Base 向上 BSC 向下

CapitalismLab报道 来源：X，@NintendoDoomed

Aerdrome价格已经经历了一轮上涨，Base以其独特力量支持了一种市值高达10亿美元，全球排名前百的代币，展现了其实力。这不仅展示了其强大的实力，而且带来的正面外部影响也进一步激活了Base的生态系统。

相比之下，BSC在这一轮中即使风声落地也没有什么动静，究竟差距在哪里？本文将以此为切入点，深入探讨本轮两个中心化交易所在链上所展现的差距。

Coinbase之所以选择支持Aero，原因非常简单，就如下图所示。在过去，项目直接激励DeFi矿工，例如一个价值2美元的项目代币，矿工可能会额外从DEX交易费中再获得1美元，总共获得3美元。

然而，在Aero这样的Ve(3,3) DEX体系下，这3美元被用来贿赂veAero，veAERO将Aero代币（价值更高，例如9美元）分配给矿工。

最终，项目方仍然支付了3美元，veAero（Aero锁定）获得了3美元的实际收益，而矿工则获得了9美元的激励，激励翻了一番。

Aero价格越高，发放的激励价值就越高，Base生态项目能够享受的激励也越高，生态项目的基本面也随之增强。给Aero的贿赂代币价值也越高，Aero的收入也越高，价格也更具看好性，形成了正向循环。

此外，如果Base直接激励链上项目，一方面容易变成链下关系，另一方面也不便公开激励那些土狗和模因项目，而这些项目具有流量。通过支持Aero，实现了链上生态的无许可激励，因为任何项目都可以通过Aero进一步放大激励效果，这种做法给普通开发者带来的收益是官方激励无法比拟的。

回头看BSC，是否有类似的产品？答案是肯定的，并且从开发者和产品层面来看都可以说比Base更强一筹。

Thena可以看作是Aerodrome的增强版，支持V3集中流动性。

Pancake + Cakepie的双轮驱动更能发挥更强的正向循环效应，其天花板也更高。

尽管过去我们批评了 Cake War 组织不如 Pendle War（涉嫌自吹自擂），而 Pancake 的更新也相对缓慢，迟迟未能完成搭建飞轮。再加上不先进的 ve(3,3) 交易费分配给选民，反而让团队通过手动干预获取了一部分投票权（权力的诱惑，谁舍得放手呢）。

但横向比较，虽略有不足，却远胜下层。比如 ARB 的领头羊 Camelot，在呼喊了一年后仍未在投票规模上进行分配激励。

Cakepie/Magpie 团队在 BSC 上的能力十分罕见，在其他链的 subDAO 上也非常成功。虽然 Thena 在其他链上尚未证明自身，但从产品角度来看，速度和质量都超过了 Velo/Aero 系列。

既然在 BSC 上这些产品和开发者基础更强，为何却没有达到类似于 Base 的成就？甚至这一轮 Mantle 的 ve(3,3) DEX Moe 都能搅动一些波澜，而 BSC 却无动于衷？

只要稍加研究，就会惊讶地发现，币安对此支持不是零，而是负面的… 是负面的…

没错，一方面上述项目没有像 Aero 那样获得投资和上币的支持，另一方面如图所示，明显带有币安标记的地址和另一个被推测为币安的地址（根据 Cake 社区的猜测）共同锁定了 26% 的 veCAKE，直接与生态项目争夺利益。毕竟每轮的分红和激励都是有限的，币安手中所持的增多，生态项目手中的就会减少。

