Opinion: Don't believe in the technology narrative Bet on an ecology that is good for Zhuang to control costs

The year is 2023, and all the VC-backed Infrastructure tokens in your backpack go down the drain

"Hey! But it's Infrastructure Ecology, and he needs more time, and it's just early days."

If you still believe so, you haven't been studying for the past two years. The dealer's trick is hidden in complex rhetoric. You need to understand why some Infrastructure Ecosystems don't succeed, whether you're a retail investor or a developer.

The Occam's razor principle states that everything operates around its first nature, and do not add entities unless necessary. And the first sex comes from your purpose.

In crypto, almost everyone is first and foremost profitable, that is, to obtain more assets, whether it is denominated in dollars or currency standards, and there are basically only two means: creation and distribution (issuing orders and trading).

Projects that have nothing to do with it inevitably become additional levers for both.

When liquidity tightens the market to deleverage, the "extra leveragers" will inevitably be in trouble. This is the reason why we can basically only see exchange variant projects shining in the market today: whether it is GMX or Friendtech.

Similarly, an "infrastructure" that does not "reduce the marginal cost of issuing orders and trading" (the more you use, the lower the unit cost), will inevitably become an optional additional lever in itself.

What is the marginal cost of issuing plates? I think the main ones are the following:

• Development cost: comprehensive production, iteration and safety cost of making a plate;

• Customer acquisition cost: the unit traffic cost of plate acquisition;

• Market-making costs: the cost of generating sufficient liquidity to attract external funds;

• Exit costs: the cost of covering/rationalizing the project party to cash out the exit;

To put it bluntly, each project dev needs to calculate the input-output ratio, in the low market liquidity environment, external capital inflow is expected to be very conservative, and the cost will be very sensitive, and the project party needs to consider the high failure rate of a single project operation (one step is accidentally pushed and restarted).

Therefore, the development of low-cost, controllable and replicable, ecological energy with money and volume, transaction exit path is conducive to control, and the use of flow tactics is the ideal type of bear market bank.

This standard allows you to see through the essence of infrastructure:

• Wallet: traffic distribution, AA is not important, whether it will do traffic is important (customer acquisition cost);

• AMM: Provide unlimited liquidity (market-making cost), but cannot replace CEX (on-chain transparency cannot cover the shipment of project parties and cannot reduce exit costs);

• L2: As @AndreCronjeTech said, the essence is a cross-chain bridge + EVM side chain. The only moat is liquidity, and the bear market is not lacking in ETH Zhuang;

It could also explain why much of the "infrastructure" is struggling.

• Non-EVM/RUST chain: The development of these two systems is rare, and it will not attract the establishment team without giving benefits, and it is more likely to attract inexperienced or one-person teams, pure and lively;

• MPC wallet SDK: The project party with demand is generally highly customized, and the third-party risk increases the development cost;

• DA layer: almost useless for starting development costs. The assets are in the settlement layer and cannot affect the market-making exit cost;

And let you discover a lot of infrastructure tracks that are not like infrastructure:

• Quote/contract scanning TG robot: Dirt dog discovery and price propagation (customer acquisition cost);

• Dexscreener: Provide contract information and K-line API, which cannot be found by unsupported chained dogs (customer acquisition + development cost);

• Unibot: ostensibly a tool, it is actually a potential collective market-making tool, better aligned with the banker's intention (or alignment by the bank) (market-making cost + exit cost);

! [VnSE5EKJX0itPDNv1lDwgUxXltBBchEUDwP0L3Ne.jpeg] (https://img.jinse.cn/7120738_watermarknone.png "7120738")

What does it mean for retail investors and developers:

For retail investors, you must firmly believe that the world is a grass team, where there is such a god and that god, everything is just a hasty attribution and artificial creation of gods after success. Understand technology, but don't believe in the narrative of technology: it doesn't matter what potential technology has and what it can be used for, it matters what it can be used to do now. In the trend, bet on the ecology that is beneficial to the banker's control costs, and play with the distribution of those who will engage.

For developers:

The biggest sadness of developers is to accompany the scumbag ecology.

Again, don't be brainwashed by technology, don't overthink what ecology can be used for, think more about what this ecology can do for you. Don't lose yourself in the ecological "buidler". Don't fantasize that Long Aotian can change the life of an infrastructure ecology. Its fate has long been predetermined by the core team and narrative

Remember, the moment you deploy the contract, you are Zhuang.