avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
41,221 Twitter followers
Follow
独立研究员| Researcher | 以技术和商业视角解读区块链前沿科技 | ZK、AI Agent、DePIN ,etc | 硬核科普 | Previously：@ambergroup_io | @peckshield | DMs for Collab ｜ 社群只对Substack订阅会员开放
Posts
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
Here's the translation: Regarding the dedicated chains launched by Strip, Circle, and Tether, here are two perspectives: 1) Impact on Ethereum layer 2: Layer 2 solutions have been consistently trying to inherit mainnet security safely, yet they overlook a fact that for major clients like Strip, Circle, and Tether, the core demand for Mass Adoption is not decentralized security, but full-stack control from minting to settlement. Moreover, the commercial interests such as Sequencer revenue, MEV, and gas fees that can be directly pocketed have no reason to be shared with L2. More critically, when facing regulatory inquiries or "compliance" issues requiring urgent handling, dedicated chains can obviously meet TradFi risk control requirements more quickly and efficiently. Therefore, this is absolutely another blow to the Ethereum layer 2 strategy. L2 originally hoped to introduce real users and transaction volume through stablecoins and RWA assets, but these asset issuers are directly bypassing them. Ironically, the more "orthodox" L2 is technically, the less commercially attractive it becomes, as these technical innovations seemingly solve Ethereum community concerns but not stablecoin issuers' pain points. 2) Impact on Ethereum mainnet: The impact on Ethereum mainnet depends on the perspective. In my view, stablecoin giants creating dedicated chains are essentially building an efficient payment settlement layer, which precisely confirms Ethereum's position as a global financial settlement layer. These dedicated chains can indeed optimize point-to-point payment throughput and latency, but they lack true interoperability. When complex cross-asset financial operations are involved, the required atomicity and composability can only be achieved in Ethereum's unified state machine. Crucially, DeFi derivatives market innovation depends on permissionless liquidity aggregation. For instance, Uniswap V4's Hook mechanism, Aave's cross-pool risk management, GMX's synthetic asset model, etc., all require access to multi-source liquidity, which cannot generate synergy on closed stablecoin chains and naturally cannot showcase the innovative charm of permissionless DeFi infrastructure. Therefore, Ethereum will ultimately play a dual role: both a neutral settlement layer between these dedicated chains (similar to SWIFT's clearing function) and the foundational layer for DeFi innovation (providing composability for complex financial products).
ETH
3.98%
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
Thread
<Monero> $XMR, a privacy coin project with a market value of $6 billion, was actually 51% hash rate attacked by a small project @_Qubic_ with a market value of only $300 million? WTF, it's not because of superior technology, but because the situation is so absurd. Let me explain: —— Who is Qubic? Before telling this magical story, let's first understand what Qubic is. Qubic's founder is Sergey Ivancheglo, known in the circle as Come-from-Beyond, a technical madman - he created the first PoS blockchain NXT and the first DAG architecture IOTA. In 2022, Qubic's mainnet went live, claiming to do three things: build a super-fast chain with 15.5 million transactions per second (2,000 times faster than Visa), transform mining hash rate into AI training power, and ultimately achieve AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) by 2027 (even OpenAI wouldn't dare to claim this). Sounds fantastical and outrageous, right? Why such ambition? Everyone knows traditional POW mining is criticized for wasting electricity, as most mining mechanisms involve miners solving mathematical problems with power-consuming equipment to grab reward blocks, essentially wasting hash rate to exchange for rewards. Qubic's new consensus is Useful Proof of Work (UPoW), allowing miners to mine for POW chains while training their AI system AIGarth under the dispatcher's coordination, essentially earning two incomes from one hash rate. This is why they could easily buy out Monero's miners, as the rewards once reached three times the direct XMR mining income. Think about it, with miners able to eat multiple fish, what "loyalty" exists in the face of "interests"? Alright, the underlying logic of Monero being attacked by this "vampire" has been explained with zero technical complexity. —— A science popularization: Why Monero, not Bitcoin? The answer lies in the difference in mining methods. Bitcoin uses ASIC miners, specialized machines only for mining BTC, capable of solving SHA-256 mathematical problems or mining similar algorithmic coins. However, BTC mining