Beyond EVM Compatibility: The Next Milestone in Multi-Chain Adoption

Source: IOSG Ventures

This year, discussions around multichain adoption have never ceased amidst the rapid development of blockchain applications and public chains. With the explosion of more and more dApps, EVM-compatible chains are increasingly being valued by the industry.

On December 18, 2021, during the eighth reunion event of IOSG, we invited Wilson, the head of Asia for Avalanche, Yaoqi Jia, the head of China for Parity, Yuanjie Zhang, co-founder of Conflux, and Yuki, the head of the Chinese community for Moonbeam, to have an in-depth discussion on "Beyond EVM Compatibility: The Next Milestone in Multichain Adoption."

Mandy Wang (MC):

Hello, everyone. I am Mandy. Thank you very much for the invitation from the organizers. There are fewer and fewer events now, and I am very grateful to IOSG for organizing such a lively event at the end of the year. I also welcome all the guests. First, please allow the guests to introduce themselves briefly.

Wilson:

Let me introduce myself. I am Wilson, and I joined the Avalanche protocol last year, responsible for the entire Asian market. At that time, Avalanche was not a well-known project. When I encountered Avalanche, I happened to be chatting with the team about what Avalanche was.

After the conversation, many of my friends around me didn't know about it, so I thought, why not do more promotion in the Asia region? So, we hit it off and started my journey with Avalanche.

After a year of effort, we have built a global community of over 1 million people, with the Asian community being around 30,000, not counting social media. Our business coverage has expanded from the initial stage to now covering investment, BD, marketing, and community operations, essentially encompassing the entire market.

We are working in Vietnam, Indonesia, Thailand, the Philippines, slightly less in Korea, and we are making efforts in Japan to cover more of the Asian market. Therefore, I believe this year is a very good year for the emergence of new public chains, and next year will open up a larger landscape, where we will see a greater ecological divergence. We will discuss the details later.

Yaoqi Jia:

Hello everyone, I am Yaoqi, the head of Asia for Parity. Parity mainly focuses on the cross-chain project Polkadot. Over the past two to three years, you can see that the entire Polkadot ecosystem has been flourishing, with various parachains going live, such as Moonbeam and Acala.

Recently, the auction for the first five parachain slots on Polkadot has ended, and in the next one to two weeks, you will see these new parachain projects go live on Polkadot. At that time, we will also see how the Layer 0 Polkadot system empowers the entire Layer 1 ecosystem.

Yuanjie Zhang:

Thank you for the invitation from IOSG. Hello everyone, I am Yuanjie from Conflux. We have been working on public chains in China for many years. Every time there is a panel, I am here, and the people around me have changed over and over again. Let's work hard together :)

Yuki:

Hello everyone, I am Yuki from Moonbeam, which is also an emerging public chain deployed in the Polkadot ecosystem, as Yaoqi just mentioned. Moonbeam was the second to win a parachain slot in the parachain slot auction, so you can see that although it is a new public chain that just emerged this year, our efforts have been recognized by the community.

In just over 100 days since our launch, our chain Moonriver on Kusama has already deployed over 60 projects. At the same time, to help more developers understand the new Polkadot ecosystem, we have compiled many development documents, allowing developers to transition to the new public chain ecosystem using their familiar development tools. More detailed information will be explained to everyone later.

Mandy Wang (MC):

Thank you for the introduction, Yuki. Thank you, Yuanjie, for mentioning that the people around you have changed over and over again, but I have always been in the host position, hosting similar themed panels for several years. However, at this point in time, I feel there is still much to discuss because this year is truly the year where we have seen the public chain or smart contract platforms experiencing a clear explosion at the application layer, with the market capitalization continuously rising, and I believe everyone has participated.

Another aspect is the real landing of applications, interoperability, and scalability, which we can see are continuously being enhanced. So, from the perspective of the guests, why do you think this year is the time for these occurrences? What are the external and internal factors?

Additionally, there was also a Layer 2 roundtable earlier this year, and indeed, various Rollup solutions are continuously being implemented, with more leading projects choosing to deploy. Regarding the continuous application of Layer 2 and the approach of Ethereum 2.0, has the development window for other smart contract platforms to surpass competition also narrowed? Let's have Wilson share first.

