In the early summer of 2020, the cryptocurrency investment agency Maple Leaf Capital released a comprehensive and in-depth research report on the “Ethereum DeFi Value Chain” , which pointed out the direction for the subsequent DeFi boom and had a profound impact.
At the end of the year, Maple Leaf Capital presented an iterative report, discussing the investment theme of the rise of emerging value networks and the DeFi investment ideas under this theme. This can be seen as a meaningful review of the DeFi field in 2020 and a prospect worth thinking about in 2021.
The report is informative and comprehensive and covers a wide range. The reading suggestions provided by Lianwen for readers are:
- If you want to start from the macro and gain insight into the grand investment theme of encrypted networks, the first part of the report “The Rise of Emerging Value Networks” is worthy of careful consideration;
- The second part of the report clearly analyzes the value of the head DeFi protocol, and the “wealth password” is concentrated here;
- In the last part, answering the core questions, the thinking and observation perspective are quite enlightening.
Written by: Maple Leaf Capital, cryptocurrency investment agency Compiler: Perry Wang
Reviewer: Maple Leaf Capital
Since the release of our last research report on July 4, 2020, the decentralized finance (DeFi) field and our thinking framework have undergone significant changes, enough for us to present this latest iteration report.
This research report is divided into two parts:
- The first part will introduce how we define the encrypted network, where will the field go with the entry of new participants, and the wide range of opportunities that we look forward to ;
- The second part will explore the Ethereum DeFi ecosystem, discuss some projects in depth, carefully analyze some popular topics , and other content that we think deserves attention. We hope this will serve as an introductory guide to non-technical topics for anyone interested in this field.
First, let me present the core points of the report:
- The ” gaming guarantee ” of the crypto world makes value transmission a transparent and open market pricing option. With the passage of natural competition and time, such costs will gradually become more refined and tend to decrease while ensuring the same level of security. With the evolution of this value transmission cost, a new market will come. Just as the Internet changed the world by reducing the cost of information transmission to zero .
- We believe that it is inevitable for enterprises and sovereign countries to enter the encryption field , and the fragmentation of blockchain in the future will be similar to the US-China Internet today. The open, permissionless value network will absorb talents and assets in the real society like a hole, and it will go fast in nurturing new business logic . On the other hand, the semi-permission/full permission value network will rely on it. In reality, business giants and rivals should be able to quickly realize commercialization and cover more customers in a short time.
- In this wave will have three categories of investment opportunities, one for infrastructure and tools business, two for the back of Web 2.0 user information and network effects, with the value of the network for users to further rent-seeking enterprises, and three for the A Web 3.0 enterprise that is native to the new ecosystem, has network effects, and benefits all stakeholders. Investing in these three types of targets requires huge geographic and investment structure flexibility.
- Large scale “Wall Street connectors” (Wallstreet api) can help contribute to a variety of individual value transmission; although most of the current type of business rooted in Ethernet Square, but we believe that such DeFi ecosystem actually can exist in any 0 Layer / Above the layer 1 blockchain. Each agreement will compete fiercely in terms of cost, tamper-proof/flexibility trade-offs, incentive structure, community and network effects.
- DeFi ecosystem to an Ethernet-based Square in the winner has emerged, and these agreements will win grow (rather than a single function applications / single subset) has a sound financial group function. We expect that in the next 12 months, the boundaries of the on- chain exchanges, derivatives and lending markets will be quite blurred , the various agreements will be staggered, and competition will become increasingly fierce.
- We believe that value network unsecured lending will still be a niche market at first, but once the market size of over-collateralization surpasses the real world, market rules will change overnight. Centralized stablecoins will remain dominant for a long time. In addition, the current leader in the insurance industry has not yet emerged, and breakthroughs may be made in the next 12 months; while emerging middleware/tools , cross-chain custody solutions, and B2B ” Wall Street Interface ” aggregators that serve real-world applications, It is a new section that we are very interested in.
Overview of emerging value network investment topics
Encrypted world game theory guarantees a transparent, open market pricing option for value transmission
The ” gaming guarantee ” of the encrypted world* provides the world with a transparent, open market pricing, and a completely different cost structure value transmission option compared to the traditional “recourse guarantee”.
* Thanks to A16Z partner Chris Dixon for coining this term, I will borrow it here
For a long time, the guarantee of value transmission comes from trusted third parties . These third parties (such as JP Morgan Chase) have centralized ledgers, supported by legal structures and recourse enforced by the government, and the costs are not transparent .
In an encrypted network, any on-chain actions performed by hardware/nodes are motivated by tokens to achieve game guarantee. Rollback or tampering is extremely costly and extremely cumbersome. In view of the security caused by these costs, it can carry more special information, such as the line items on the ledger, such as the monetary value of the lender and the debit, and the cost of this value transmission is open and transparent, and free The market determines by itself.
Therefore, a truly decentralized encrypted network provides a brand new value transmission model with open and transparent prices, and also brings alternative options to the recourse guarantee model we have been using. It is foreseeable that every value transmission behavior we perform will incur (open or hidden) costs, and the “guarantee game” should open up a new field of value transmission that is currently extremely costly or impossible, as shown in the U-shaped curve diagram below Shown:
Over time, the unit cost of value transmission will gradually become more refined and tend to decrease
Moore’s Law of the permissionless value network-the cost of the recourse guarantee model is still in a simulated state (for example, inflexible/unscalable), while the cost of the game guarantee model can be scaled and refined based on use cases.
While ensuring a sufficient level of security, the unit cost of value transmission should continue to be refined (matching the required security), and over time, through countless interconnected and continuously improved “value networks”, drive costs Gradually decrease.
