crowdsourcing) serves as the external force to help GMX with these functions.

When a user performs a close action on GMX, it is divided into two parts: one is to send a transaction, and the other to execute, which is done by GMX Keeper.

In addition to the Gas fee for sending the transaction, the sender is required to pay a Gas fee to Keeper for executing it.

TVL of GMX has accumulated to $543 million, representing 31.46% of the TVL of all DeFi protocols on Arbitrum. The protocol generated $33.9 million in revenue over the past year, making GMX tokens one of the best assets in the volatile 2022, returning 84.0% in USD and 428.5% in ETH.

（2）Trending Project 1: Camelot

Camelot, as Arbitrum’s native DEX, has completed token sales in December 2022, which is a regular Uniswap V2 + Curve type of DEX overall but with more features available, such as adding Launchpad, incorporating custom transaction fees, combining LP with NFT, and allowing project parties to set incentives. A brief conclusion of the features is as the following:

• The same AMM DEX as Uniswap V2 with liquidity dispersed over the entire interval from zero to infinity.

• Similar stablecoin trade pairs to Curve.

• Support dynamic targeted transaction fees. Camelot allows project parties to set the percentage of transaction fees based on market conditions and specific protocol requirements.

• Provides revenue and incentives through NFT. Users providing liquidity will receive spNFT representing staking positions.

• The protocol is license-free and project parties can set incentives through the incentive pool of Nitro Pools. These are additional incentive pools.

• With Launchpad, project parties can benefit from many operations, not limited to raising funds and guiding liquidity.

The project with highest TVL on OP is Velodrome, with $77.14 million in liquidity. This figure even surpasses Uniswap V3, which is currently at $44.87 million, but with an FDV of only $9.46 million and an FDV/TVL of 0.21. Relative to Camelot, Velodrome has a higher TVL, but a lower valuation.

（3）Trending Project 3: RDNT

RDNT, a lending protocol on Arbitrum, has two major innovations: multi-chain lending with LayerZero and revolve lending (unavailable for now). It is currently the leader of the kind on Arbitrum, with higher TVL than the Arb version of AAVE V3, but the competition in the long run will still be intense.

Since it is an all-chain lending protocol, users can deposit any major asset on any major chain and borrow various assets with different underlying assets across chains. Here is how it works: the lender deposits the assets, then the borrower can choose to borrow; 50% of the fees (platform revenue) goes to the lender, and the remaining 50% will be in the form of RNDT as a reward, but locked. The protocol is currently in v1, while v2 will make the following upgrades:

• Full cross-chain lending will be enabled for BTC, ETH and USDC, followed by additional assets voted on by Radiant DAO.

• Fee structure will be more centered toward LPs, thereby increasing liquidity and reducing slippage.

• Introduction of the “Dynamic Liquidity” mechanism, which is promising for long-term investors.

• Withdrawal from the liquidity pool will trigger a penalty.

3.2 Gaming

Arbitrum has a booming GameFi ecosystem, especially prominent on three trending projects: Treasure DAO, The Beacon, and Trident DAO. The GameFi eco on Arbitrum does not have the absolute advantage as the derivative sector compared to other chains, on the contrary, it is merely a temporary comparative advantage; the future development depends on the performance in the next.

（1）Treasure DAO

Treasure desires to build a “decentralized Nintendo,” a series of on-chain games that are interconnected through the interoperability of in-game assets and Treasure’s native token, MAGIC, as a shared currency. Some of the most popular games include the strategy game Bridgeworld, The Beacon and Smolverse, as well as the resource management and strategy game Realm.

These games can be accessed through Trove, which is the hub of the Treasure ecosystem, and the marketplace for in-game assets and treasure NFT collectibles. The most popular collections are Smol Brains (the basis of the Smolverse) and The Lost Donkeys, which is also the name of the game.

（2）Trident DAO

Arbitrum’s latest project, Trident, proposed a sustainable GameFi economic model of “Risk to Earn”, which stimulated the interest of players and communities, and became the most sought-after project in the Arbitrum eco after its public offering of tokens.

PSI is Trident’s official utility token that can be used to purchase items, redeem NFTs, and place bet between players, etc. Trident will charge a fee for each successful bet and then destroy it permanently; once the integration of Risk to Earn is completed, the supply of PSI will see deflation.