Wilson:

I believe the development of the entire ecosystem has cycles. You may see that the market development seems to be very fast, but in reality, technological development is not that fast. For example, we worked on a bridge with Ethereum for several months, so the actual technological development is slow.

Looking back at 2007 and 2008, that era was similar to the early 2000s of the internet, which was conceptual and volatile. This market brought about a so-called conceptual explosion, where everyone felt it was an opportunity to rush in, but the technology was not mature, and there was not much institutional support. So, the previous wave of conceptual hype ended.

However, through 2018-2019, including Avalanche, we raised a lot of funds during this time, and it took two years to build the foundation. I believe the foundation is very important. From concept to architecture, to design, to development, developers know this is a very heavy process, including backend testing and possibly public testing. So, the actual technological development in these two years has provided a good foundation for infrastructure projects.

After this foundational period, we may have seen the explosion of these public chains this year, just because of the developments in the frontend. It's like building a house; once the foundation is laid, you can start building the house, and only then do you see it as a house. Before that, you might not have seen it; you were just laying the foundation.

We see the current public chain landscape, and I describe it more like a city. The cement ground of this city may have been laid, and you can see buildings starting to rise above it. You just built a Shenzhen, and as it is built, you keep building more. You see a small house here today, and a big house there tomorrow. But there are still no particularly tall skyscrapers appearing.

In the future, I see the space, and I even think that next year on Avalanche, your DApps could be at least ten times what they are this year because the platform is continuously improving. You saw Avalanche open up in August, and the logic is very simple: first, we built the bridge, so you have access to the outside world; second, the entire platform's infrastructure, computational facilities, and wallets have been improved, allowing users to use and enter. Third, you have new DApps starting to be built, including foundational DeFi products entering, which allows participation.

So, opening up requires a cycle, and then you give it some incentives. In August, we launched a program called Avalanche Rush, which rewards new projects and users that migrate over. What is this reward? For example, when developing Qianhai in Shenzhen, what do you need to do to open it up? You need to attract investment and talent.

Attracting investment is equivalent to bringing projects over, and attracting talent is like building your community ecosystem. You need to do the third step, which is to add support from industrial funds, possibly bringing tax reductions, etc. This is actually very similar to what happens on-chain. So, this is a very important time point and window for opening up a new city.

Therefore, I believe that starting next year, there will be more DApps going live, and more so-called differentiated DApps will be launched, with more segmented industries coming online. So, starting from this year, laying a good foundation is just the beginning point for what we will see in the future, looking back, it feels more like the internet of 2005.

So, during yesterday's Chainlink event, it was mentioned that if you look at this market, you might want to look back to the internet of 2005. Look at how Amazon, Google, and Facebook have developed over the past 15 years. Therefore, it may take the next 5-7 years, or 7-8 years to realize this. So, the speed will become faster, and that's how I see it.

Mandy Wang (MC):

Thank you, Wilson. Indeed, we see all ecosystems making efforts in various aspects, including establishing funds and frequently providing grants to support developers. Yaoqi, please share your thoughts with us.

Yaoqi Jia:

Actually, it’s also a cyclical effect. In the blockchain industry, everyone is more or less influenced by the Bitcoin halving cycle. Normally, we have entered the rising phase of this cycle since last year, for two reasons.

The first is technical reasons. As Wilson and Mandy just mentioned, there was a lot of project fundraising in 2017 and 2018, and then gradually launched from last year, including a large number of public chains. At the same time, the influx of external funds has also led to a flywheel effect.

A very important point is that over the past four years, we have seen the Ethereum DeFi Lego being built. This has continuously introduced various projects, whether Layer 2 or public chains, all supporting EVM.

At the same time, the maturity of DeFi Lego products, whether from lending or trading perspectives, has indeed generated returns. A large amount of capital has entered, and then found that Ethereum's transaction fees are too high, so they turned to invest in the infrastructure and applications on Layer 2. However, Layer 2 is currently not particularly mature; perhaps only Arbitrum went live at the end of the year.

Then, people will find which Layer 1 can carry the corresponding DeFi Lego, possibly those that support EVM well or have a hard fork of the Go Client.

