Hong Kong conference, rethinking 3 popular racetracks
Original article by Lao Bai, ABCDE
Source of original text:medium
Recently, the Hong Kong Conference is in full swing, and the primary market is picking up. ABCDE Q1 watched more than 100 projects and experienced firsthand several particularly popular tracks in the market, the hottest of which include Appchain, ZK, and Gaming.
Since this year, these 3 tracks have also undergone some changes, and we have also rethought and recorded it as a memo for everyone's reference.
one. Appchain (especially RAAS, Rollup as a Service)
RAAS is a racetrack that began at the end of last year. It has a lot to do with the release of OP Stack, but Appchain as a Service has existed for a long time, represented by the Cosmos SDK.CelestiaAfter the introduction of modular blockchains, it gradually became popular, and RAAS can be seen as one of the hottest subsets recently.
Why is Appchain as a Service track likely to be overhyped in the near future
First, if you are a developer and want to build an Appchain yourself, the options you face are as follows
If your chain is EVM then you can
1. Make a pure ETH sidechain like Ronin (I believe few people would do this now)
2. Use Skale to create an ETH sidechain
3. Use Avax to send a chain and connect to Avax's P chain
4. UsePolygonSupernet launches EVM chain
5. Use BAS to make a baseBNB ChainThe side chain
6. Make a Rollup Appchain with OP Stack
7. Use Caldera to make a Rollup Appchain (essentially an Op Stack)
8. Use Zk-Sync to make an L3 (estimated to be visible this year)
9. While I'm writingArbitrumThey also released their Orbit, an Opstack-like L3 infrastructure
10. Next, there are projects under development such as Opside, Stackr, Sovereign SDK, etc.
If your chain is non-EVM then you can
1. Use the Cosmos SDK as a chain, or be independent and self-reliant, or share ATOM security (ICS proposal just passed)
2. Use Substrate to send a chain, or bid for a Boca slot, or connect to the Octopus Network, or no one connects, so I've had a quiet time
3. Use Celestia's Rollkit to make a Rollup Appchain, DA uses Celestia, payment is optional
4. Make a Rollup Appchain with Dymension
5. Make a Rollup Appchain with Saga
6. Make an L3 based on Starkware (estimated to be visible this year)
7. There must be many more under development later. I didn't know or missed something I hadn't anticipated
Do you think — “There are just too many options?!”
Second, which apps are suitable for making Appchain? Remember that online article a few months ago about whether Uniswap should make its own Appchain and all kinds of controversy?
In general,UniswapIf Appchain becomes an Appchain, it will have advantages such as transaction fees, token value capture, resistance to Mev, and resource monopoly, but at the same time, it will gain Debuff with reduced user experience, security, and composability
Anyway, we haven't seen Uniswap's plans or “ambitions” to become an Appchain yet
Compound originally wanted to use Substrate as a chain, but then abandoned it. Now Compound and Aave V3 are multi-chain deployments, and at present, it doesn't seem very likely to become an Appchain
As forCurve, I probably never planned to do this
DYdX, which has no dependency on composability, chose to run to Cosmos as an application chain. We should see this year in Q3. Perhaps after Luna, this is the most anticipated Appchain. At that time, dYdX will also show a path for many builders — if you take the lead on a racetrack and don't require high composability, then it makes sense to independently make a “sovereign and high-performance” Appchain. Until then, you can first choose a generic chain ecosystem as a Dapp for lewd development and fight monsters, and wait until the level is high enough before flying solo
This path is relatively feasible. For example, if a SocialFi DApp based on Lens Protocol grows bigger and stronger, and the daily activity is very high, Polygon's throughput cannot be satisfied, and using that infrastructure alone to make a Rollup AppChain will completely make sense. However, if you look at this case in the short term, projects that meet the above conditions should not have a large amount of infrastructure that can launch a chain...
Furthermore, it is a racetrack that is naturally suitable for sending a chain directly into an Appchain. This track project will be the biggest user of the above infrastructure. Looking at it now, until the problem of heterogeneity and composability between chains is completely overcome, it is unlikely that non-Cosmos ecosystem DeFi will follow this path; the most suitable racetrack is undoubtedly Gamefi (including Onchain Autonomous World — an autonomous world on a chain). Examples include AVAX-based DFK and Crab, OpCraft, which was popular some time ago, Curio with Caldera hair chain, etc.