4. Future Development

The success of Arbitrum bodes well for Layer2 to be the starting point of the next bull market. But before that, technical challenges remain in both Optimistic Rollup and zk Rollup. In the future, Arbitrum will see major developments from 3 perspectives: (1) continuous technical upgrades; (2) continuous support to ecological projects; and (3) attracting users utilizing their expectations on token offering.

First of all, Optimistic Rollup is still criticized by semi-centralized sequencers. Arbitrum currently has centralized sequencers and whitelist proof verification, along with scalable contracts. While these do not pose threats on security at the moment, and competent in protecting user assets, the risk of censorship and loss of user funds remain rising concerns. As a result, decentralized sequencers and proof verification without permission are the ultimate solutions. Offchain Labs has also provided the appropriate technical routes addressing these issues:

• Continue to reduce costs and improve tps

• Decentralization

• Decentralize of the management and licensed software upgrade

• Decentralization of validators

• Decentralization of sequencers

In terms of the eco, Defi, cross-chain bridging and gaming categories are Arbitrum’s signature applications. However, in the future, as the developer community and user base continue to pop up, more new applications will be deployed on the platform, and the most anticipated are projects in the social and NFT categories. In the meantime, provided that the success of Treasure and the growth potential of Arbitrum Nova, Arbitrum is destined to find its favorable position in gaming.

In terms of the tokenomics, it cannot be more anticipated, as the token offering is critical to the long-term success of Arbitrum, including (1) the token distribution plan, (2) the airdrop and incentive plan, and (3) the rule of governance. A good economic model will lead Arbitrum to a more positive direction, which is appealing to developers and users. Token distribution is also crucial in determining the governance of L2 and the long-term concentration of power within the ecosystem. In addition, tokens can also be applied to decentralize key network functions, such as sequencers — the entities that sort, bulk-process, and submit transactions to L1.

From the above analysis, it is eminent that 2023 will be a year of continued booming era for Arbitrum: The Odyssey event may be extended; current DeFi and gaming will be strengthened, as well as distinctive native applications in social and NFT sector are expected to emerge. At the same time, the anticipated tokens will be in place to reward users and protocols, and Nova will see practical initiation and protocol deployment.

References

1. https://candydao.notion.site/Arbitrum-Odyssey-17634b06aa084a3a8407d212927e5f16

2. https://www.bitance.net/category/jingzhengbizixun/18081.html

3.https://mirror.xyz/0xB10DF4c0D1C767b3cEdd911a30E78d2bfdFb5888/prNC3wNLuAUi2imlVFuibvxc151x8cT3kTdWOtkFhXM

4. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/p/arbitrum-is-mooning

5. Optimism Bedrock vs Arbitrum Nitro — PANews (panewslab.com)

About Huobi Research Institute

Huobi Blockchain Application Research Institute (referred to as “Huobi Research Institute”) was established in April 2016. Since March 2018, it has been committed to comprehensively expanding the research and exploration of various fields of blockchain. As the research object, the research goal is to accelerate the research and development of blockchain technology, promote the application of the blockchain industry, and promote the ecological optimization of the blockchain industry. The main research content includes industry trends, technology paths, application innovations in the blockchain field, Model exploration, etc. Based on the principles of public welfare, rigor and innovation, Huobi Research Institute will carry out extensive and in-depth cooperation with governments, enterprises, universities and other institutions through various forms to build a research platform covering the complete industrial chain of the blockchain. Industry professionals provide a solid theoretical basis and trend judgments to promote the healthy and sustainable development of the entire blockchain industry.

Contact us:

Website： http://research.huobi.com

Email：research@huobi.com

Twitter：https://twitter.com/Huobi_Research

Telegram：https://t.me/HuobiResearchOfficial

Medium：https://medium.com/huobi-research

Disclaimer

1. The author of this report and his organization do not have any relationship that affects the objectivity, independence, and fairness of the report with other third parties involved in this report.

2. The information and data cited in this report are from compliance channels. The sources of the information and data are considered reliable by the author, and necessary verifications have been made for their authenticity, accuracy and completeness, but the author makes no guarantee for their authenticity, accuracy or completeness.

3. The content of the report is for reference only, and the facts and opinions in the report do not constitute business, investment and other related recommendations. The author does not assume any responsibility for the losses caused by the use of the contents of this report, unless clearly stipulated by laws and regulations. Readers should not only make business and investment decisions based on this report, nor should they lose their ability to make independent judgments based on this report.