In this way, you will see many various Layer 1s entering EVM, and its overall trend is also very strong. Including projects like Moonbeam on Polkadot that support EVM, overall, from a technical perspective, my personal view is that although EVM and Solidity on Ethereum have been very complete for products and tools over the years.

It currently faces some significant issues; while it supports DeFi well, if we really want to build the vision of Web 3.0 in the future, it does have certain bottlenecks.

Currently, many people see multichain as a better future, but in the future, the requirements for multichain may be more heterogeneous chains. What are the differences we have for EVM, and can we create a virtual machine or better execution environment that is more suitable for NFTs, games, the Metaverse, or Web 3.0?

At the same time, new heterogeneous chains will enrich the entire blockchain industry and better support the transition from Web 2.0 to the blockchain world.

Mandy Wang (MC):

Thank you, Yaoqi. You indeed started from the very foundational level. Yuanjie, please.

Yuanjie Zhang:

I am not a technical person; I studied finance and economics. I will share my views on this matter more from a business logic perspective, as well as how to grasp one's investments and the logic that needs attention in the future.

First of all, it is certainly due to the industry's cycle. An overall bull market, whether due to the pandemic or the U.S. printing money, has brought a large influx of funds into the industry, which is the beta of Bitcoin and Ethereum, including USDT, leading to a significant rise in the entire industry.

In this case, Ethereum has always had unresolved issues, such as high transaction fees and TPS limitations, which means that after such a large volume of funds flows in, Ethereum can no longer bear it. Once Ethereum can no longer bear it, these ecosystems will naturally flow out. Where will they flow to?

From the current results, I will analyze it for everyone. I think it is more about interests and capital-driven rather than technology. Why do I say this?

I think Layer 2 is actually a very awkward infrastructure. Why do I say that? Generally, when investors invest in them, they may also promise to issue tokens to investors, but to ensure their legitimacy, they usually use Ethereum as gas. Using Ethereum means they are boosting Ethereum's price.

They cannot boost their own tokens, and investors cannot support them well, so everyone cannot push it forward. In this case, the interests are inconsistent, and the situation becomes very awkward. So now everyone finds it difficult to exert force because they do not have their own tokens; it seems that legitimacy and orthodoxy do not exist. Therefore, in the absence of capital-driven forces, it is difficult for them to move forward.

We see that other public chain ecosystems that have developed often have their own tokens. For example, BNB, Binance, and its interests are highly unified, so they can exert force. After the success of BNB, someone will definitely be envious; the first to be envious is Sam from FTX, who said, "I will also replicate one," and found Kyle from Multicoin.

They operated on Solana and achieved great success because they had their own tokens, so many projects were later created on it, replicating the time machine strategy, and those that could succeed did so.

The success of Sam and Kyle made others envious. Who was envious? A16Z and Su Zhu from Three Arrows Capital were envious, and they jumped out to say Ethereum is garbage, Avalanche is the future, and they replicated the successful Uniswap again, with Trader Joe doing something similar.

This success, even within this circle, has been summarized as the time machine strategy. That is to say, as long as it is an Ethereum-compatible chain, as long as the capital is in place, along with KOL capital and exchanges, a closed-loop combination can be completed. In terms of promoting ecological effects, it is far faster than Layer 2.

So, I would advise everyone to look at which exchanges have good spot trading volumes in the market and which well-known international capital wants to promote which EVM-compatible chain. Then you should rush in; as long as you get in, you will basically make money.

For example, recently, Crypto.com’s own chain has been quite lackluster, and then they forked an EVM Cronos, and started doing time machines on it, including VVS and lending. Basically, as long as the spot trading volume is sufficient and the capital strength is strong, this logic can be replicated.

If you missed these, don’t worry; you can look at the rankings of spot exchanges. The first is Binance, the second is Coinbase, the third is FTX, and then there are exchanges like Kucoin. So, everyone can learn from this. If these exchanges exert force later, which chains will they choose? Will they choose smart chains, or will they be as clever as Sam and choose a chain that is not their own, like Solana to make things happen? This is all possible, but everyone should pay more attention to what exchanges have the most spot trading volume and which KOL capital they choose to follow.