Looking at my own Little Fox and Keplr wallet, after Luna's collapse, it seems like they haven't used any other Appchains other than DFK and Osmosis. This makes me wonder, do we really need “dozens of Appchains or Rollup as Service” infrastructure in this cycle?
Finally, RAAS can make a separate “slight complaint” about the recent fire
1.1. OP series
The OP system-based Raas we have seen so far is basically a fork OP Stack. There are no technical barriers. The OP's code and documentation are very clean and clear. Our ABCDE technical master can basically set up an OP Rollup Appchain in less than a day, so the value that this type of RaaS provides customers is more in added value such as sequencer, block explorer, and rapid deployment, and marketing capabilities far outweigh technical capabilities.
Furthermore, the basic TPS, block generation time, usage fees, etc. of this kind of AppChain are completely homogenized with Optimism, and there are no performance cost optimization measures, so in theory, unless OP blocks it, you won't get a “better experience” on this AppChain than the OP General Chain. However, OP's current shortcomings, this type of RAAS has also been completely inherited, such as the fraudulent certificate that is far from being launched until now...
However, I still want to praise OP Stack's vision. The more Rollup Chains are sent from OP Stack or OP Stack Fork in the future, the more likely it is that OP Super Chain will become a “Poca-like” architecture that does not require slots, comes with its own communication protocol, and can be combined completely asynchronously. Although this vision is still far away, the cake I drew is really fragrant. The OP also used OP Stack's narrative to compete with Arbitrum's ongoing Defi innovation. Half of the research report wrote that Arbitrum also released Orbit, so I said it was impossible not to eat such a big piece of fat Arb. Sure enough, the coin issue+new project came all at once, and I watched OP VS Arb again!
1.2. ZK series
Theoretically speaking, the ZK series RAAS is likely to improve the AppChain user experience, because zk-sync and scroll all focus on compatibility, so the circuit design sacrifices some efficiency and cannot be optimized for a specific Dapp. If RAAS can design or optimize individual circuits according to different DAPPs, the performance and experience of ZK AppChain will definitely be better than that of general-purpose zkEVM
However, there are too few people in this world who know both ZK and blockchain. The few are basically concentrated on Starknet, Zk-Sync, Scroll, and Polygon. As for the ZK RAAS currently seen on the market, they are basically using the alpha open source version of Zk-Sync to launch the Zk-Sync fork chain for you. After Polygon, Scroll is online and fully open source, the most is to provide customer options. Do you prefer zk-sync, polygon, or scroll EVM. When creating a Linux virtual machine in AWS, you choose Redhat, Centos, or Debian for instant vision
So, similarly, there are no technical barriers. BD is still king, and it's not as mature as the OP series. After all, several official versions of the ZK Rollup have not been launched yet or are not fully open source; all that can be used now are open source beta versions, bugs, experiences, etc., which are definitely not as smooth as OP's. I hope to see the emergence of ZK series RAAS with individual circuit designs or optimization for each AppChain in the future
II. ZK
If Appchain as Service is a representative circuit for modular blockchains, then this year's blockchain shows two major learnings — modularity and ZK.
ZK's barriers can be viewed separately in the following aspects
2.1 Expansion
Needless to say, several major ZK-Rolllup main networks went online this year, but they went online. There were actually quite a few problems after the launch.
degree of completion
Currently, whether it's ZK-Sync, Scroll, or Polygon, they are all EVM-compatible main networks; only Starknet isn't, but StarkNet also has a “son” called Kakarot who works on ZKEVM. The author learned from ZK experts in the industry that in fact, the main networks of ZK-Rollup, which have more or less the feel of “catching ducks on the shelves”, have not really reached the “main network completion level” in the traditional sense of the word. After the launch, there will inevitably be various performance or bug issues, and it is likely that continuous upgrades and patches will be needed. This can probably be seen from the delays of the test networks that were originally planned by various companies from last year to this year. The reason for this is because ZKEVM is actually “too difficult,” and it is so difficult that even the top engineers in the industry took a lot longer to overcome it than originally thought. As for why they are all rushing to the main network this year, I think it is related to the pressure brought about by the continuous enrichment of OP's ecology, continuous upgrading of the main network, and stability. The ZK series is no longer available, and the daylilies are all cool. As long as they can basically be used, let's go online first. The next big deal is to keep updating iterative versions.