4. The information, opinions and inferences contained in this report only reflect the judgments of the researchers on the date of finalizing this report. In the future, based on industry changes and data and information updates, there is the possibility of updates of opinions and judgments.

5. The copyright of this report is only owned by Huobi Blockchain Research Institute. If you need to quote the content of this report, please indicate the source. If you need a large amount of references, please inform in advance (see “About Huobi Blockchain Research Institute” for contact information) and use it within the allowed scope. Under no circumstances shall this report be quoted, deleted or modified contrary to the original intent.

随着美联储加息放缓，1月底加密行情出现小牛市，比特币上涨到半年来的新高，突破了23700美元。由于以太坊二层的频频利好，Arbitrum给整个加密市场带来了新的活力。一是，Arbitrum在2022年更新了技术，来应对更为频繁的交易活动。二是，由于奥德赛活动第一周的火爆程度，让Arbitrum的生态项目获得了巨大的关注。

本周，我们将关注Arbitrum的发展，分析其在技术上的升级和未来路线。同时，在生态上，我们分析了爆火的Defi类和游戏类项目的成功原因及未来发展，例如GMX这类机制上有所创新，协议收入在熊市表现亮眼。在此基础之上，Arbitrum的发币预期将持续带来利好。

概况

2023年初表现最亮眼的赛道莫过于Layer2，这也符合大部分机构和影响力人物的预测。在币价上，Optimism, Polygon以及Arbitrum上的生态币也都表现不错，比如代币$OP在2月最高$3.17，$MATIC最高也达到$1.32。在Terra和Solana这类新公链在熊市的暴雷事件影响下，未来还将是以太坊的主场，可以说更多是新公链和Layer2的竞争。随着加密行情出现的小高潮，在2月Arbitrum一马当先，创造了瞩目的成果。

目前，Arbitrum是以太坊二层扩容方案中TVL最大的项目，达到2.98B，占所有网络的3.01% TVL份额，在L2中还拥有49.51%的TVL份额。Arbitrum Rollup是一种由链上以太坊合约管理的链下协议，所以准确地说Arbitrum并不是一条区块链，而是把链下交易通过压缩算法上传到以太坊主网。这种方式能够部分解决以太坊面临的拥堵问题，以达到快速交易、低gas fee、安全性保证、用户体验好等优势。

第一章 技术升级

2022年，Arbitrum动作频出，除了奥德赛活动之外，其在技术升级上也是不断推陈出新，其中包括启动Arbitrum Nova和Arbitrum One双链、推出新的编程环境Stylus。下面我们一一介绍这些技术核心和解决的问题。

（1）Arbitrum Nova — AnyTrust链

2022年7月12日，Arbitrum网络宣布构建了新链「Arbitrum Nova」。这条链基于AnyTrust技术搭建，专为游戏、社交应用程序和对成本更敏感的用例而设计。AnyTrust 技术基于通过数据可用性委员会确保的最小信任假设。该委员会将负责管理链下交易数据并提供该数据支持批次。因此，AnyTrust省去了用户需要等待的7天提币期，提高了用户体验。主要技术核心有以下几点：

• 为批量交易签署数据可用性证书 (DACerts) 并发布此 DACert；

• 如果委员会无法达成共识，该链将恢复为 Arbitrum 汇总协议；

• 数据执行将在 L2 链上执行，经过一段充满挑战的时期后，新的汇总状态将在以太坊上得到确认。

（2）Nitro

2022 年8月底。Arbitrum One成功升级到Nitro版本。Nitro升级大大提高了网络速度并降低了交易成本。总的来说，Nitro主要做了以下技术升级：

• 对之前的AVM架构和ArbOS进行了一些修改；

• 流行的 WebAssembly (WASM) 架构将取代旧的、定制设计的 AVM 架构。

• 定制的 EVM 模拟器被 Geth 取代；

• ArbOS 将缩小尺寸并用 Go 重写，从而为交易提供更优化的批处理和压缩系统。

Arbitrum Nitro 技术的核心是一个新的证明器（prover），可以在 WASM 代码上进行 Arbitrum 的交互式欺诈证明。这样就可以使用标准的语言和工具来构建和编译。同时，Gethcore也直接编译到Arbitrum中，使得其更兼容EVM。