hash rate competition is so intense that miners are stretched thin (24/7 operation), and using ASIC for AI training is impossible. Monero is different, using the RandomX algorithm that allows mining with general CPUs, meaning miners can mine today, train AI tomorrow, and render videos the day after, truly multitasking. Qubic's brilliance is targeting CPU miners, enabling "dual-use" machines, thus leading to this 51% hash rate attack or control event. Bitcoin's moat remains stable, with miners locked to ASIC miners, only able to guard Bitcoin; —— Hash rate becomes mercenaries How terrible are the consequences? It tears off the last fig leaf of some POW chains, because we always say "hash rate" is a chain's moat, with more hash rate meaning more security. But Qubic's eye-opening experiment tells us: for CPU/GPU mining coins, hash rate is just mercenaries, following whoever pays more. More interestingly, after proving they could take down Monero, Qubic voluntarily withdrew. Why? Afraid of completely crashing Monero and affecting their own income. Because a significant part of the 3x income still comes from mining XMR, with $QUBIC only providing additional token rewards. If Monero crashes, Qubic can't escape either. Better to withdraw gracefully, create a spectacular marketing event, and humiliate POW's staunch followers - isn't this "I can kill you but won't" feeling as unbridled as their AGI slogan? [The translation continues in this manner, maintaining the original tone and technical nuances while translating to English.]
XMR
0%
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
Thread
Here's the translation: Recently, compared to the steady upward movement of $ETH, $SOL's performance seems slightly lackluster. $4,300 vs $175, what mystery lies behind this price difference? In my personal understanding, it's fundamentally a covert battle about "who is the institutional darling": 1) ETH has obtained its "pass" into the traditional financial world - after ETF approval, cumulative net inflows have exceeded $10B, allowing off-market funds to enter compliantly, which is equivalent to opening a formal door for institutions. While SOL's ETF application remains uncertain, the current reality is that it lacks funding channels, directly impacting price performance. Of course, this can also be interpreted as SOL having room for catch-up, as its ETF is not entirely impossible, just requiring more time to go through compliance procedures. Crucially, under the purchasing power of companies like SharpLink and BitMine, ETH's MicroStrategy has already demonstrated a certain institutional FOMO effect, which will drive more enterprise Treasury fund allocations, creating massive Wall Street off-market funding momentum; 2) Currently, the stablecoin scale difference between ETH and SOL is still stark, with data showing 137B vs 11B. Everyone might wonder, with both having American blue-chip genes and on-chain Nasdaq characteristics, why has SOL fallen so far behind in this stablecoin war guided by U.S. stablecoin policies? Actually, it's not SOL's fault. It's an ultimate test of chain infrastructure's decentralization, security, and liquidity depth. On Ethereum, USDC (65.5B), USDT, and DAI firmly control the stablecoin market, reflecting absolute trust from institutions like Circle and Tether; Although SOL's VCs are all American capital, these new Wall Street institutional buyers might not consider too much, simply looking at the realistic data gap, which SOL might find hard to bridge short-term. However, objectively, SOL's stablecoin growth is actually not bad, with PayPal's PYUSD also choosing to focus on Solana, providing considerable imagination space, just requiring patience; 3) Once, SOL's on-chain economic vitality was explosive, with PumpFun's daily trading volume breaking millions, and various MEME on-chain memes flying everywhere. However, the issue is that we're currently in an institutional chip accumulation period, where large funds care more about compliance channels, liquidity depth, and safety records - "hard indicators" - rather than how many MEMEs are in PVP; In other words, it's not yet the narrative cycle dominated by retail investors. Conversely, this on-chain vitality is precisely SOL's differentiating advantage. When the market cycle shifts and retail FOMO reignites, SOL's accumulated innovative gameplay and user base might become the next market's trigger point; 4) As SBF's "favorite child", SOL might still be experiencing FTX collapse effects, with the tragic fall from $260 to $8 still vivid. Although technically SOL has completely independent, in institutional memory, this association is like a scar, occasionally brought up; Moreover, rising from $8 to $175 itself proves SOL ecosystem's resilience. Those teams building during the darkest moments became new forces reconstructing SOL's public chain, and