While ensuring sufficient guarantees, the unit cost of value transmission should continue to be refined without compromising security, and promote the gradual reduction of costs through countless interconnected and continuously improved “value networks”.
Remarks: Not drawn by scale, only demonstration effect
In view of cost, there may still be a large number of blank areas where value transmission is prohibited.
In view of the high implementation cost in the traditional model, there may still be a lot of blank areas for extremely costly value transmission.
The above use case shows the value transferred (x-axis) and the complexity of such transfer (y-axis). Although some of the current use cases have been explicitly enabled, we can imagine that some use cases cannot be implemented due to the high cost. Finance is a very localized market, and many cross-border or near-instant value transfers are still very troublesome. The financial API interface has achieved some meaningful value, such as Plaid , but the system is still very fragmented, and there are many outdated systems.
The complexity depends on vectors such as time (agree to span a longer time vs. real-time) and nesting conditions .
As the cost of value transmission drops significantly, the new economic frontier may become a reality, similar to the fruitful results brought by the Internet to reduce the cost of information
As the cost of value transmission is refined and significantly reduced, new economies and business models will become possible, just like the fruitful results brought by the Internet.
As alternatives to traditional systems emerge and mature, with cost/friction reduction or even close to zero, new market areas and business models will become possible. In the two charts above, we roughly describe how the friction cost per unit of information and value transmission changes over time (for simplicity, basic science and semiconductor breakthroughs are not included).
We strongly feel that the game theory guarantee of blockchain empowerment is an enabling technology that promotes the next value transmission cost/friction reduction frontier, so as to open up the overall potential market that could not be opened before.
What kind of changes can the low-cost, game-guaranteed “value transmission” bring to the world? Please let your imagination fly as much as possible!
The rise of three types of value networks, the flexible hybrid model of token + equity may be more popular
We envision three types of value networks in the foreseeable future. The best investments of venture capital funds may come from permissionless networks (ingenuity), but they may span all three value networks.
Note: The differences in the network are mainly due to (a) the method by which data processing nodes are selected, and (b) the ease of use of ledger changes and reviews. Open, permissionless = free agent as node; open, permission = company as node; closed, permission = state-controlled participant as node
Different from relatively open information networks, when it comes to emerging value networks, in our opinion, centralized participants (such as enterprises and governments) should try to vigorously participate in and seize control:
- Synergistic effect : The historical sunk cost of acquiring users can be compensated again and immediately reap value (for example, Facebook used to spend huge sums of money to acquire users, and now these users can contribute value to FB’s value network), or traditional recourse mechanisms can immediately find rent.
- Ease of use and ease of control : The transparency brought by licensed nodes empowers the central authority to supervise, tax, and sanction. This extremely high convenience will not be easily given up.
- Competitive measures : If a company/country refuses to adapt, its competitors will do their part. In this value network, being the first to start and take the right path means having a competitive advantage, providing more value to customers (thus raising standards in all directions), and may even mean transferring the power of one country to other countries (for example , Colonizing the local government by weakening its control and taxation capabilities).
The hybrid investment model of tokens + equity should be more appropriate. L0/L1 does not require permission to specialize in innovation + open and permitted L0/L1 specializes in rapid expansion, which may be the best strategy.
The false Web3 faction: Wild West (without permission) and Wall Garden (with permission). Much like the current US/China Internet ecosystem.
We suspect that these permissioned blockchain networks will provide recourse services and interface with a large number of Web2 applications, which may attract a considerable number of end users to adopt them and become the first stop for these users to enter the “blockchain”. It is difficult to judge who will be the winner in a licensed/unlicensed network, but we guess (a) the unlicensed network will move faster in finding product market matches , and (b) the best projects/investments will span all types of networks .
We believe that rapid iteration will enhance the power of permissionless networks. The initial stage of the permission value network will be surrounded by walls. For example, at the beginning, they cannot connect and communicate with each other (or there are many obstacles even if they are realized), and sovereign states will rise up to resist and block/regulate embezzlement. The permitted value network opens up room for growth, allowing the latter to grow unimpeded.
The risks of investing in Web3, and our three most promising investment areas
The current risks of investing in Web3 start-ups and the remedial measures we think can be adopted. If you are an experienced VC, please ignore it.
Although some people may be convinced of the future 20-30 years later (the value network supported by the blockchain will enable new use cases and open up the overall potential market that is unimaginable today), the risks of investing in this field are always:
- Wrong idea (we don’t know what the specific errors are)
- Act too early (the idea is correct, but the infrastructure is not in place. Does anyone remember the painful lesson of General Magic?) + was crushed by latecomers (FAANG and other American Internet giants and Alibaba/Tencent are copying other people’s projects, and then (The replica is pushed to the originator of its billions of users)
- Wrong ecosystem/platform (think about building apps on Symbian/BlackBerry instead of Apple iOS)
- Poor execution (tokens, economics, listing, etc.)
- Embarked on an unforeseen regulatory review road
It is extremely difficult to avoid all the above lightning, but we believe that to resist these risks, there are several guidelines for reference:
- Tokens are actually publicly listed venture capital bets . The liquidity provided may make it agile, and liquid derivatives can also be used to express their views (whether VCs choose to do this is another matter, but the key is that they can).
- The cliché: the founder ‘s morality, perseverance and ability are crucial. Morality and perseverance mean that they can persist when difficulties strike, and ability means effective remedies, such as (a) switching tracks when making mistakes, (b) having the courage to replace the ecosystem when the platform sinks . A hybrid team that understands products, incentives/economy and community building/(for reaching product market matching) communication is quite rare.
- Look for founders who have thought about mechanism design and motivating users through value transfer. This may be the ultimate advantage against existing technology giants (assuming their products are already A + level).