（3）Stylus

Arbitrum开发团队Offchain Labs宣布将为Arbitrum One和Arbitrum Nova推出下一代编程环境Stylus，Stylus通过WebAssembly智能合约功能，允许用户使用他们最喜欢的编程语言（包括Rust、C和C++）部署应用程序，以便与Arbitrum上的EVM程序一起运行。Stylus的速度快了一个数量级，并且能够降低费用，并且与以太坊虚拟机（EVM）完全互操作。Offchain Labs将Stylus称之为EVM+，但是，Stylus不会取代EVM。

第二章 生态合作

在过去一年，Arbitrum 市场份额大幅增长，这种增长来源于：1. Layer2的持续看好；2. Arb的发币预期；3. 生态应用的增长，尤其是原生应用的增长。自去年9月主网Arbitrum One上线以来，以太坊Layer1主网上的头部DeFi协议Uniswap、Sushiswap、Curve等应用纷纷在Arbitrum One上集成部署，还有一些知名的跨链协议。例如Synapse和Stargate。这些应用的涌入也表明了开发者对Arbitrum扩容方案的看好。

2022年6月，奥德赛活动主办方挑选了Arbitrum上的14个最活跃项目，包括跨链桥、DeFi、NFT 、游戏。活动时间原本计划为期 8 周，但实际只进行了第一周就暂停了。奥德赛暂停的根本原因是在第二周的时候，网络拥堵，导致gas fee太高。当时已经超过了以太坊主网的gas fee. 其实这已充分说明Arbitrum 当时的状态没办法承载这么多的用户。

但是，奥德赛虽然只举办了一周，但这次的活动还是吸引了足够多的关注。Arbitrum 结合 NFT 以活动周的形式，激发了用户参与的热情，也有助于用户了解 Arbitrum 的生态，在提高用户量的同时，也给其生态的项目带来了流量。同时又保留了未来对发币的预期，而不是匆匆发币给空投的方式。

根据浏览器上的数据显示，自 6 月 21 日奥德赛活动开始到第一周任务结束时，Arbitrum 的新增地址达 20.7 w 个。并在 6 月 27 日单日新增达到了 5.5 万个，成为单日新增地址最多的一天。可见奥德赛活动之成功。

奥德赛活动之后，Arbitrum在技术上持续发力，在生态上不断推出创新机制的项目，使得其在1月底的小牛市期待值拉满。目前，Arbitrum 2022年10月-2023月1月的平均月活跃地址数为608.365k，较9月上涨了51.2%。Arbitrum的交易量与用户数也有相应的上升。

第三章 热门项目分析

近2个月，Arbitrum上的原生生态项目获得了整个加密市场的关注。这里梳理了部分表现亮眼的项目，这些项目的市值与其它公链的同类型项目比较还有一定的差距，还是处于低估值状态。随着Arbitrum的发币和未来发展，都会有很大的提升空间。

3.1 Defi类

Arbitrum上有多链部署的知名项目，例如Uniswap和AAVE。但是，Arbitrum的原生项目反而展现出惊人的爆发力，例如永续合约交易所GMX 、衍生的收益聚合器和机枪池项目Jones DAO等。目前 Arbitrum 已经跑通了一个可以持续赚钱的飞轮：衍生品协议类似赌场，有持续的业务收入；各类收益聚合器利用自身策略持续吸引资金，并扩大收益；更多人参与收益聚合器，流动性更充足，收入也越来越多。

（1）热点项目一：GMX

GMX 是一个去中心化永续合约交易所。其允许用户在一个去中心化的平台上进行高达 30 倍杠杆的 ETH、BTC、LINK 和 UNI 永续合约交易，而不是通过 Binance 或 FTX 等中心化交易所使用杠杆来进行做空或做多。

在执行上，它相比中心化交易所操作要更复杂些，并且需要使用预言机进行喂价。所以，它需要借助外部力量来执行开仓平仓操作，GMX 正是借助 Keeper（类似于众包）完成这项工作。

用户在 GMX 进行平仓操作的时候，会分为两部分：一个是用户发送交易，另一个是执行操作，而执行操作则是由 GMX Keeper 完成的。

用户不但需要交发送交易的 Gas 费外，为了能保证交易能正常执行，还需要为 Keeper 执行操作交 Gas 费。

GMX TVL 达 5.43 亿美元，占 Arbitrum 所有 DeFi 协议 TVL 的 31.46%。该协议在过去一年中产生了 3390 万美元的收入，使 GMX 代币成为在动荡的 2022 年表现最佳的资产之一，对美元和 ETH 的回报率分别为 84.0% 和 428.5%。