Using the time machine strategy, first position yourself with Uniswap, then Compound, AAVE, and you can basically make money. This is basically the logic; now these are all driven by capital, and in my view, it has little to do with whether technology is being pushed. The next paradigm shift in technology has not yet appeared. Thank you.

Mandy Wang (MC):

Yuanjie’s response is as sharp as ever. If mainstream capital and trading platforms want to choose Conflux, you can privately reach out to Yuanjie. Finally, let’s have Yuki share.

Yuki:

Indeed, what Yuanjie just said is very sharp. I also very much agree with the previous speakers. Wilson often mentions that today’s public chains are not like the early ones we saw, which were supported by sentiment, dreams, and concepts. Now it is more like an incubator attracting phoenixes; we need capital, users, and a very rich application moat to maintain these public chains.

This is also why these public chains can rise rapidly in the short term; they have figured out their application development tools, and the holders of the native assets of these public chains are also willing to try these new applications. The original wealth effect will also lead more people to invest in the new public chain ecosystem.

As more people invest in the public chain ecosystem, it also creates another problem. Ethereum, which originally stood in a leading position, will experience some network congestion, with gas fees being too high. In fact, its network utilization efficiency reached about 98% in August this year, which is no longer suitable for the development of some emerging decentralized applications.

This inevitably leads to an overflow of traffic, and those that can catch this overflow of traffic must be public chains with capital, users, and their own communities and ideas. So we see the rise of BSC, Avalanche, Polygon, or Solana, etc., which have gradually started to emerge, and the wealth effect has also attracted them to move in these directions.

Although it was mentioned earlier that there is a wealth effect, the discussion was about the existing money in the market. This year, the crypto industry has shown an upward trend. Yesterday, Defi Digital released data showing that institutional inflows into Coinbase in the first three quarters were 5.7 times that of 2020, which is a significant increase.

We see on public social channels that many large institutions are not only focusing on mainstream assets like Bitcoin and Ethereum but are also paying attention to Dogecoin and even certain specific assets on new public chains, indicating that some "big money" has already gained a very sufficient understanding of the segmentation of our blockchain ecosystem.

The influx of these funds will also directly promote the development of certain ecosystems. Therefore, I strongly agree with the viewpoints expressed by the previous speakers that large capital institutions are driving the market behind the scenes.

Thirdly, the industry itself, during the process of technological accumulation, has also seen more interoperability between projects, which has given rise to some new decentralized fields. For example, the DEX field, which has gradually emerged, may have reached a total trading volume of about 5 billion USD in May. Even though this market is slightly declining, it still has around 4.8 billion USD, which is far higher than last year.

The explosion of these emerging fields will also lead centralized users to develop towards decentralized ecosystems, which explains why the on-chain ecosystem has recently been so prosperous.

Another question is whether other chains still have the possibility of survival. This actually varies from person to person. We can see a trend where EVM occupies a large portion; over 60% of the top ten chains are all EVM-compatible, while others, like Solana and Terra, are independent.

Being independent does not necessarily mean a disadvantage; its underlying architecture can facilitate decentralized applications in specific fields and has its own development space. This feels similar to the state of iOS and Android. Android has its own ecosystem, while iOS has its own high-quality applications. At the same time, their TVL, such as Serum on Solana, has reached over 1 billion USD.

Compared to cross-multichain projects like Sushi Swap, which has 4 billion USD, although there is some gap, it is not as unreachable as everyone feels. I believe everyone has the potential for ecosystem development.

Mandy Wang (MC):

Thank you, Yuki. Following up on Yuki's response, the overflow value of the Ethereum ecosystem, including the division of the Ethereum cake, is a very old topic that has been discussed continuously. It has always been talked about. Including the EVM compatibility mentioned by the guests earlier, we should have statistics that show that among the top ten smart contract platforms in October, seven of them are EVM-compatible.

Including the independent roadmap of Solana, although it has not done so itself, it is also supporting and sponsoring other teams to build the software environment, and it is also on the path to EVM compatibility. This is definitely to lower the entry barrier for developers, enhance interoperability with the Ethereum system, and allow these leading projects to migrate to the ecosystem more conveniently.