performance
The performance of the ZK series, at least at this stage, should be <=OP series. Of course, the perception may not be obvious from the user's point of view, because they are all confirmed to you within a few seconds on the sequencer. ZK can actually do it slowly (usually it takes 10 to 20 minutes to complete a block), and users don't care much about the transaction to actually achieve “finality” on L1, nor can they sense it. The current popular circuit optimization, or hardware acceleration, is actually the 10-20 minute proof time, but in terms of user experience, it has no effect on the user experience
overheads
The fraud certificate on the OP's side basically doesn't cost money. If you do the ZK certificate, it consumes a lot of computing power. This is all money... Of course, you can say that ZK uploads less L1 data than OP, that is, the gas it costs to transfer to CallData is less, but this reduced gas is likely to be less than the amount of money spent on Prover, especially after the 4844 blob comes out, and the cost advantage on the OP side will be even more obvious than now
security
This is a matter of opinion. The traditional understanding is that ZK is based on mathematical proof, OP is based on economic games, math > games, so ZK is safer than OP
Of course, there's nothing wrong with this in the long run.
But that's not necessarily the case at this stage.
The so-called security means that the transaction must actually be “terminated” on ETH L1. Currently, Arb is submitted every two or three minutes, and the OP is about 10 minutes. On the ZK side, because the proof takes time and effort, it will basically be at the level of 10-20 minutes, and when the blocks are full, if the ecology is not prosperous enough and the blocks are dissatisfied, it will take even longer
As a result, although mathematics is indeed greater than games, the time for ZK transactions to end at this stage is also much higher than that of the OP system. This depends on the evolution of ZK algorithms, circuit optimization, and hardware acceleration to continuously reduce that time of 10 to 20 minutes. If any day can it actually be shortened to the level of 10-20 seconds (5-10 years from now?) Well, at least in the field of safety, the ZK series can definitely blow up the OP
2.2. Middleware and others
This is actually a track where many people are more optimistic about capacity expansion, because using ZK for capacity expansion is a very “heavy” job. If you look at these few Rollups and the main network hasn't been online for a few years, you'll know that the middleware is relatively lightweight, and at the same time, it can perfectly play ZK characteristics
Naturally, the most popular middleware circuit is Interoperability — Interoperability. Through ZK certification, it eliminates the requirement for third-party witnesses, greatly improves the safety of the bridge, and even opens up some ecosystems that are originally fragmented and even difficult to communicate with each other, such as between various layers 2, or IBC interconnection between EVM and Cosmos. Several teams currently working on it include Succinct Labs (they just released their telepathy product a few days ago, and realized ETH's unidirectional ZK bridge), Electron Labs (first proposed the ZK-IBC concept), and Polyhedra (ZK Bridge, ZK DID, ABCDE's first project)
Although this track is much lighter than the Rollup, it is still a super hardcore+time-consuming and laborious track. If you want to see a two-way ZK bridge this year that is both satisfactory and safe, it is unlikely. Based entirely on ZK's interoperability, we still have to find a 2-3 year timeline to plan
As for the other ZK tracks, this year feels like a blowout. Everyone who has been to ETH Denver knows it. It can be said that they do everything with ZK. Teams are working on on-chain safes, DIDs, oracles, and even AI and machine learning. What can you say, some are actually Make Sense, and there are many that you'll wonder — it seems like this thing can be done without ZK... All in all, there was a bit of an ICO explosion in 2017, using blockchain as a hammer and looking for nails everywhere. At that time, various decentralized taxis, decentralized Airbnb, and other projects that seem very nonsensical now were born, but this time, blockchain changed to ZK, and I think we all want to use ZK to transform it for him...
III. Gamefi
GameFi is probably the most popular racetrack right now. If you count the projects I've watched and talked about in the past few months, if you cut it down to each sub-track, GameFi should be the most popular
The reason is easy to understand. On the one hand, V God himself spoke a few years ago. Finance and gaming were the two first scenarios where blockchain was implemented
On the other hand, experiments in various fields such as Defi, Storage, and Socialfi have made poor progress in Mass Adoption. Although the X2Earn myth has been shattered, Axie and STEPN have given everyone in the industry hope of “breaking the circle”. Many people even firmly believe that breaking the circle on a large scale still requires “gaming”
So for a while, not only Web2 game developers began to set their sights here frequently. Among them, there was no shortage of technical teams from big manufacturers and well-known game studios, as well as people in various original Web3 NFTs, Defi, and other ecosystems began to consider how to “set up a layer of Gamefi” their own stuff. Dookey Dash, created by Ape some time ago, was a relatively successful experiment
However, the current GameFi circuit is actually in a slightly awkward period. The X2Earn pain and death spiral has just ended. People actually don't know how to achieve a balance between motivation and gameplay. Everyone crosses the river with “dark eyes”. The basic consensus at this stage is — Free 2 Play, like running shoes and Axie, where you can't play until you first spend money to buy an NFT
We have now seen the following forms of exploration
Level 3A — From one extreme to the other, if Axie emphasizes Earn, the 3A's are just emphasizing Play, and the emphasis is on varying degrees. Lighter ones, such as those that focus on Web3 circles, attract Web3 players to play through forms such as NFTs, etc., and those that focus on Web2 circles, completely follow the traditional Internet mobile game model from production to operation to promotion. They simply move the transaction system onto the chain, and even the wallet may be built in+insensitive to you...