Pancake 团队拿走一大半的投票权，币安再拿走另一部分，效果立即大打折扣。通常情况下这些都是用于支持生态项目的，但现在不但没有支持生态，反而直接与生态项目抢夺利润，币安难道还缺少 Pancake 的收入分红吗…

```html ```

The price of the reporting source has gone through a round of rising, and with its unique strength, it has supported a token with a market value as high as hundreds of millions of dollars, showing its strength, which not only shows its strong strength, but also brings positive external influence, which further activates the ecosystem. In contrast, even if the wind blows down in this round, there is no movement. What is the gap? This paper will take this as a starting point to deeply discuss the gap ecology displayed by the two centralized exchanges in this round. The reason for the support is very simple, as shown in the following figure. In the past, the project directly encouraged miners, for example, a project with a value of US dollars. The miners may get additional US dollars from the transaction fee, and get a total of US dollars. However, under such a system, this US dollar was used to bribe the miners to distribute the tokens with higher value, for example, the project party still paid the US dollar lock-in and got the actual income of US dollars, while the miners got the incentive of US dollars doubled. The higher the price, the higher the incentive value. The higher the incentives that high-ecological projects can enjoy, the higher the fundamentals of ecological projects will be, and the higher the value of bribe tokens will be, the higher the income will be, and the more optimistic the price will be, forming a positive circular ecology. In addition, if the projects on the chain are directly stimulated, on the one hand, it is easy to become offline relationships, on the other hand, it is inconvenient to publicly stimulate those local dogs and memetics, and these projects have the flow and realize the unlicensed incentives of the ecological chain through support, because any project can further amplify the incentive effect. The benefits brought by this practice to ordinary developers are unmatched by official incentives. Looking back to see if there are similar products, the answer is yes, and from the perspective of developers and products, it can be said that it is better than the enhanced version of the two-wheel drive that supports centralized liquidity, which can play a stronger positive circulation effect, and its ceiling is also higher. The ecological suspension label ends, and the label is missing. Although we criticized the organization in the past, it is not as good as boasting and the update is relatively slow and late. The late completion of the construction of the flywheel, coupled with the distribution of the advanced transaction fees to the voters, has led the team to gain part of the temptation of voting power through manual intervention. Who is willing to let go? However, although the horizontal comparison is slightly insufficient, it is far better than the lower level, such as the leader, who has not yet distributed the voting scale after shouting for one year. The ability to motivate the team is very rare and very successful in other chains. Although it has not yet proved itself in other chains, the speed and quality have surpassed the series from the product point of view. Since these products and developers have a stronger foundation in the world, why haven't they achieved similar achievements? Even this round can stir up some waves but be indifferent. As long as you do a little research, you will be surprised to find that the support of Coin Security is not zero, but negative. Yes, on the one hand, the above-mentioned projects have not received investment and coin support like that. On the other hand, as shown in the figure, the address marked with Coin Security and another address presumed to be Coin Security are directly locked together according to community speculation. Competing for benefits with ecological projects, after all, the dividends and incentives in each round are limited. The increase in the hands of ecological projects will reduce the voting rights of the ecological team, and then the other part will be greatly reduced. Usually, these are used to support ecological projects, but now instead of supporting ecology, they directly compete with ecological projects for profits. Is it puzzling that the press release is still missing in ecology? The focus of the last stage is the battle, such as The war between the establishment and the purchase to control governance and support is a basic common sense for experienced players. This model has been adopted in this round, and even depends on this behavior. Does the resources invested in the project flow to better projects and what is the difference compared with those supported by investment and money? Regardless of the quality of these projects that have long been criticized, giving a penny can bring three points of ecological incentives. Anze directly invests a lot of money, but it is easy to form adverse selection for developers. In fact, adverse selection has already started to operate, and developers have begun to leave their jobs. The team has also focused on the innovation of new projects. Although most of the benefits will eventually flow back to the land, how can the owner stay in a chain that lacks synergy for a long time? To sum up, the main difference lies in spending a penny on projects that have positive externalities to the ecology and continuously attracting high-quality developers. Putting resources into projects that lack positive externalities, a lot of money is wasted, but it interferes with ecological projects with positive externalities, which leads to the departure of high-quality developers. This paper only takes this as an example to explain, but the problems reflected are representative. There is no separate coin issuance, and the recent performance is stronger than that of the whole market, but this trend still needs imagination. If the chain can be made more flexible, the rising space will be further expanded, and we will continue to evaluate and observe the subsequent changes. 比特币今日价格行情网_okx交易所app_永续合约_比特币怎么买卖交易_虚拟币交易所平台

注册有任何问题请添加 微信：MVIP619 拉你进入群

文章转载注明 网址：https://netpsp.com/?id=63849