I don’t know if this is considered a necessary path in everyone’s view. Whether an independent roadmap from Ethereum, with unique applications, can be realized, or if at this stage it is necessary to keep pace with Ethereum and then develop unique features later, is a question.

Secondly, since we are constantly discussing scalability, everyone’s technical routes are different. For example, Yaoqi has been working on sharding for many years. Avalanche's C-chain has also been discussed a lot this year. So, in terms of scalability, does anyone have any new progress or insights to share with us?

Wilson:

From a development perspective, I often tell others that Ethereum is more like the postal service, while new public chains are like SF Express. It is impossible for only SF Express to exist without others; I believe there will be different "couriers." For example, an international express package sent domestically by SF Express will be DHL when it goes overseas. I think connectivity is a very important point.

Why use EVM? The future assets and funds on various chains, since they are in a blockchain world, will eventually need to be interconnected. How to connect these roads? Of course, using relatively consistent standards will be better. It’s like transferring flights; if everyone has consistent standards, the transfer will be more convenient. Walking through different methods will be more complicated.

In the future public chain market, it relates to the advantages of the underlying technology. Avalanche's own advantage is not that we are just a chain; Avalanche is more like a Distributed System. We have three chains: X-chain, P-chain, and C-chain. The X-chain mainly does asset creation and transfer. The P-chain mainly does platform governance and staking.

The C-chain is the EVM. In this case, many people do not understand that the C-chain may be more like a subnet. From this architecture, our X-chain and P-chain use a DAG structure; it is not a pure chain structure but more like a divergent system, confirming consensus in a way similar to virus spread.

So, the real power of Avalanche is not that it has built a chain, but that it forms consensus quickly. For example, we have Byzantine WPOS, and we position ourselves as a fourth-generation consensus system. The consensus system is more like a chip; what you see in Layer 1 scaling is more like an original single-core chip.

If you overclock it, you will find it faster and better, but it is still a single-core chip. However, Avalanche directly gives you a multi-core chip that is inherently useful; this is the difference formed in the consensus system.

Regarding scalability, I want to mention why people feel congested on a single chain. If everyone goes to Chang'an Street, of course, it will be congested. Wouldn't it be simpler and faster to take another road?

I believe several paths will occur in the future. The first is on Avalanche. Avalanche can generate countless subnets, allowing users to open a subnet for their desired fields, such as DeFi and GameFi. Taking another road will be faster, so in the future, subnets may be a tool for Avalanche to open up the landscape more quickly.

The C-chain is used for applications, and you can customize your needs with your own gameplay. When there are more roads, the speed and efficiency of movement will be more suited to the needs of the scenario, and customization will be stronger.

In the future, Avalanche may move in this direction, and there may also be a routing system where users no longer care about which chain they use. What users care about is whether they can complete transactions, transfer assets, and play games. In the future, there may be a routing system that automatically helps you choose which network and system is more efficient, faster, and easier to use, making it more convenient from the user experience perspective.

The projects on our platform do well because they enhance user experience. In the future, when new users come in, there needs to be more convenient options for user operations. This is what we see as opportunities and changes that may arise from ecological development and industry development.

Mandy Wang:

Thank you, Wilson. Yaoqi, who has been paying attention for ten years, please.

Yaoqi:

In my personal view, in the short term, it is certainly like this, unless the platform itself is on a completely different path.
We can now see that Rollup teams, such as StarkWare, are already working on customized Rollup solutions.

Projects like ImmutableX and DYDX are actually not EVM-compatible; they are equivalent to a product and application, and they are using zero-knowledge proofs to solve problems. As Layer 1, to attract capital and users quickly and provide high APIs, simply copying EVM compatibility is a quick choice.

However, in the future, if we see DeFi reaching a bottleneck to some extent, with a large number of applications or products already in the current model, there will inevitably be a need for more solutions related to gaming, social, and various data-related solutions, which will require a large number of customized solutions.

Because, to some extent, the throughput of a single chain is limited. Whether it is Solana or new high-throughput chains, it cannot run the entire internet; there will definitely be customized solutions.

The second question is about scalability. Everyone has noticed the issue I mentioned earlier: the throughput of a single chain is limited. If we want to carry more applications, various terms like sharding and Rollup, whether Zk or Op, or the subnets Wilson mentioned, and the parachains proposed by Polkadot, are all about splitting data and state.

