After scanning the newly born projects in the past 2 months, we selected 4 more representativeethereum forum romania lending projects for key analysis. They either exploded rapidly in business or have unique mechanism innovations. Through this research Report, we try to answer the following questions:
Token value capturebitcoin price right nowCore function: revenue acceleration
Up to now, the main function of QBT is to obtain qScore after lock-up. Through qScore, deposit users can accelerate their deposit income (from the increase in QBT deposit subsidies).This mechanism is similar to Curve's Locker mechanism. Curve's Locker function and economic model consolidate its original competitive advantage and increase the switching cost of liquidity providers and investors. It is a very eye-catching design. However, when the mechanism is applied to a loan agreement, will it still have a good effect? The author remains skeptical about this.First of all, the reason why some people are willing to lock up the position of Curve's token CRV for a long time after buying it is caused by Curve's strong position in the stable asset business chain and the competition for the governance power of Curve by multiple participants. Because governance power on the Curve platform means two core resources: the baton of liquidity and the accelerator of revenue.Since the issuer of stable consideration assets (stable currency, stETH and other pledge certificates and BTC cross-chain assets such as renBTC are all stable consideration assets), they have great requirements on the stability and transaction depth of their operating assets, so they choose Curve to list. Assets and attracting market-making liquidity are very rigid requirements, which creates a strong position of Curve relative to asset operators, which is determined by the business positioning of its Top1 stable asset exchange platform.In terms of the expansion of asset lending scenarios, the demand from asset operators is far less strong, which has led to a large number of less demanders of Qubit governance rights, and the overall lock-up willingness is difficult to reach the level of Curve.
In addition to the revenue acceleration function, QBT currently has no other functional scenarios. The Qubit platform's loan interest spread income does not have QBT's repurchase or dividend mechanism.On the whole, QBT tokens are currently weak in capturing the overall economic value of the platform.The official said before that "the conditions for completely removing the whitelist are not yet available, and a major upgrade is planned in the next three months." On September 13th, Optimism announced that it would double the throughput limit of the main network to handle up to 200,000 transactions per day.
When using the Optimism network, the following two points are completely different from Ethereum. You must be clear:First: The transaction is processed according to the first-in-first-out principle, so increasing the gas price will not affect the execution speed of the transaction.Second: Currently, Optimism uses gas limit to encode information about transactions executed on L2 and on L1 post transaction cost information, so do not try to modify the gas limit automatically provided by the application, otherwise your transaction may be rejected.Proof mechanism: fraud proof
Optimism advantage: Data is stored on the main chain, and it is easier to support general smart contract technology.Optimism challenge: The exit period of the second layer is long (7 days). This is also a problem faced by all Layer 2 solutions that use fraud proof mechanisms. The overall security is slightly lower than that of the main chain and ZK solutions.
Arbitrum was originally an academic project at Princeton University, established by the team Offchain Labs.Arbitrum's proof mechanism is similar to Optimism above. The difference is mainly reflected in the difference in the data uploaded to the main chain. In the process of processing, when someone thinks that the second-level data is in dispute, they can pay a deposit and submit a proof. At this time, the contract will arbitrate it. In the Optimistic Rollup scheme, a complete contract will be simulated and executed on the main chain. Calling consumes high costs; in the Arbitrum Rollup scheme, firstly, through multiple rounds of interactions at the second layer, the dispute scope is reduced before being simulated on the main chain, the number of interactions is reduced, and the cost of dispute resolution on the chain is reduced. This is the biggest difference between the two schemes.In May of this year, Arbitrum was opened to developers for the first time. On September 1st, the public beta was launched, and the whitelist mechanism was also offline. Similar to Optimism, Arbitrum currently has a clear limit on the upper limit of network processing capacity (80,000 arbgas/s), which roughly matches the current capacity of Ethereum L1, but Arbitrum also stated that as the system becomes stable, the speed limit will be gradually increased in the future. , And continue to improve performance.It is also this limitation. At present, the gas fee of Arbitrum is not very low, which is criticized by everyone, especially when a large number of transactions are influx and reach the upper limit of network capacity, then the cost of L2 will rise further, but compared to the main chain That said, the cost can still be reduced by dozens of times.
Comparison of handling fees for Layer 2 transfer of ETH Data source: l2feesIt is undeniable that Arbitrum has fired the first shot of Layer 2 ecological development, but at present, Arbitrum is flooded with too many native dog projects, and everyone must pay attention to risks.Proof mechanism: fraud proofArbitrum advantages: Data is stored on the main chain, and it is easier to be compatible with EVM; the traditional Optimistic Rollup solution is optimized, which can further reduce costs.
Arbitrum challenge: The exit period of the second layer is longer (7 days), and the overall security is slightly lower than that of the main chain and ZK solutions.StarkNet is a Layer 2 expansion general platform led by StarkWare. It is similar in type to the zkSync we mentioned above, and the difference is mainly reflected in two different zero-knowledge proofs.
zkSync uses zk-SNARKs; StarkNet uses zk-STARKs. For space reasons, the details of the two technologies will not be discussed. We only need to know the final difference: zk-SNARKs on-chain storage space and gas consumption Both are smaller, but zk-STARKs are better in terms of safety.In January of this year, StarkWare announced the roadmap for the development of StarkNet. The team will complete the final Layer 2 ecological deployment (planet, constellation, and universe) in three stages, gradually transition from single-application Rollups to multi-application Rollups, and finally realize the entire governance DAOization.
