With the advent of the Layer 2 era, has the window of the new generation of public chains closed?
Original title: “Layer2 era is coming, has the window of the new public chain closed? 》
Written by: Azuma
The public chain track has always been circulating a sentence-“The period before the official landing of ETH 2.0 is the last window period for all new generation public chains.”
In this sentence, although the attributive is the landing of ETH 2.0, what I actually want to say is whether Ethereum can break through the shackles of performance and achieve expansion. However, looking at the expansion road of Ethereum, in addition to the horizontally sharded ETH 2.0, there is also the vertically layered Layer 2. With the explosive growth of the Polygon ecosystem and the launch of Arbitrum’s mainnet, the popularity of the Layer 2 track is rapidly rising, and more and more users have gradually realized that the era of Layer 2 is really coming.
So, at the moment when the Layer 2 era is approaching, has the window of the new generation of public chains closed? In order to further explore whether a certain trend change has occurred, we will visually compare the development status of some representative projects within the current stage of Layer 2 and the public chain track through three data dimensions below.
Big data comparison: Layer 2 vs external public chain
As of the post, there is only Polygon (Arbitrum has not been fully open to users) in the ecology of Layer 2 track. Although the community has some disputes about whether the side chain expansion scheme currently adopted by Polygon belongs to Layer 2, but considering that Polygon has already Plasma is provided and it is exploring more expansion technology directions (Rollup). It is obviously more unreasonable to kick it out of the Layer 2 track. Therefore, in the following, we will still regard Polygon as the representative project of the Layer 2 track to discuss with some of the most representative projects. Data comparison on a sexual public chain.
Of course, the selection of representative projects for the public chain track also depends on the ecology. From the current point of view, the public chains of BSC and other exchanges, as well as the new-generation high-performance public chains such as Solana and Fantom, have accumulated a certain ecological scale. These three projects are representative, compared with Polygon from multiple data dimensions.
Before the comparison, we need to make one point first: Compared with Ethereum Layer 1, both Layer 2 and the external public chain are still at an early stage, the number of samples (projects) available for comparison is small, and the differences in the development stage of each project will also be affected. The specific data situation has a greater impact, so the result of the comparison is only the difference in the individual development trend of the sample, and it cannot fully represent the difference in the development trend of the entire track. This article pulls out these projects, not to arbitrarily come to a specific conclusion, but to explore whether there are some trend signs in this way in a complicated market environment.
Comparison dimension 1: The fluctuation of the locked position (TVL)
The growth trend of the total locked-up volume (TVL) is the best criterion for judging the ecological development trend on the chain. However, after the 519 black swan incident, the encryption market has suffered serious setbacks. Almost all ecological TVLs have experienced varying degrees of decline. It is no longer realistic to talk about growth trends. Therefore, the first comparison dimension we choose will be the TVL fluctuations of different ecosystems. Specifically, it is to look at the decline of the current TVL data of a certain ecosystem from the historical high.
Polygon
Let’s take a look at Polygon first. Considering that there will be differences in details between different data aggregation platforms, when selecting data sources, Polygon, BSC, and Fantom will all use DeBank data.
Almost all major ecological TVL declined due to the impact of the 519 black swan. Only a few relatively strong ecological systems were not affected much by the event. Polygon is one of the lucky few.
The data shows that the overall growth trend of Polygon’s TVL has not been disrupted by this round of market downturns. The historical high of TVL was US$7.08 billion on June 3, and the current (June 10) TVL data was US$6.76 billion. The decline was only 4.5%.
Solana
Since Solana has not been included in DeBank, Defi Llama is selected as the data source of the Solana ecosystem.
The above figure can clearly see that Solana’s TVL data fluctuation trend is in sharp contrast with Polygon. The black swan event of 519 obviously has a greater impact on the overall lock-up level of the ecology.
The data shows that Solana’s current (June 10) TVL data is US$881 million, which is a 45.6% decline from the historical high of May 16 (US$1.62 billion).
BSC
Looking at the TVL trend after mid-May, BSC’s situation is closer to Solana.
According to the data, BSC’s TVL historically reached US$34.81 billion on May 9th, and the current (June 10th) TVL data was US$15.42 billion, a decline of 55.7%.
It is worth mentioning that the recent DeFi project on the BSC chain seems to have been targeted by a hacker group and frequently encountered attacks, which will obviously have a greater negative impact on the ecosystem’s TVL data. At present, the BSC community has taken some targeted measures, including establishing a safety alliance, planning a community white hat bounty plan, establishing a SAFU fund or insurance agreement, etc. It is expected that as such measures are gradually implemented, the ecological sentiment will rebound to a certain extent .
Fantom
Compared with the previous ecosystems, Fantom is a bit earlier, but the discussion about Fantom in the community has increased significantly recently, and we decided to choose it as a large emerging public chain ecosystem.
