Value Analysis of ORDI Inscriptions | Q&A

1. Which is more promising, Matic or ORDI?

When I first saw this question, I thought it was simply about comparing investment targets. But upon further reflection, I realized that looking at this question from different angles might yield some interesting insights.

Looking at these two coins, the first thing that comes to mind is risk: which of these two coins has less risk?

From this perspective, I definitely think ORDI has less risk. The possibility of ORDI going to zero is extremely low, while the possibility of Matic going to zero is at least greater than that of ORDI.

Let's delve a bit deeper:

With so many Ethereum layer two expansions, if one day Matic were to disappear or go to zero, would we feel regret? It seems not. Would we feel that the Ethereum ecosystem is affected? It seems not.

But if one day ORDI were to go to zero, I would immediately think: the origin of this round of Bitcoin innovation is gone. If ORDI can go to zero, which other inscribed assets are safe? If inscribed assets are not safe, then where is the anchor for Bitcoin's layer two expansion, and what is the foundation for the development direction of the Bitcoin ecosystem?

So from a risk perspective, the significance of ORDI far exceeds that of Matic.

However, if we look to the future and consider future application scenarios, the imagination can be completely different.

ORDI itself is a solidified asset; it does not bear the burden of technological upgrades and transformations, nor does it support the future development of the ecosystem. Its growth potential entirely depends on the consensus of the Bitcoin ecosystem, which has little to do with itself. This is a passive relationship.

In contrast, Matic's hope and potential certainly lie in the development of its future ecosystem, which completely depends on the operation and construction of the project team. This is an active relationship.

If Matic can create miracles in ecosystem development, then its potential is great, and it may even surpass ORDI; but if it continues to languish as it is now, then its potential is very limited.

So when comparing the future of these two coins, it depends on how investors comprehensively view their risks and application potential.

2. Are options considered contracts? Can XXX's dual currency win be played?

I only buy and sell spot, and the number of operations I perform each year is extremely limited, just a few operations of regular investment and regular selling.

I do not use any other financial instruments; they are not suitable for me.

I have not participated in any activities such as wealth management, lotteries, or staking on centralized exchanges. Exchanges have become very unfamiliar to me.

3. What are the success factors for measuring L2 and L3? What are the main contradictions of these chains? It seems that the previous TVL has become ineffective.

There is currently no unified standard for measuring the success of L2 and L3; I think the factors generally used to measure L2 and L3, such as trading volume, number of transactions, and TVL, are also not very reliable.

I actually think a more intuitive factor is more reliable: if there is an application on a certain L2 or L3 that everyone must use, or is very popular, or is historically significant, then I think that L2 or L3 is quite good.

TVL is just a static standard; it cannot reflect the activity level of an application. In my view, it can only be considered a makeshift method to measure the popularity of a system in the current environment.

I believe the main contradiction of the chain is still the lack of innovative applications. Without new applications, funds will only be playing guerrilla warfare in the market, engaging in MEME. But these funds are not sustainable and it is very difficult to form strong momentum.