The following are some preliminary suggestions for capital deployment:
- Choose projects that produce ” gold rush tools “, are not tied to the L1 public chain, and have long-term use cases.
- Choose ideas that have been successful in the Web 2.0 era, and they can promote the realization of outstanding users under the empowerment of value networks.
- Choose a network effect company that can reasonably benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders.
Best target 1: One of the “low-risk” paths is to bet on a multi-chain future, investment tools + infrastructure stack, and keep it away from a single blockchain.
Given that there are at least 3 types of L0/L1 value networks in the future, and each value network has its own design architecture, we believe that the simpler way to reduce platform risk is to invest in everything as a service/XaaS enterprise, the latter for the benefit Stakeholders provide a clear anchor for valuation and are not tied to a single value network.
The main investment areas (not exhaustive here) are as follows-these investments often have a very clean business model / value capture mechanism, directly targeting IPO / exit-may be investments that are betting on long-term growth of the industry and at the same time are less “risky” the way. Of course, the risk of this investment method is that you may miss the real project that changes the world from 0 to 1, and the final return may not be as good as the strategy of buying currency investment.
- On-chain/off-chain data provision (bilateral): Chainlink, etc.
- On-chain/off-chain data cache/query : Graph protocol, dFuse, Marlin, Dune Analytics, etc.
- Access/outsourcing trust : BitGo, Genesis, Anchorage, BisonTrails, BlockFi, Paxos, etc.
- On-chain data analysis : Chainalysis, Ciphertrace, Nansen, Skew, Glassnode, Messari, etc.
- Web3 Ecological Simulator: Gauntlet Network
- Development environment / platform / developer network: Gitcoin
- Compliance related services: Coinlist (ICO field), TokenTax (tax field), Securitize
- Services dedicated to value networks: Trail of Bits, OpenZepplin, etc. (audit)
- Compliance stable currency : Circle(USDC)
Optimal target 2: A highly successful information network effect enterprise in the Web 2.0 era + a bonus to obtain value network functions = a large amount of users’ realization.
Another type of strategy worth investing in is to go long for Web 2.0 companies that have created network effects and have a large number of users. This type of company can immediately realize its value once it has designed an excellent value capture model . The emerging value network is a missing piece of the Internet (information network) puzzle.
For any Web 2.0 enterprise that has network effects and builds information monetization business:
- Facebook : connect real personal information and monetize through advertising
- Google : Has the most deliverable and searchable information, monetized through advertising
- Uber : Real-time travel demand information, realized through transaction fees
- LinkedIn : Job information, realized through advertising, recruitment services and member privileges
After these Internet 2.0 companies start value transmission for their users, their past sunk cost of acquiring customers will once again have the opportunity to contribute several times the value. Some rough examples include:
- Facebook allows users to conduct credit crowdfunding for many projects.
- Google allows searching for “value”-allowing guests to directly purchase capital stacks .
- Uber users can provide financing to drivers’ vehicles; drivers use their autonomous vehicles to set up special purpose entities (SPV) to finance.
- LinkedIn allows direct investment and outsourcing of transactions on the platform, making full use of the user’s social network.
The key to the above examples is not whether they are commercially viable, but when the cost of value transmission is refined and lowered , some of these changes may come true. Existing Web 2.0 giants may continue to benefit from their strong customer ARPU/profitability per month.
Optimal target 3: A project that is capital-light, has network effects and can benefit all stakeholders (not just shareholders) .
Cooperatives that serve the interests of all stakeholders (not just the current corporate securities holders) have existed for a long time. Although due to various reasons such as talent recruitment and expansion speed, this mechanism has proved to be less competitive under current capitalism, but we believe that this cooperative mechanism may re-start a prairie fire.
Especially in some current Internet-native network effect companies, although users and suppliers contribute most of the value of the network, these values basically belong to the corporate shareholders. When the cost of value transmission and government intervention tend to disappear, we are curious whether this business model of ” users contribute value but is rent-seeking by shareholders ” will be subverted, especially when participants become members of the network. When the benefits exceed the benefits obtained from free or cheap services, this ” stakeholder mutual assistance ” model may achieve very good results.
Of course, after the Web3 technology stack matures, the realization of this assumption is more of a mechanism/incentive design problem than a technical problem. We can anticipate the following pain points:
- Securities investors bear the cost of creating a network effect in the early stage of the company , and logically accept “reasonable profits”, and this kind of profit may be evenly distributed to each stakeholder in the mid to early stage. Therefore, whether the value provided by the competitive network is sufficient + who will fund the “initial development cost” may become a real problem.
- Stakeholders may face multiple-choice questions : Are they going to enjoy free and high-quality services? Or is it to use a competing product for a little profit (or perhaps a valuable network right in the future), and by the way, need to assume the obligation to help this competing product grow and expand?
- The role of stakeholders will change over time-the value they produce to the network may gradually produce a serious disparity with the value and governance rights promised to them. This mismatch requires very careful design to resolve.
- The time span and vision of the stakeholders do not match the external economic/competitive interests, which may also require careful review and excellent mechanism design in the future.
DeFi: The Rise of the “Wall Street Interface”
The current status of value transmission pattern and the development status of DeFi “Wall Street Interface”
The emerging DeFi “Wall Street Interface” currently built in Ethereum has spawned a prosperous value transmission ecosystem, which may facilitate value transmission between any individuals after further scale.
Introduction and comments on the Ethereum ecosystem DeFi token
List of DeFi tokens: The first choice for investment should be the market leader/creator of the market segment, and the project with the circulating market value close to the fully diluted market value.
Temporary advantages of DeFi protocol in terms of cost, balance, incentive structure, community and network effects
Q: What competitive advantages can the DeFi protocol obtain?