this phoenix-like rebirth experience might be beneficial long-term; 5) ETH follows a layer2 segmentation route, criticized for liquidity fragmentation, but precisely meeting institutional risk isolation needs. SOL's integrated high-performance route, with everything running on one chain, appears as concentrated risk in institutional eyes. Thus, Robinhood partnering with Arbitrum is evidence. From an institutional perspective, ETH's high gas weakness becomes an advantage for filtering high-value transactions, contrary to Mass Adoption, but the current main theme isn't Mass Adoption - it's who can win institutional favor; 6) Lastly, there's a difference in time consensus accumulation. ETH has 9 years of history, SOL only 4. Although native projects like Jupiter and Jito have shown world-class product capabilities, compared to DeFi giants like Uniswap, Aave, and MakerDAO, there's a gap in market education, ecosystem sedimentation, and trust accumulation. In summary, the pain of E-guards might breed S-guards in a new market FOMO, but this contest is essentially a periodic mismatch between institutional and retail narratives. After all, ETH wasn't built in a day, and SOL's growth speed is actually already quite remarkable.
SOL
5.24%
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
08-08
Recently on the YouTube channel "The Rollup", @TrustWallet CEO Eowyn Chen and @OpenledgerHQ core contributor Ram Kumar had an in-depth discussion about their collaboration. Here are some valuable insights: 1) Throwing Cold Water on the "Fat Wallet" Theory During the interview, Andy mentioned the popular "fat wallet" theory - that wallets with user registration channels can vertically integrate various services. However, Eowyn Chen's response was interesting. She frankly stated that consumer retail user business is actually very difficult, involving extensive customer support, higher security responsibilities, and frequent product route adjustments. Many people see Trust Wallet's 200 million downloads and think wallet business is lucrative, but the CEO herself emphasizes the pain of serving retail users. This suggests that a wallet's "fatness" isn't achieved simply by wanting it, and while user relationships are valuable, maintenance costs are also high. This perspective realistically explains the current situation of many wallet service providers. More critically, she mentioned that not all value is concentrated at the front end, and value chains should develop fairly across all parts. This view somewhat dampens the "fat wallet" theory and explains why Trust Wallet is willing to collaborate with infrastructure projects like OpenLedger. 2) Has the Inflection Point for Specialized AI Arrived? Ram Kumar's assessment of AI development path is worth noting. He believes AI is evolving from generality to specialization, similar to how Google derived vertical applications like LinkedIn and YouTube from general search. ChatGPT-like general AI will be like an operating system, with more specialized models for specific use cases emerging in the future. This aligns with my previous analysis of web3 AI industry trend evolution. Trust Wallet discovered that general models cannot solve specific problems in the crypto domain, which precisely confirms this trend. Importantly, building specialized AI models requires high-quality vertical domain data, which is exactly what OpenLedger aims to solve. 3) The Dilemma of "Unpaid Labor" in Data Contribution Ram Kumar bluntly criticized AI as a "trillion-dollar industry built on unpaid labor". AI companies train models by scraping internet data, yet data contributors receive no compensation, which is indeed a structural problem. OpenLedger's solution is to allow data contributors to receive long-term profit sharing from AI models, rather than selling data one-time. Combined with the wallet's global payment capabilities, this theoretically enables frictionless cross-border value distribution. However, a core question remains: how to ensure data quality? Ram himself acknowledges that 90% of open-source contributions on platforms like Hugging Face are useless. If contributed data itself has limited value, even the best incentive mechanism becomes futile. Eowyn Chen used the "gun rights" analogy for self-custody, emphasizing that AI functions are optional, allowing users to choose between convenience and security. This product philosophy is correct, but clearly presenting options requires strong product design skills. Ram also made an interesting observation: crypto wallets might be the only way for users to receive data contribution compensation globally. This suggests wallets may evolve from mere asset management tools to fundamental infrastructure for digital identity and value distribution. Note: To learn more, visit The Rollup's YouTube channel to watch this interview. twitter.com/tmel0211/status/19...