From a database perspective, it is about splitting a unified database into different small databases, with different small databases serving different functions. When there is intercommunication, a protocol is needed for cross-chain conversion. For example, mobile applications cannot only have one server; ultimately, we will see different applications having different servers. Of course, for the same brand, such as Alibaba, the servers for its sub-applications may be unified.

In the future, whether it is sharding, parachains, or Layer 2, it will ultimately serve the product. When products have new demands, the solutions we can see now are these; theoretically, there are limits, and we can only create more suitable solutions based on existing solutions.

Mandy Wang:

Thank you, Yaoqi. Yuanjie, please.

Yuanjie Zhang:

This question is very good and relates to everyone's investment framework. Should all EVMs go through compatibility, and should they all bootstrap from the DeFi ecosystem? This actually depends on what their initial goals are, which brings us back to the scalability Mandy mentioned.

If a public chain's initial positioning is scalability, to solve the impossible triangle problem at that time, then it must choose a compatible development route because the EVM route improves transaction performance. The highest value entrepreneurial form of transactions is finance, and then it goes to GameFi and so on.

It is just that after scalability, security is sacrificed. In this case, the highest security and lowest performance generally run the least frequent but highest value transactions, while those with better performance but lower security can run lower value but more frequent financial applications.

For example, Ethereum runs larger DeFi applications for single transactions or high-value CryptoArt, but projects with financial attributes but lower value, like GameFi, will go to BSC. If BSC cannot handle it, they can go to Ronin, which is a centralized but relatively transparent smart chain. Centralization may be a problem, but it doesn’t matter because the value transaction volume is small enough.

Outside of this paradigm, if it is not about scalability, we do not discuss scalability at all. At this point, we can say that we do not take the DeFi route or the EVM-compatible route. This is a shift to a new technological paradigm, and in my view, this new technological paradigm shift must move further in the direction of Web 3.0.

What is the direction of Web 3.0? It is to truly let users' data belong to users, with a higher degree of anti-censorship and more decentralized practices. For example, AR can even achieve decentralization on the frontend, where the frontend and smart contracts can be written together. Whether this can bring about a paradigm shift, and whether this paradigm shift can be brought into the creator economy.

For example, the reconstruction of blogs and music platforms, and the focus on IoT with Helium, only public chains that have deviated from the mission of scalability can discuss new paradigms. This point should be viewed in terms of what problems it solves, whether it pushes the Web 3.0 world forward, which is a more advanced logic than the time machine strategy.

Mandy Wang:

Thank you, Yuanjie. Yuki, please share.
Yuki: From the perspective of the project, I want to talk about why we chose to be EVM-compatible on Polkadot. This is not a decision we made on a whim; it is a requirement from the most scarce resource in the industry—developers.

The fact we can see is that over 80% of developers in this industry initially develop projects based on Ethereum compatibility. If they have to restructure from scratch on a new chain ecosystem, they will consider cost issues. They are already facing some practical problems on Ethereum, such as high gas fees and unsustainable scalability, so they will deploy to the new ecosystem in a familiar way.

From the demand perspective, I think it is a very market-demand-driven behavior for a chain project to choose to be EVM-compatible.
Is it really worth it for us to choose EVM compatibility? In fact, from the top ten chains on DefiLlama, we can see some very familiar DApps, such as Sushi Swap, Curve, and 1inch, appearing on more than eight chains.

The combined traffic even exceeds that of some second-tier centralized trading platforms. However, if we look at other non-EVM-compatible public chains, we may only see unique products on Solana or decentralized applications that fit its own ecological characteristics on Terra.

For early-stage projects hoping to establish a moat and network effect for their chain ecosystem, achieving EVM compatibility will have a very positive effect on the chain, gathering popularity in a short time. Of course, it is not to say that non-EVM-compatible chains cannot do it; they can provide various incentive models, grants, and rely on strong platforms and communities to bring new flows in.

Moreover, for the two choices of EVM compatibility, being EVM-compatible has the advantage that it is a tool developers are very familiar with, having used it for over a decade. Moreover, there is already a set of code systems on other Ethereum chains that can be directly migrated to other chains.