Answer: Temporary advantages in terms of cost, balance, incentives, community and network effects.
We believe that the DeFi protocol may currently have five competitive advantages (see below), but this field is still so immature that it is difficult to determine whether this advantage will last. We believe that having an excellent team, an excellent development community, and a sufficiently flexible token model is a good start, but even with agreements with strong user loyalty, bilateral network effects, and cost advantages, we need to be vigilant. (A) Integrate with other projects to consolidate existing functions, (b) cross-chain operation to ensure that it will not be subverted by similar agreements simply because of the choice of the L1 public chain, and (c) broaden product coverage to keep users Consolidate its network effect in its own ecosystem.
- Cost advantage : lower gas/handling fee, L2, trust, user inertia, integrated integration:
- The congestion of Ethereum’s own system has become a cost bottleneck for ETH-based transactions. The cost function is an “optimization” function, which may not be the most urgent task for start-ups with business expansion;
- Unless it is (a) the use case is no longer relevant, or (b) the next 10 times increment of users is captured by other protocols, 2C transactions are usually sticky/have a strong moat, but they also need to be defended by continuous product polishing.
- Excellent balance between tamper resistance and flexibility during growth/evolution: The protocol needs to resist attacks, but at the same time be flexible enough to evolve. There needs to be a delicate balance between the two.
- The reward mechanism for stakeholders has been carefully designed and consistent: We generally believe that tokens and stakeholder incentive mechanisms are still under development, so the current iteration form may not be the most ideal form. Moving forward requires flexibility.
- Developer/community affinity and core team delivery pace: This may be the only competitive advantage with defensive capabilities. The right team and community can help the agreement change the track multiple times and find the product market match. The quality of the team usually improves with each wave, so a strong community/developer network needs to be cultivated to stay ahead.
- The bilateral network effect of the business model: When (a) competitors of the target project spend huge sums of money to compete with aggressive and continuous capital flows, and (b) the competitive L1 public chain network attracts several times more users, Some bilateral networks may be attacked.
Inevitable competition among the leading agreement in the field of Ethereum DeFi, “YASU”, raises the barrier to entry
The leading agreement in the ETH DeFi field ” YASU ” (Yearn, Aave, Synthetix, and Uniswap) will inevitably lead to encounters. Excellent teams continue to expand and the barriers to entry for smaller competitors become higher.
When it comes to the DeFi field stack/Wall Street interface on Ethereum, a leading agreement/”blue chip” may have emerged (in terms of circulation market value, lock-up value, monthly independent users and other indicators). Although each agreement first introduces a feature set for a specific financial market segment, as the agreement improves the liquidity efficiency of entrusted capital, and further realizes when it attracts attention, the boundaries between the agreements become blurred. It is a reasonable road of development.
We expect that YASU will rely on (a) vertical mergers/expansion and (b) authorize other projects to build on its own agreement, and use (c) L2 expansion highways for strategic development, thereby increasing the entry of other DeFi projects into competition threshold.
How was your review on Year, Aave, Synthetix and Uniswap?
Aave/AAVE : The fast horse in the loan agreement needs to continuously launch new touch points + products to attract liquidity demand.
It is too early to announce that Aave has become a winner in the competition with Compound (although Aave is iterating faster in function), and it needs to continue to launch new products to ensure that the most remote touchpoints can be covered. Need, and provide users with product packages (for any subject that can generate revenue). It is necessary to always be vigilant whether it will open a branch on the adjacent L1 public chain.
- It is possible to launch native AMM : A large-scale mortgage asset pool can make a stable currency exchange function similar to CRV a reality. At present, the method of “receive Uniswap agreement-then return” is very expensive to charge 60 basis points (bps) of commission. I don’t understand why Aave does not fork the AMM code and allows native exchange of aToken (+ insert aggregator)
- Building an ecosystem : We see that Aave uses its core loan and mortgage services in many other ways:
- “Liquidity leverage” is a service : We have seen collaboration with the Alpha network, where ETH is natively loaned from Aave and then loaned to users on Alpha, who can use leverage for income farming. We feel that as the derivatives platform enters the market in the first half of 2021, the use of Aave for leverage and leverage is a natural result.
- Optional income enhancement : users who deposit collateral can choose to use the capital they provide in a more radical way. Alternative methods include selling options and allocating capital to asset managers (which may be automatic, risk-neutral) Agreements such as YFI and ROOK), unsecured loans (the trusted principal bears the first loss) and insurance underwriting. We can imagine that the higher the liquidity utilization rate will be, the higher the return will be, but there will be no risk for funds with a larger proportion of the liquidity pool (assuming the risk strategy is to choose to join + exit at risk levels).
- Additional module : DefiSaver (automatic rebalancing of leverage) is a good starting point, but as the product becomes more complex, we can imagine that more advanced risk management + analysis tools will be added to the ecosystem.
- All of the above products can introduce non-Aave natives to achieve hierarchical risk , thereby effectively increasing Aave’s total lock-up value TVL, while maintaining the base of Aave’s internal lent assets to a certain extent.
- We think Aave should consider using its funds to invest/buy good projects that can add value.
- TradFi/use case exploration : We believe that no matter which protocol takes the lead in inserting larger-scale liquidity (not just DeFi native), it will gain a significant competitive advantage. Building ecosystem partners, introducing retail/institutional capital + brainstorming/supporting projects that directly connect with customers (such as bitcoin mortgage loans, high-yield accounts, etc.) will prove to be very valuable.
Uniswap / UNI : Long-tail assets + loyalty = undisputed leader, v3/v4 needs to expand the boundary. The battlefield must be extended to lending and derivatives . Only by marching to the upstream, lending, and leading the field of encrypted asset derivatives can we hope to maintain the leading position.