（2）热点项目二：Camelot

Camelot作为Arbitrum的原生DEX，在2022年12月已经完成了代币销售，整体上还是常规的Uniswap V2+Curve类型的DEX，在此基础上增加了Launchpad、结合了自定义交易手续费、将LP与NFT结合、允许项目方设置激励措施，它的功能和特点总结如下：

• 和Uniswap V2一样的AMM DEX，流动性分散在从零到无穷大的整个区间内；

• 和Curve类似的稳定币互换交易对；

• 支持动态定向交易费用。Camelot让项目方可以根据市场条件和协议的具体情况设置交易手续费比例；

• 通过NFT提供收益和激励措施。用户提供流动性获得代表质押头寸的spNFT；

• 协议是无需许可的，项目方可以通过激励池Nitro Pools设置激励措施。这是额外的奖励池。

• 具备Launchpad功能，项目方可以借此进行融资并引导流动性。

OP上的同类型项目TVL最高的为Velodrome，有7714万美元的流动性。这一数字甚至超过了Uniswap V3的4487万美元，但FDV只有946万美元，FDV/TVL为0.21。相对于Camelot，Velodrome的TVL更高，但估值更低。

（3）热点项目三：RDNT

Arbitrum 上的借贷协议 RDNT 有两个创新：利用 LayerZero 进行多链借贷；可以循环贷（暂不能使用）。目前在 Arbitrum 上是龙头，TVL 超过了 aave V3 的 Arb 版本，但是长期来看竞争依然非常非常大。

由于是全链借贷协议，用户可以在任何主要链上存入任何主要资产，并跨链借入各种受支持的资产。 lender 存入资产，borrower可以借贷，产生的手续费（平台收益） 50%给到lender，剩下50%给到锁仓 RNDT作为奖励。目前该协议是V1版本，而V2版本将做出以下升级：

• 将允许对 BTC、ETH 和 USDC 进行完全跨链借贷，随后由 Radiant DAO 投票选出的更多资产。

• 将会把协议费用向LP倾斜，从而提高流动性和降低滑点；

• 引入“Dynamic Liquidity”机制，奖励长期投资者；

• 退出流动性池将触发惩罚机制。

3.2 游戏类

Arbitrum 拥有一个快速发展的 GameFi 生态系统，尤其是三个爆火的项目：Treasure DAO，The beacon，Trident DAO。目前 Arbitrum 上的 GameFi 生态并不像其衍生品赛道拥有和其他链比的绝对优势，只是相对领先，一切都需要看后续的发展。

（1）Treasure DAO

Treasure想要构建一个「去中心化任天堂」，这是一系列链上游戏，这些游戏通过游戏内资产的互操作性和 Treasure 的原生代币 MAGIC 作为共享货币相互连接。这些游戏中最受欢迎的包括战略游戏 Bridgeworld、The Beacon 和 Smolverse 等角色扮演游戏，以及资源管理和战略游戏 Realm。

这些游戏可以通过 Trove 访问。Trove 是宝藏生态系统的中心，是游戏内资产和宝藏 NFT 收藏品的市场。这些系列中最受欢迎的是 Smol Brains（Smolverse 的基础）和另一个 NFT 系列 The Lost Donkeys，它有自己的同名游戏。

（2）Trident DAO

Arbitrum 上一个项目「Trident」提出了「Risk To Earn」的可持续 GameFi 经济模型，引起了玩家和社群的关注，并在其 Token 公售后飙升为 Arbitrum 生态热度最高的项目。

PSI 是 Trident 的官方实用 Token，将使用于其未来版本中的各种游戏，可用于购买物品、兑换 NFT，玩家之间的投注等，并且 Trident 将从每次成功的下注中收取费用然后将其永久销毁，一旦 Risk To Earn 集成完成，PSI 的供应就会通货紧缩。

第四章 未来发展

Arbitrum的成功预示着Layer2赛道将会成为下个牛市的起点。但在此之前，无论是Optimistic Rollup路线还是zk Rollup路线，在技术上仍然存在一些问题需要解决。在未来，Arbitrum项目将会在三个方面进行发展：（1）继续技术升级；（2）不断支持生态项目；（3）借助发币预期吸引用户入场。