From the perspective of trends, the turning point of Fantom’s ecological TVL growth trend happened to be May 19th. It can be said that it was directly hit by the 519 incident. According to the data, Fantom’s TVL has a record high of US$676 million on May 18, and the current (June 10) TVL data is US$332 million, a decline of 50.9%.
summary
Comprehensively comparing the dimension of TVL fluctuations, the representative of the Layer 2 track is obviously more stable-Polygon shows a completely different trend from the other three public chain ecology, not only has not been greatly impacted by the 519 incident, but has maintained The trend of net capital inflows continues the strong performance in recent months.
Contrast dimension 2: Head DeFi project performance
To judge whether an ecosystem has sufficient vitality, the performance of leading DeFi projects must not be ignored.
At present, whether it is Polygon or the three major public chains, all parties have initially formed their own DeFi layouts, and the status of leading projects is becoming increasingly stable, and the data performance is more stable than other projects in the ecosystem. Next, we will focus on the top DeFi projects within each ecosystem and take a look at the differences in the data performance of these leaders.
Polygon
Let’s look at Polygon first. With the ecological outbreak in recent months, many well-known projects in the Ethereum ecosystem, such as Aave, Curve, Sushiswap, 1inch, Opensea, Zapper, have deployed their own versions of Polygon. Choosing an absolute leader among them, Aave can be said to be doing his part.
Different from the other three ecosystems, Aave is the only lending project among the four ecosystem leaders mentioned, so it is necessary to clarify its statistical logic. The official website of the Aave Polygon version shows that the current TVL data of the product is 7.85 billion US dollars. , But DeBank shows that the data is 3.56 billion U.S. dollars. This is not an error in the statistics, but the data on the official website is the total deposit amount of users. DeBank counts the balance of total deposits minus total borrowings. This is based on the principle of unified data sources. , The data of DeBank is still used here.
From a trend point of view, similar to the overall situation of Polygon, the chain version of Aave basically maintains a positive capital inflow trend. The data shows that Aave’s current total lock-up volume is 3.56 billion U.S. dollars, which occupies more than half of the TVL on the Polygon chain. The total number of users is 25025, the number of 24-hour users is 1003, and the number of 24-hour contract interactions is 142581.
Solana
The leading DeFi in the Solana ecosystem is not hard to guess-Raydium. According to data from Defi Llama, Raydium’s current lock-up volume is US$515 million. Although it also accounts for more than half of the entire Solana Eco TVL, it is nearly cut from the historical high of US$960 million on May 3rd.
In addition, Solana Daily also gave some specific data on Raydium yesterday.
The data shows that Raydium’s 24-hour transaction volume is about 41 million U.S. dollars, and the number of visits (vistis) is 665,000. The Solana Daily chart also clearly shows the data comparison between Raydium and other ecological head DEXs including PancakeSwap.
BSC
The head DeFi in the BSC ecosystem is undoubtedly the PancakeSwap just mentioned.
In the details of PancakeSwap’s data, the data provided by DeBank is different from the data given by Solana Daily in the figure, but considering that the time periods of the two statistics do not match, the data of DeBank is preferred.
It can be seen from the trend that since mid-May, the lock-up volume and transaction volume in the PancakeSwap application have declined to a certain extent. The data shows that PancakeSwap’s current total lock-up volume is US$7.78 billion. Within 24 hours, the transaction volume is US$529 million, the number of transactions is 950,000, the number of users is 250,000, and the number of contract interactions is 3.19 million.
Fantom
SpookySwap, the leading DeFi project in the Fantom ecosystem, may not be well-known. Like Raydium and PancakeSwap, this is also an AMM-type DEX.
It is worth mentioning that, in terms of data performance, SpookySwap’s current performance has a clear advantage over Sushiswap, which has integrated Fantom ecology, which can be regarded as proof of SpookySwap’s strength to a certain extent.
In the trend direction, the overall trend curve of SpookySwap in lock-up volume and trading volume is closer to PancakeSwap. The data shows that SpookySwap’s current total lock-up volume is US$2.06 billion. Within 24 hours, the transaction volume is US$7.27 million, the number of transactions is 31,800, the number of users is 1525, and the number of contract interactions is 175,000.
summary
Judging from the performance of the leading DeFi data of each ecology, PancakeSwap, as the old DEX in the largest ecological BSC outside of Ethereum, its data performance is still significantly better than the other three projects for the time being.
Although Aave’s Polygon version has won a good amount of lock-up in a short period of time, there is still a big difference in user activity compared to PancakeSwap, which is based on the main battlefield (BSC). In addition, although on the trend curve, Aave’s Polygon version’s lock-up volume growth momentum is significantly better than that of PancakeSwap, which has already seen a certain decline, but Polygon’s MATIC token liquidity incentive for Aave will enter a decline on June 14. , This will be a big variable in whether the agreement can maintain the current data level in the future.
Therefore, in this dimension, the representative of the public chain track is currently slightly better.
Comparison dimension 3: On-chain activity trend
Through the application level, continue to observe the changes in indicators such as the number of independent addresses on the chain and the number of transactions per day, and can also roughly assess the recent development momentum of a certain ecology.