The current preferred trading platform that replaces second-tier exchanges to trade altcoins needs to continue to evolve to maintain its leading position. It is likely that these evolutions are required to (a) copy the well-functioning functions in the DeFi field and (b) improve the efficiency of mortgage capital.
Uniswap is by far the most widely used DeFi product and has the highest user loyalty. The transaction volume/the number of daily active users fully demonstrates the high frequency and widespread use of the protocol (in contrast, Sushi is concentrated in giant whale users, and the difference between the two can be as high as 30-50 times). This loyalty is a big advantage of cross-selling new products, and it means that the cost of capturing incremental value from users is very low. We also believe that the long-tail nature of altcoins (for example, non-standardized SKUs) gives Uniswap a solid network effect as a ” vending machine ” in today’s paradigm. However, the competitive advantage that Uniswap enjoys today is by no means ingrained:
- Disintermediation risk : We can imagine that when users in the DeFi field increase by 10-100 times through the aggregator, the user base of the AMM liquidity pool will turn to the protocol aggregator, and there will be a large loss of users (similar to the situation in the Web 2.0 era ). In this case, Uniswap (and other AMMs) no longer enjoy user loyalty, and liquidity may move to the aggregation layer.
- Unable to attract new projects : Long-tail assets will only perform Changhong when the platform is trustworthy. However, although Sushiswap is at a disadvantage in the competition, it is part of the Andre Cronje YFI ecosystem, which currently attracts high loyalty and outstanding developers in the DeFi field, which fully shows that new popular projects may tend to Gather liquidity around Sushiswap. If Uniswap fails in the legal long-tail battle, which means its wealth effect is lost, its market share may be robbed by the next 1-2 emerging spoilers.
We firmly believe that when v3/v4 is launched, Uniswap needs to seriously consider the following features—effectively move closer to upstream aggregators and blur the boundaries of loans and derivatives agreements. Taking into account the pressure of competition in the DeFi field, the rent-seeking component (charged x% of the 30 basis point commission) may appear late, and Uniswap may need to be monetized in other ways during this period (such as tool + analysis fees, other Project airdrop incentives and rebates from the sales order flow, etc.)
- Gas cost reduction / L2 expansion + cross-chain function . Vending machines need to be able to handle all assets
- User-defined / more advanced exchange equations, dynamic fee switching
- Lending function (LP tokens in the liquidity pool) + futures/derivatives function
- More advanced risk management + analysis tools to control all risks related to AMM and perform analysis
Yearn / YFI : The agreement itself has a bright future as an asset management platform, and the incentive mechanism may need to be adjusted; be wary of the impact of new forces in the DeFi ecosystem.
Its founder from 0-1 to open up a new situation DeFi and build a team, the theme evolved into a whole ecosystem, its impact will be double-edged sword. Key figures + endurance + economic design risks still exist. Considering the cruel competition in this field, we still need to be highly vigilant.
Its founder, Andre, is a developer from 0 to 1 in the DeFi field. He has unmatched industry influence. He is naturally an ideal executor of ” industry mergers and acquisitions “, focusing on the vision / overall situation / what is needed, and the specific implementation and integration are extensive The user base should be given to the partners in the team. The Yearn Agreement launched the v2 platform to implement a 2+20 fee structure (a common fee structure in the hedge fund industry, that is, 2% management fees and 20% performance sharing). It should be the best choice for income farming strategies.
In theory, the agreement will achieve economies of scale (in some agreements, such as CRV, popular status + scale = higher revenue), gain user trust (given that the agreement has no bugs or Lindy effect for a long time), and The strategists seeking to maximize profits are driving new network effects. However, we do see 3 major risks:
- Cyclical/high beta value : YFI has extremely high pro-cyclicality, and the rate of return in the upward cycle is often very high. As the income aggregator/asset management company of the year agreement, its performance should outperform the market at that time, while in the downward cycle completely opposite.
- Reward mismatch : Someone might say that the rewards received by the core developers of the YFI protocol are seriously inadequate compared to the value it brings (YFI holders earn excessive economic profits). Someone might say that during the next bear market in the currency market, as the token army and developers leave one after another, the YFI agreement is likely to be hit hard. In a sense, forking agreements owned by developers and strategists are more reasonable (for example, kicking out “equity holders”). We will also think that YFI tokens need to do some work/take certain risks, not just rent-seeking/governance voting.
- YFI Ecosystem Alternatives : For this last point, we think that there may be very good programmers starting their own projects against the YFI protocol, instead of using the protocol (PICKLE, ALPHA are good examples). During the bull market, the benefits of this approach may be extremely generous, and entering the YFI ecological embrace requires accepting a 2+20 fee, which may result in a 50% reduction in the income you get.
In the final analysis, YFI’s core value proposition should be (a) not tied to any L1 public chain, and (b) move to all traditional TradFi transaction layers as a ” dumb transaction ” product in the shortest time. Over time, YFI can be seen to evolve into an asset holding company with multiple agreements. YFI’s own evolutionary direction may be extremely susceptible to change (not only may become an asset management institution), and it is also one of the most fascinating stories in the DeFi field. The most innovative opportunity in the DeFI field may emerge here.