StarkNet roadmap plans to complete the aggregation of multiple applications before the end of the yearBut currently, StarkNet is still in the testing phase. On September 1, StarkNet released the Alpha 2 test version, which supports the interaction between smart contracts for the first time. It is reported that the team is currently preparing for the release of the StarkNet Alpha mainnet, which will be approved by then Online application in the form of whitelist.In fact, in addition to the StarkNet mentioned above, Starkware has also proposed another expansion solution, StarkEx (Validium). Currently, there are not many applications that use the StarkEx solution. They are the following four: DeversiFi, dYdX, ImmutableX and Sorare.Although StarkEx also belongs to ZK Rollup, not all data is uploaded to the main chain at the first level. Therefore, theoretically, it can have higher scalability and processing speed. It is precisely for this reason that compared to other Rollup solutions, StarkEx network Data availability and security risks are higher.Proof mechanism: zero-knowledge proofStarkNet advantage: Data is stored on the main chain, which is more secure than other ZK expansion solutions.
StarkNet Challenge: EVM compatible technology is more difficult, and the gas fee is slightly higher than zkSync.Polygon used to be called Matic Network, and the technology used in its L2 chain is plasma.
Plasma essentially belongs to the category of side chains. First, create a smart contract on Ethereum as a connection between the Ethereum main network and plasma sub-chain. This plasma sub-chain can even be a private chain, and data calculation and processing are both In the plasma sub-chain, the executors of layer 2 only need to periodically submit a "state commitment" to the main chain to ensure the credibility of the data off the chain. The security of this scheme is relatively low, so it is basically used by many mainstream research institutions. Abandoned.For example, the OMG Foundation, which previously focused on plasma, also proposed a new expansion research plan this year-Boba network, and what Boba uses is Optimistic in the Rollup plan.
In view of the awkward position of Polygon, many people regard the current Polygon as a pseudo two-layer, but Polygon positions itself as a Layer 2 solution aggregator, which to a certain extent has found another development path for Polygon. Moreover, Polygon has also acquired the ZK Rollup expansion network Hermez launched by iden3, which reduces the doubts about the pseudo-second layer to a certain extent.Proof mechanism: fraud proof
Polygon advantage: extremely high scalability, EVM is easily compatible.Polygon Challenge: Security is the lowest among the above-mentioned schemes.Overall, Optimistic Rollup is the easiest solution to implement under the current technical background, but its essence still does not fundamentally solve the security problem of assets. The ZK Rollup solution may become the final Layer 2 solution, but how to catch up The first-mover advantage of Optimistic Rollup ecological development is also a problem in the ZK Rollup solution.Looking at all the different Layer 2 general solutions, we found that the current Layer 2 does not have a perfect solution. Different solutions have made a trade-off between safety and efficiency, either the former or the latter, but the most The bottom layer and the core effective solution can only be implemented on layer1, which is also the importance of Eth2 sharding.
In the trading market, there is a faintly visible grass snake gray line behind every rise and fall. The cryptocurrency market is no exception.According to data from Coingecko, on September 18, 2021, the price of MX on the Matcha Exchange (MEXC) platform rose 28% from yesterday, reaching a maximum of 1.93 USDT. This is the second time that MX has recorded an intraday increase of more than 20% since the 15th.
This is all related to a rumor circulating in the community.Matcha was acquired by Bybit?
On September 15, there was a rumor that "Matcha was acquired by Bybit" from the community, and the price of MX quickly rose from 1.3 SUDT to 1.6 USDT.On September 16th, in response to the rumors of matcha being acquired, the relevant person in charge of MEXC responded that "the rumors are untrue" and said, "At present, MEXC is increasing its global layout and making positive progress in overseas business. In the future, it will continue to adhere to the user-centered approach. Principle layout of the global market".
After MEXC rejected the rumors, the price of MX retreated below 1.5 USDT on September 17.After MX fell below 1.5 USDT, MX began to break again strongly, rising to 1.93 USDT around 13:00 on September 18, an increase of more than 28%.After the head of MEXC dispelled the rumors that MEXC was acquired on September 16, why did MX rise sharply again? It is still related to the rumors of MEXC being acquired.According to internal sources, the rumors of MEXC being acquired by Bybit should be true. Some investors also said in the community that they bought MX from 1.1 USDT.
Who is Bybit? According to data from Coingecko, Bybit ranks third in derivatives exchanges based on open positions; Bybit ranks sixth in terms of 24-hour trading volume.Why the rumored object is Bybit? Some analysts said that firstly, Bybit is the world's top five derivatives exchange, with an annual profit of billions of dollars; secondly, after Bybit completely withdraws from China and moves overseas in 2020 and recently launched BitDAO, the Bybit ecosystem needs to be domestically and centralized. The spot market is complementary; again, Bybit is created for the domestic team, and there are no obstacles in language and culture.
And Bybit has been moving frequently recently.Bybit announced on June 6 the launch of BitDAO, a decentralized autonomous organization aimed at promoting the development of open finance, and completed $230 million in financing. Peter Thiel, Founders Fund, Pantera Capital, and Dragonfly Capital led the investment.
On August 10, BitDAO launched the first step of the DeFi ecosystem, auctioning 200 million BIT tokens on the Sushi MISO platform in the Netherlands, raising nearly 350 million U.S. dollars. As of press time, the market value of BIT is 410 million USDT and the market value of MX is 180 million USDT.In the future, BitDAO intends to launch various DeFi products, including an encrypted futures exchange and a decentralized version of Bybit.