What Moonbeam is doing is just that; we are moving the Ethereum development environment and developers to Polkadot. Developers only need to copy and paste their original code to go live and run without incurring more new development costs.

Of course, there are also some small concerns. The entire Ethereum has its own development path, with Layer 2 upgrade paths and scalability roads. If developers who choose this path cannot keep up with this speed and their direction diverges, there will be some differences.

In non-EVM-compatible public chain ecosystems, there will also be some new projects that attract suitable developers due to their underlying advantages. Of course, they will also encounter the problem of information islands, as they are separated from other chains, and in the future, they will need bridge functions to input external information.

The second issue is about scalability. I want to explore more about who will demand scalability solutions. It is not necessarily the platform itself that builds the chain. For us, building an entirely new chain means everything is new, including the chain's speed, which is free; we just wait for others to come and settle in.

But for project parties and individual users on the chain, they do not think this way. For users, they seek a public chain ecosystem that is cheaper, faster in network transactions, and more secure and stable for their experience.

This requires our chain project parties to optimize block transaction speeds and also increase asset liquidity. This is another form of scalability, allowing more professionals to do their specialized work rather than encompassing everything into their own chain.

Polkadot has made a very good attempt; it has many parachains available for integration, and each parachain has its own professional field. For example, Moonbeam has developed its developer platform, while other projects may create a DeFi hub or a stablecoin system. These are all areas of expertise, and to some extent, this can also help alleviate and expand scalability.

For project parties, if I continue to seek very mature ecological development, I may not be able to occupy enough market share, as there is already a very obvious head effect. If I develop on a new public chain and become the first, I may also seize new opportunities to see different native asset holders experience our applications, which is also a possibility for project parties to expand new business opportunities.

So I think scalability technology is indeed imperative, but the specific underlying technology is still something to look forward to, but the demand is indeed very strong.

Mandy Wang:

Thank you, Yuki. Because our panel time is very tight, I want to quickly ask the last question. Although we talk about competition and homogenization, several guests mentioned that with the exploration of the Web 3.0 proposition, we have also seen many new teams not migrating from Ethereum.

For example, 3A game developers have not chosen Ethereum but rather new chains. Therefore, we also have non-homogeneous and distinctive good projects in our ecosystem. I would like to ask each of you to recommend a few wealth codes or projects you think are good in the ecosystem, and you can also mention project directions.

Wilson:

We have an IDO platform called Ave Launch, and the quality of projects on it is really good. We have a good relationship with the team, so everyone can pay attention to it.

Yaoqi Jia:

On Polkadot, there are three points: one is EVM-related projects like Moonbeam, possibly new ones; the second is Zk-related projects; and the third is storage-related projects. Everyone can pay more attention to these.

Yuanjie Zhang:

I won’t say it directly; I’ll tell you a business story. In China, you can consider this route. There is a company called Nayuki Tea, which recently launched 300 NFTs on the Kava chain, and they sold out in five seconds. This NFT created a virtual idol image, and the NFT itself is not the focus; it was settled in RMB.

The key point is that when you did not buy this NFT, they immediately launched a pre-sale card with the same virtual idol image, selling 200 million RMB in two days.

Through the concept of NFTs and the Metaverse, they conducted a very successful marketing campaign, making 200 million cash with no investment, of course, needing to pay back with milk tea. This is a very good marketing idea. In China, doing business is welcome to choose Conflux, as it is government-compliant and supported, and regulatory departments will not trouble you. Moreover, doing business in China is completely legal. Thank you, everyone.

Yuki:

Thank you! I have absorbed the wealth codes shared by the teachers just now. I want to share that at Moonbeam, we are still relatively new. We have personally experienced that whoever can become the first in the segmented field of the ecosystem will have more voice and opportunities.

Moonbeam may now have DEX and AMM emerging, with a TVL exceeding 1 million, of course, there is more space waiting for everyone to develop, such as Lending, GameFi, and SocialFi. More segmented fields are being deployed intensively. Whoever can go live faster will have the opportunity to seize the market and traffic. Thank you.

Mandy Wang:

Our panel ends here. Thank you to all the guests.