我们可以称生态系统的「创始人基金」是YFI 社区的原生产物。也许有人说，该基金作为对开发者的支持，可以帮助协议内部人士不断探索ETH DeFi + 应用进化的前沿， 这对从这些有前途的初创企业中取得早期分配和特权访问、进而转化为重要的阿尔法收益而言是个很好的做法。我们可以看到，该基金成为吸引开发者和策略师继续打磨YFI 的核心激励手段。
Synthetix / SNX ：打造L2 扩容+ 杠杆交易产品，迈向去中心化BitMEX/ 芝商所发展道路。很可能成为最容易扩展至其它区块链、拥有全球化资产池的协议。
L2 技术的采用让其向「成为以太坊上去中心化BitMEX 」 迈出最重要一步。 L2 扩容全速前进，以提供流畅的交易体验。实话而言，在L2 和杠杆期货不到位情况下， SNX 并不能算是一个完整的产品。而L2 一旦启动，基于交易额的奖励机制+ 期货/ 杠杆交易成为现实， SNX 交易额可能与基于Synthetix 的资产管理协议dHEDGE一起一路飙升，也会开启推荐费用分成。尽管竞争激烈，SNX 凭借低滑点和已经颇具规模的流动性资金池，有可能成为独霸衍生品市场的赢家。
与Aave 和Uniswap 类似，我们也认为Synthetix 能跨领域取得不俗进展：
- 更多资产类别：股票、证券、更多加密资产
- 衍生品覆盖范围更广：除了期货/ 杠杆交易， Synthetix 资金池可以轻松进入其他衍生品市场，包括期权、预测市场、复杂的掉期协议(例如固定/ 浮动收益产品)，以及其它深奥的期权工具。不同的资产池可以试验分层级退出机制。
- 进一步构建生态系统：Dhedge 作为资产管理机构的主经纪商/ 抵押解决方案是非常出色的选择, 未来还会看到更多的生态系统产品，例如跨多个衍生品平台的L1/L2 保理/ 快速检索产品以及负载平衡/ 流动性聚合器。我个人认为，随着资金从外部流入（例如Aave），完全有发展空间让用户利用杠杆（不仅是三倍杠杆期货交易），届时交易者可以利用杠杆做多任何受DeFi 市场借款利率影响的标的。
- 跨链：Synthetix 的基本属性非常适合跨越多条链的全球性资本池，鉴于相对不太需要可组合性，移植可能非常简单。
- 资金管理：可以协议向信任的资产管理者分配其投资，中间无滑点
SNX 从监管机构对加密期货交易所的打击行动中获益，扩大市场份额，直到其自身也遭遇到监管阻碍。我们认为，美国证券交易委员会SEC 的严苛监管依然是该平台面临的最大单一风险(第二大风险是针对预言机的黑客攻击)。
DeFi 协议之间的竞争升温，多功能模块的集团出现
以太坊DeFi 的领先协议之间的合并-竞争将白热化，DEX、聚合器和衍生品平台的竞争可能最为激烈。
最终将涌现横跨多个垂直行业的DeFi 企业集团。
我们对一些核心问题的见解
问：区块链中能存在信用贷款吗？
答：其发展会非常缓慢，然后会一蹴而就。需要追索即服务RaaS 。
追索即服务(RaaS) 是个名词。RaaS 提供暴力追索权作为对服务的奖励。政府是最大的RaaS —征税以换取执法和保护基本人权，作为「公益」。
我们普遍认为，如果不具备追索权，信用贷款在价值网络中仍会处于小众地位。它将局限于：（a）彼此熟悉的行为者之间的重复游戏；（b）严重依赖传统执法渠道，例如美国个人信用评级法FICO 的得分处罚，和/ 或（c）参与者愿意接受高利贷式利率的小众市场内。
对于追索权与新兴价值网络彼此捆绑， 我们认为会出现以下发展轨迹：
- 先是全额抵押+ 实验性信用贷款。
- 可信任参与者/ 节点在半许可价值网络中将资产证券化，这些资产随后被打包到无需许可价值网络中。后者领域仍需要超额抵押条件，但已经引进了可信任参与者+ 预言机喂价。两个价值网络中的商业活动意味着网络原生名誉系统开始形成。
- 随着商业活动和资产证券化，价值网络中吸引了更多的流动性，资金成本开始大幅降低， 最终会让价值网络中的借款成本<= 现实世界。依据身份的解决方案开始出现。
- 价值网络生态系统发起「51% 攻击」，例如，现实世界中的大量证券化贷款/ 担保借款业务迁移过来，使得传统金融机构资产不断流失而日薄西山。
- 当价值网络中基于其原生声誉层的抵押和商业活动相比现实世界足够大，价值网络生态系统开始向当地政府贡献更多收入，后者可以执行追索和处理违约，最终将苟延残喘的传统金融机构一举颠覆。
我们猜想，商业关系在1 对1 还是1 对几是最有效的(例如，政府控制几个大流量枢纽)，将为桥接和托管机构带来丰富的寻租机会。
问：稳定币会有怎样的发展？
答：百花齐放，但许可式稳定币可能切走最大块蛋糕。
稳定币(USDT, USDC, DAI 等) 理所当然地成为DeFi 领域市值增长最快的资产之一，因为它们是多数人最常用的交换媒介。我们相信，随着半许可价值网（例如Libra）和许可价值网（DCEP）的入目，这一细分市场将继续呈现指数级增长。目前有3 种方法为了保持汇率锚定：
- 资产机制，与法币资产锚定1:1 汇率– 这种方式你需要信任中心化的稳定币发行商。
- 流动性超额抵押机制– 你需要信任团队的机制设计。
- 纯粹的激励机制，推动投资者/ 投机者不断参与活动，使汇率围绕锚定标准实现再平衡– 你需要信任机制设计和不断有市场参与者参与其中。