Similar to the previous article, the development team of the Ethereum head browser Etherscan has now provided a unified standard browser service for Polygon, BSC, and Fantom, so here we will choose Etherscan (with corresponding changes for different network names) as the first One data source.
Polygon
Let’s look at Polygon first. The two specific indicators we will observe are the number of independent addresses and the number of transactions per day. The observation period is the last two months (April 9-June 9).
The PolygonScan chart shows that the number of independent addresses on the Polygon network has basically maintained a growth trend, but after May 21, the growth rate of this indicator has slowed down to a certain extent, and the growth rate did not rise again until June 7. On April 9, the number of independent addresses on the Polygon network was 227,265, and the data on June 9 was 33,198,69, an increase of 1360.8%.
The data curve of the number of daily transactions also maintains almost the same slope. Specifically, on April 9, the number of daily transactions on the Polygon network was 246,909, and the data on June 9 was 5,966,384, representing an overall increase in the range. As much as 2316.4%; in addition, the data of the high point of the interval was 7,365,885 data on June 5, and the data on June 9 decreased by about 18.99% from the high of the interval.
BSC
The last two months are obviously not the BSC outbreak period.
The BSCScan chart clearly shows that after a major outbreak in February and March, the number of independent addresses in the BSC network has entered a steady growth stage. On April 9, the number of independent addresses in the BSC network was 64,202,561, and on June 9th. The data is 76,998,164, an interval increase of 19.93%.
In terms of the number of daily transactions, BSC presents a completely different data curve from Polygon. Specifically, on April 9, the number of daily transactions on the BSC network was 4,626,336, and the data on June 9 was 4,404,475. The overall interval showed a negative growth trend, with a decrease of 4.8%; in addition, the data on the high of the interval was May There were 11,281,181 transactions on the 14th, and the data on June 9 dropped by about 60.95% from the range high.
Fantom
Unlike Polygon and BSC, Fantom’s growth trend in the number of independent addresses is generally relatively stable. Although there are some short-term stepped fluctuations, the duration has not lasted too long.
FTMScan data shows that on April 9, the number of independent addresses on the Fantom network was 48,330, and the data on June 9 was 127,801, an increase of 164.4%.
In terms of the number of daily transactions, the number of daily transactions on the Fantom network on April 9 was 12,278, and the data on June 9 was 261,804, representing an overall increase of 2032.3% in the range; in addition, the data on the high of the range was May 29 Of the 829,036 transactions, the data on June 9 dropped by about 68.4% from the range high.
summary
On the whole, in terms of the indicator of the trend of on-chain activity, Polygon, as a representative of the Layer 2 track, has an overall performance that is significantly better than the representatives of the two public chain tracks of BSC and Fantom.
However, objectively speaking, the growth of data on the chain will be largely affected by the staged differences in ecological development. As a public chain project with a relatively complete ecosystem, BSC has experienced a round of rapid outbreak before. It is not fair enough to compare the stable growth stage of other emerging ecosystems with the early outbreak stages of other emerging ecosystems. This is why we chose to put this dimension at the end. However, even in the early stage of the outbreak, Polygon’s data performance is still better than Fantom. When the overall increase in the number of daily transactions is similar, the growth rate of the number of independent addresses of the former is much faster than that of the latter, so if it is certain To pick a winner in this dimension, we still tend to choose Layer2.
Has the public chain window closed?
In the above, we tried to compare the data of Layer 2 and some representative projects of the public chain track through three subdivision dimensions. Before making the conclusion, we still have to emphasize once again to compare the results presented. It is just the difference in the individual development trend of the sample, which does not fully represent the difference in the development trend of the entire track. Looking at the above dimensions alone, in addition to the phased differences in ecological development that will bring about completely different trends in data changes on the chain; TVL fluctuations will be largely affected by the rebound of ecological native tokens (such as MATIC) ; The performance of the top DeFi project will also vary due to the length of the project’s running time and the different incentives.
However, even through this kind of attempt to “see the leopard in a tube”, we can roughly capture the surging wave of Layer 2 represented by Polygon.
Looking back at the week that just ended, Arbitrum ushered in Uniswap and Sushiswap just a few days after it went online; the development of the zk Rollup version of zkSync has achieved phased results, and the Alpha version of the zkEVM testnet has been launched; Tom, the product manager of StareWare Brand also mentioned that StarkNet is expected to be launched on the testnet in recent weeks and the mainnet later this year. Although Optimism has not disclosed too many updates for the time being, it is getting closer and closer to its scheduled mainnet launch date. …
Layer2 has become a general trend, and the individual rise of Polygon may eventually evolve into a collective explosion of the entire track, which will attract the value that has been flowing out for a long time to return to Ethereum, the most solid consensus and largest public chain ecosystem in another form. .
Therefore, external public links will inevitably face the huge challenges brought by Layer 2 and the competitive environment will be more encouraging. Public chains with a relatively complete ecosystem need to consider how to maintain their own cities before talking about expansion; as for other development speeds, Slow, the ecological public chain has not yet formed, the time left may really be running out.