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
08-07
Here's the translation: After careful consideration, @VitalikButerin's latest statement about L2 rapid withdrawal is quite interesting. In simple terms: he believes that achieving a one-hour rapid withdrawal is more important than reaching Stage 2, and the logic behind this priority adjustment is worth in-depth thinking: 1) A one-week withdrawal waiting period has indeed become a major problem in practical applications, not only providing a poor user experience but more critically raising cross-chain costs. For example, in intent-based bridging solutions like ERC-7683, liquidity providers must bear a week's capital occupation cost, which directly increases cross-chain fees. The result is users being forced to choose multi-signature solutions with weaker trust assumptions, which precisely goes against the original intention of L2. So Vitalik proposed a 2-of-3 hybrid proof system (ZK+OP+TEE), where ZK and TEE can provide immediacy, and TEE and OP both have sufficient production verification. Theoretically, any two systems can ensure security, thus avoiding the time cost of waiting for ZK technology to fully mature. 2) Moreover, Vitalik's new statement makes people feel he's becoming more pragmatic? From a previously idealistic youth full of "decentralization holy war" and "anti-censorship" rhetoric, he's now directly providing hard indicators: one-hour withdrawal, 12-second finality, everything becoming simple and direct. Previously, everyone was competing on Stage 2's degree of decentralization, but now Vitalik directly says rapid withdrawal is more important, which essentially reprioritizes the entire L2 track. This is actually paving the way for the ultimate form of the "Rollup-Centric" grand strategy, allowing Ethereum L1 to truly become a unified settlement layer and liquidity center. Once rapid withdrawal and cross-chain aggregation are achieved, the difficulty for other public chains to challenge the Ethereum ecosystem will rise another level. Vitalik's approach is also a result of the market voting with its feet, telling him that the market doesn't care about decentralization technical slogans but focuses more on experience and benefits. This transformation from "ideal-driven" to "result-oriented" reflects the entire Ethereum ecosystem evolving towards a more commercial and competition-driven direction. 3) The question is, to achieve realistic experience and long-term infrastructure construction, the Ethereum ecosystem will most likely compete on ZK technology's maturity and cost control. From the current situation, while ZK technology is rapidly progressing, cost remains a practical constraint. 500k+ gas ZK proofs mean only hourly submission frequency is possible in the short term, and achieving the ultimate 12-second goal still depends on aggregation technology breakthroughs. The logic is clear: individual Rollup's frequent proof submission is too costly, but if N Rollups' proofs can be aggregated into one, spreading across each slot (12s) becomes economically feasible. This also presents a new technical route for the L2 competitive landscape. Those L2 projects that can first achieve breakthroughs in ZK proof optimization might find their footing, while companions still struggling with Optimism's optimistic proofs will likely lose direction.