我们仍然倾向于第一选项(打包进入无许可网络的Libra/DCEP 和USDC/USDT) 会在这一领域占据最大份额：
多数用户是守法的交易者，他们乐意与「中心化货币」为伍，认为其方便、流动性深厚强劲、声誉良好、汇率强大稳定，其用例与非投机性商业活动深度捆绑。
任何严重威胁法币地位的尝试都将面临非同寻常的监管审查（例如，Basis）——因此，如果不是选项1，则可能是匿名行为者通过选项2 或3 进行超额抵押，在以下用例中可能出现：
- 励调整和抵押品扩张的速度可能永远滞后于潜在的稳定币供应/ 需求波动，导致永久的价格偏离，这就是选项2 的问题。
- 缺少商业开发，因此缺少采用。这个问题可能得到解决。
- 负责稳定的元素在极端市场环境下可能缺席，而加密货币正是因市场经常出现极端情况而著称。
- 大众用户对其缺乏信任，尤其是与「有声望的」中心化稳定币相比。两者都可能损失市场份额，推动中心化稳定币的网络效应。这个问题可能得到解决。
我们现在看到了选项3 赛道上非常有趣的尝试(尤其是ESD)，这些项目将用户与投机者/ 资本化投资者隔离开来，并引进摩擦力，允许博弈论保证进一步推动汇率挂钩。我们感觉在情况失控时，有人得担负起「中央银行」的角色，但我们迫切等待能有优雅的设计证实我们是错的。我们未来可能看到DeFi 原生的投资机构+参与者联手扮演央行角色。
问：何时会迎来出色的加密保险？
答：直到(1) TradFi 入局或(2)拥有部分资产储备、依据市场定价、灵活的承保时常、终端深度捆绑，及适当激励的协议出现，才可能实现这一目标。
以太坊DeFi 中的保险业务(主要是智能合约/ 意外触发) 依然是个未解的难题，迄今存在两个比较正式（尽管是暂时性的）的尝试：
- NXM基于原生代币的资金池+并非由市场驱动的保费定价，导致经常出现售罄（市场认为其定价过低）的情况。专有定价与专有资本绑定也许是最佳组合（而不是市场贡献的流动性）。
- COVER保险模型当前将代币与资金池隔离开– 其保费定价由市场需求决定(类似预测市场，通过CLAIM/NOCLAIM 代币公式算出定价)。我们目前倾向于基于市场定价是一个更好的方向。
COVER 协议尽管在当前该领域的竞争中领跑，但其模型依然面临几个严重的问题：
- 资金池中LP 的投资回报函数公式目前是「保费= 预期损失+ 抵押品收益+ 来自所有来源的通胀」。我们认为(a) 代币通胀作为补贴的方式不可长期持续，(b) 考虑到全额抵押机制、扣除通胀前的回报可能明显低于DeFi 领域内的资本机会成本，成本资金池中LP 实际相当程度上是在做慈善。
- 目前尚不灵活的条款–存在大量需求，例如X 小时或X 天的保险需求仍未兑现，但解决这种需求可能导致流动性资金池碎片化（不理想）。
- 依然很弱鸡的销售终端整合。当用户与资金池互动时，应该触发保险销售。
一种解决方案是可能是由多家基金按照其模型对保险风险定价，并以期自有资本承销保险。这可能作为先决条件，作为与审计和邀请捆绑的服务，以此获得项目方天使及种子轮的投资权。
另一种解决方案可能是围绕某一事物的创新，例如合同违约永续合约(Contract-Default-Perpetual-Swap CDPS), 一种聪明的费率计算可以解决期限问题，而巧妙的代币次级债券化token-as-junior-tranche、部分抵押+ 清算机制会显著提高资本效率。我们期待着在这一领域的实验。
我们同时认为，资金池量巨大的生态（例如AAVE、UNI、YFI）的协议可能很有利于推出某种形式的保险，并让资金方酌情勾选。
问：你目前对哪些项目感兴趣？
答：不与任何L1 公链绑定的新兴工具和中间件。
我们相信，价值网络中间件代表了一个被忽视、但实际孕育巨额财富的板块，不与任何L 1 公链绑定的小众市场具备很大的网络效应潜力。一个很好的例证就是Chainlink ，下面我们再介绍两个项目：
Graph Protocol / GRT ，之前以3 亿美元完全摊薄价值FDV 进行了一轮募资：去中心化查询执行协议
- 随着Web3 采用率的增长，在ETH 区块链上查询数据非常麻烦。Graph 的解决方案能使开发者快速灵活地在分布式、冗余的无需许可节点网络上检索出经过精心整理、索引良好的数据，这种解决方案非常美观并且具有很高的需求。
- GRT 代币是鼓励数据编纂和索引的奖励，以及确保所检索数据准确的共识，其收效还是很好的。该协议在我们眼中与Chainlink 有诸多相似。我们相信分析和模拟领域存在相当大的空白市场，转售面向用户的聚合数据也有非常不错的市场机遇。市场中等待捕捉的价值依然很大。
Keep3r Network / KP3R ，FDV 9-1 亿美元：区块链状态双边更新市场
- 即使是非常普通的工作，也要透过一笔交易更新以太坊中的帐户状态（它可能是要求奖励、重新平衡资金池等）。Keep3r Network 由Andre 及其团队建立，是一个双边交易市场，需要执行任务的人将其任务交给任何可以执行任务的人（「管理员」；后者将依次获得KP3R 代币奖励）。该平台特别适合于可能对时间不敏感但需要连续执行的任务，这也是一个优雅的双边网络，这是因为工作的发布者会进入「管理员」最多的网络，反之亦然。我们预期未来会有其它协议绑定任务作为「管理员」。