首先技术上，Optimistic Rollup技术仍然被略为中心化的排序器所诟病。Arbitrum 目前拥有中心化的排序器和白名单证明验证，同时拥有可升级的合约。虽然这些在目前并没有出现安全问题，也足以保护用户资产。但仍然增加了审查和损失用户资金的风险。所以，去中心化排序器和无需许可的证明验证都是必然之路。offchain labs在这些问题上也给出了相应的技术路线：

• 继续降低费用，提升 tps

• 去中心化

• 将管理和授权软件升级去中心化

• 验证者去中心化

• sequencer 去中心化

在生态方面，目前Defi、跨链和游戏类是Arbitrum主打应用。但未来随着开发者和用户的不断增长，会有更多的新应用部署在该平台，而最值得期待的是社交类和NFT类的项目。同时，鉴于 Treasure 的成功和 Arbitrum Nova 的增长潜力，Arbitrum Nova链将会真正用起来，让Arbitrum 在游戏领域处于有利地位。

在经济模型上，其实这是最为期待的一个部分。代币的推出对于 Arbitrum 的长期成功至关重要，包括：（1）代币分配方案；（2）空投和激励生态方案；（3）治理方案。好的经济模型将会让Arbitrum朝着更加正向的方向发展，吸引用户和开发者。代币分配也将在决定 L2 的治理和生态系统内的长期权力集中方面发挥重要作用。此外，代币还可以用于分散关键网络功能，例如排序器 — — 排序、批处理和向 L1 提交交易的实体。

从以上分析可以看出，2023年将会是Arbitrum持续爆发的一年。它可能继续奥德赛项目，并强化目前的DeFi和游戏类项目，也会推出有特色的原生社交类项目和NFT类项目。同时，可能会推出期待已久的代币，并奖励用户和协议。真正启用Nova链，并开始部署协议。

参考资料

1. https://candydao.notion.site/Arbitrum-Odyssey-17634b06aa084a3a8407d212927e5f16

2. https://www.bitance.net/category/jingzhengbizixun/18081.html

3. https://mirror.xyz/0xB10DF4c0D1C767b3cEdd911a30E78d2bfdFb5888/prNC3wNLuAUi2imlVFuibvxc151x8cT3kTdWOtkFhXM

4. https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/p/arbitrum-is-mooning

5. Optimism Bedrock VS Arbitrum Nitro — PANews (panewslab.com)

关于火必研究院

火必区块链应用研究院（简称“火必研究院”）成立于2016年4月，于2018年3月起 致力于全面拓展区块链各领域的研究与探索，以泛区块链领域为研究物件，以加速区块链技术研究开发、推动区块链行业应用落地、促进区块链行业生态优化为研究目标，主要研究内容包括区块链领域的行业趋势、技术路径、应用创新、模式探索等。 本着公益、严谨、创新的原则，火必研究院将通过多种形式与政府、企业、高校等机构开展广泛而深入的合作，搭建涵盖区块链完整产业链的研究平台，为区块链产业人士提供坚实的理论基础与趋势判断，推动整个区块链行业的健康、可持续发展。

联系我们：

咨询邮箱： research@huobi.com

官方网站： https://research.huobi.com/

Twitter： Huobi_Research

Medium： Huobi Research

Telegram： Huobi Research

免责声明

1. 火必区块链研究院与本报告中所涉及的专案或其他第三方不存在任何影响 报告客观性、独立性、公正性的关联关系。

2. 本报告所引用的资料及数据均来自合规管道，资料及数据的出处皆被火必区块链研究院认为可靠，且已对其真实性、准确性及完整性进行了必要的核查，但火必区块链研究院不对其真实性、准确性或完整性做出任何保证。

3. 报告的内容仅供参考，报告中的结论和观点不构成相关数字资产的任何投资建议。 火必区块链研究院不对因使用本报告内容而导致的损失承担任何责任，除非法律法规有明确规定。 读者不应仅依据本报告作出投资决策，也不应依据本报告丧失独立判断的能力。

4. 本报告所载资料、意见及推测仅反映研究人员于定稿本报告当日的判断，未来基于行业变化和数据资讯的更新，存在观点与判断更新的可能性。

5. 本报告版权仅为火必区块链研究院所有，如需引用本报告内容，请注明出处。 如需大幅引用请事先告知，并在允许的范围内使用。 在任何情况下不得对本 报告进行任何有悖原意的引用、删节和修改。