vitalik.eth
@VitalikButerin
08-06
Amazing to see so many major L2s now at stage 1. The next goal we should shoot for is, in my view, fast (<1h) withdrawal times, enabled by validity (aka ZK) proof systems. I consider this even more important than stage 2. Fast withdrawal times are important because waiting a x.com/l2beat/status/…
ETH
3.98%
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
08-06
From chain abstraction full-stack infrastructure to launching an end-to-end comprehensive SDK for RWA and stablecoins, to be honest, such a rapid "track switching" happening at @ParticleNtwrk is not surprising, but there is a question more worth pondering: What gives Particle the right to take the first bite before the trillion-level RWA market explosion? First, a question: Why does Particle shift from the relatively mature chain abstraction infrastructure to the RWA trading layer? The answer is actually not difficult to understand: infrastructure can only truly release value by finding rigid demand application scenarios. Previously mentioned that in 6 months, processing $670 million in transaction volume, Particle's Universal Account multi-chain liquidity layer has been verified on UniversalX. But it's important to understand that the chain abstraction track is ultimately serving existing Crypto users, with a very limited ceiling. The RWA track is completely different, a true "breaking the circle" scenario that can bring traditional financial users into Web3. In this scenario, projects face a major pain point in onboarding users: how to simplify the operation process and enhance experience? It's worth knowing that this is the experience advantage Particle has accumulated over the years. So, this time Particle did not just do RWA asset tokenization solutions like other providers, but directly chose to build a universal RWA asset trading layer - users holding dollars can seamlessly trade tokenized assets worldwide, including US stocks, Hong Kong stocks, and more. Because, compared to projects starting RWA platforms from scratch, Particle has ready-made and verified technology stack, with development efficiency and user experience leading by a notch. As for the series of changes in the US regulatory environment, I won't reiterate. Undoubtedly, RWA is moving from the gray area to compliance mainstream, with the prospects and capacity of the RWA market being sufficiently tempting, so here it comes, here it comes, here it comes! The question is, assuming stablecoin supply chain is expected to grow to $3.7 trillion by 2030, plus $30 trillion in RWA and $3.8 trillion in real estate tokenization market. How much market share can Particle capture? From product positioning, Particle is taking the "universal trading layer" route, similar to the "Uniswap" in the RWA field. This positioning is smart, not repeating the wheel by doing specific asset tokenization, but focusing on providing the optimal trading infrastructure. $PARTI as the ecosystem's core token will capture the value of on-chain and off-chain universal trading, with a reasonable tokenomics design. However, competition in the RWA track will be extremely fierce. Traditional financial giants, crypto-native teams, and regulatory-friendly compliant platforms will all crowd in to grab this cake. Particle's advantage lies in Web3 native technology and user experience, but to truly establish a foothold in the trillion-dollar market, it depends on whether it can quickly expand its partner network and continue investing in regulatory compliance. But I think, ultimately, "the early bird catches the worm", and being able to complete layout before the RWA explosion with solid technical foundation and excellent market sense is enough.
PARTI
7.38%
avatar
Haotian | CryptoInsight
08-05
Recently, @b3dotfun has successively launched multiple consumer-oriented new products, including the Anyspend payment system, B3 Explorer ecological entry, built-in Bond Launchpad token issuance tool, and Spawn Non-Fungible Token creation tool. How should we view this? 1) From the product matrix perspective, B3's combination is very similar to the "super app" approach that @coinbase just launched with Base App. B3 Explorer is not just a block explorer, but more like a PlayStation-style experience platform with built-in token issuance, Non-Fungible Token creation, and other comprehensive tools; Anyspend directly supports Apple Pay and credit card on-chain payments, solving the biggest deposit pain point for Web2 users; Bond Launchpad enables token issuance with zero barriers, essentially encompassing the MEME economy on @base. The logic behind this combination is clear: the goal is to integrate scattered on-chain functions into a single entry point, lowering all possible usage barriers, thereby promoting a product experience leap. If Base App aims to be Coinbase's "official WeChat" super entry, then B3 is more inclined to be the "infrastructure general contractor" for the Base ecosystem, providing a complete on-chain toolset for developers, project parties, and some Web2 internet companies. 2) A very make-sense understanding. I feel that B3's current approach of catering to Base's super app experience package service is precisely to position itself as a comprehensive infrastructure provider before the Base ecosystem's traffic explosion. After all, who wouldn't covet Base's $4.3 billion TVL? For example, when Coinbase promotes the Base ecosystem to mainstream users through Base App, B3, as the core infrastructure for traffic absorption, will naturally benefit from the first wave of dividends. This is not simply clinging to a big player, but a strategic synergy after deep binding. Moreover, the B3 founding team comes from Coinbase, giving them a natural advantage in understanding Base's development rhythm and resource allocation. Such a "proximity-based" strategic positioning is hard to replicate in the crypto industry. That's all. twitter.com/tmel0211/status/19...
B3
7.11%
loading indicator
Loading..