- 这种连续维护即服务网络的感觉很像「 gitcoin 」，在我们看来，可能会扩展至成百，或者上千项目，双边都有「管理员」。每天处理数以百万的交易。
- 没有价值捕获的通胀一直是KP3R 的症结所在。我们的观点正在发生变化–我们认为代币通胀作为客户购置成本，实际上意味着值得建立双边网络，从而以后可以通过治理引入其他方式的寻租（与Web 2.0 网络效应企业不惜一切代价扩大规模以建立网络效应极为相似）。推出合资企业策略的Andre 可能也是完成这一任务的理想人选。如果该网络像LINK 和GRT 一样扩容（和跨链），很难想象其代币不会捕获一定的价值。当然，产品最终风险还是在于Andre 团队是否会就此赛道继续耕耘。
问：你当前还对哪些项目感兴趣？
答：新兴的桥接/ 扩容解决方案，以及收费公路/AMM/ 贷款商。
我们可以看到跨链桥接正成为一项规模可观、蒸蒸日上的业务，它们实际上既可以充当博弈担保（例如REN、RUNE 等），也能作为追索担保（例如WBTC），可以包装或直接转移代币：
- L2 扩容解决方案的方法，以及跨链桥接合并的方法。
- 托管资产，除了进行交易以生成手续费外，还可以被轻松当贷款放出、也可作为衍生品抵押、和/ 或寻求其它收益。随着更多半许可和/ 或许可价值网络的涌现，我们还会看到转移/ 打包需求的爆炸式增长（尤其是涉及稳定币和现实世界资产）
- 我们还会看到巨大的营运资金需求(和服务) 涌现，将带来代币的快速流转(而不是需要等待数天/ 数小时/ 数周) 赚取手续费/ 利益。以太坊L2 的需求尤其强烈。
我们会看到REN / RUNE /MIR 作为多层、多链世界的收费公路而赚取丰厚租金。
问：你今天还对哪些项目感兴趣？
答：依然缺席的「华尔街接口」聚合器，作为面向应用的B2 B 服务。
我们猜想随着DeFi 堆栈（综合性企业集团、固定收益产品、分级债券、成熟的衍生品、围绕资本效率的标准实践、保险产品等）的日趋成熟，而中间件+工具协议仍在不断涌现，类似于Twillio 的B2 B一体式聚合器套件应会出现–这类新的应用应该能够插入聚合器支持的任何协议，并随时执行组合的金融功能：
- 截至目前，协议之间的彼此交互方式属于严格的「量身定制」–找到感兴趣的协议、研究代码，然后利用可用的端点与你的架构挂钩。
- 我们猜想，随着（a）寻找此类功能的应用的DeFi 属性越来越少，而与企业的相关性越来越高，以及（b）随着DeFi 堆栈的激增，这些新项目的要快速发展、在无数种选择中找出最好的解决方案，可能会变得越来越有挑战性，从而为中间层的聚合器留出用武之地，这类聚合器执行端点管理（可能跨链）、审计/ 漏洞测试、逻辑流清理和标准化的脏活累活，潜在成本可能降低（规模化捆绑请求+自家的L2），某种程度上充当了「投资银行家」角色，为现实世界企业的无数需求提供服务，并收取少量服务费用（可以基于SaaS ARR 模式）。
- 一个很好的例子是这个B2 B 聚合器可能不需要在以太坊区块链基础上构建自己的拍卖行/ 当铺业务，而只是该将该产品需求「产品化」，并将其模块化，可以通过（包含大量文档的） API 套件「即插即用」，另外随附分析和风险管理工具。最后将这个插件销售给任何想「上链」的游戏公司。
我们猜想，当上述猜想一旦成真时，可以直接与当今几乎所有项目（KP3R，Dune，Gauntlet，Infura，甚至Etherscan）交互的现有工具是捕获此类需求的最佳候选项目。
问：哪些项目别人很感兴趣但你无动于衷？
答：新的AMM / 期货/ 衍生品协议– 竞争过于激烈；固定/ 浮动收益+ 分级债券协议，更像功能而不是产品；以及匿名庞氏骗局。
我们感觉，以下领域的赢家要么已经显现，要么暂时很难在激烈的竞争中作出判断，因此很难对「又一个某某某」感兴趣。
- 新的AMM / 期货/ 衍生品协议：目前以太坊中的AMM / 期货/ 衍生品初创企业的数量可能两只手数不过来，彼此间不过有略微不同的代币设计和功能。我们怀疑其产品能做到迅速迭代（例如，它们都会扎堆做同一件事），或者它们的功能可能会与聚合器的功能迅速重叠（带来了很有意思的去中介化问题），而且这些领域还存在试图吸引资本的流动性挖矿盛宴。我们认为当前很难对其中谁是赢家作出判断，猜测最终的赢家可能是已经拥有足够大的市场忠诚度、人才济济的团队和流动性充沛的现有项目。
- 固定/ 浮动收益协议，或又一个分级债券协议： 与我们讲到的上一个类别类似，感觉固定/ 浮动收益协议设计和分级债券设计是任何金融协议都会有的功能(Aave / Compound 之类的协议可以轻松实施)，而不是独立的产品/ 协议。它们无论享有哪些竞争性优势，可能不过是暂时性的，当被强劲对手复制后，这些优势可能很快烟消云散。我们认为，优雅的解决方案可能已经存在，会在6 个月内变成通用实践。
- 匿名创始人的「耕种收益聚合器」+「耕种」新协议：我们热衷于投机那些叫着各种水果和食物名称的土狗代币，但是我们对投资这些似乎在打造庞氏骗局而不打算创造长期产品的匿名团队没什么兴趣。有一些非匿名项目（例如Alpha）在信誉和快速执行方面处于领先地位，但我们怀疑其中多数这些初创企业都是为了赚快钱，当困难时刻到来时很快兵败如山倒。尽管这么说，但我们会继续关注代币分发+机制+激励架构试验，对其持开放性态度。未来的项目可以吸取前车之鉴，在今天的任何一片废墟上构建起王国。