Leisure and social networking — Web2 We have all experienced an era of stealing food, farms, and stealing parking spaces. Will Web3's GameFi also have this kind of period? Social, casual, plus a little Earn? Not sure about the future, but at least a direction that hasn't been explored much before
The new X to Earn model — the bet to earn model represented by PSI, also known as Risk to Earn. Simply put, associate the Earn thing with your skill and proficiency, imagine a game similar to Web3 eating chicken. 100 players have to spend $1 to participate in the game, and in the end, the winner takes the $100 prize. This can basically solve the Ponzi model that relied on the rapid growth of new players before and the inevitable death spiral later, because this economic model is roughly It became PVP. However, this kind of thing is similar to 3A. It requires high enough playability to retain players, because the financial incentives for ordinary users have become very small
Free to Own based on NFTs — represented by DigiDaigaku, in fact, APE's Dookey Dash also has a similar feel. After all, it attracts players to hold NFTs for free or at a very low price, and then find ways to continuously empower NFTs later. This requires a high level of suspense+mystery+marketing ability in the later stages, and the ability to develop and produce games in the later stages is just as high, so it's a route with a very high threshold. Furthermore, the number of NFTs is often limited to 10,000 in the early stages, and how to expand the number of people in the circle is also Not a small problem
Nintendo games — Naturally, this is represented by TresureDAO and GALA. Among them, Gala games are more “heavy”, while TresureDAO games are more “mini-game”. After releasing a hit like Beacon, it is bound to attract more similar mini-games into its ecosystem. Mini-games on Web2 have been enduring for a long time. No one knows if Web3 can be successfully replicated
Defi gamification — Here, DefiKingdom is considered a unique plant, and its ambitions are also very big. The system is so complicated that it also makes people see the visual “Dream Journey West on a Chain”. However, after 21 years of 100 times Hype, it has been slow to make significant progress, and the price of the currency has been sluggish even after returning to its original point. This complex type of GameFi, which is deeply integrated with Defi, currently seems to have a rough future
Fully Onchain Game (full chain game) — This is probably one of the most hyped GameFi categories on ETH Denver. There is no other reason. Only full-chain games are Web3 games with full blockchain characteristics, and some can't even be called games; they are called Onchain Autonoumous World- an autonomous world on a chain. This is probably the third type of truly “blockchain native” product after DeFi and NFT. However, just as Defi (MakerDAO) and NFT (CryptoCat) were born at the same time in 2017 and launched in 2020 and 2021, respectively, Fully Onchain Game is also in an extremely early exploration period, and it may also take 3-4 years to win the highlight
Currently, it is difficult to say which one or several of these 7 major directions can reach the end. Furthermore, there is a fundamental contradiction in the development of GameFi. Although games are the easiest way to get users from outside the circle to the inside, the essence of games is actually to create a world that is detached from reality, allowing people to temporarily escape from their busy work lives and enter the “pure land” of game parks. However, the link to Web3 or the underlying blockchain makes GameFi inevitably reconnect with the real world through some form of financialization. Whether this connection will break the game's most essential “pure land” function may be a question worth pondering
Summarize:
Rethinking the 3 most popular tracks right now doesn't mean we're not optimistic about these tracks. On the contrary, ABCDE has been optimistic about these 3 tracks for a long time, and they all have or are planning to lay out these tracks. We often overestimate the short-term value of some technologies, and often underestimate the long-term value of some technologies. These racetracks may not be able to match the primary and secondary markets or bring short-term return on investment. And for our long-term investment VC with a 5-year LP withdrawal period, time will be our best friend.
