Total Vibes Locked price

Author: mteam.eth Compiler: Deep Tide TechFlow Any successful blockchain must create a flywheel effect that looks like this: Economic advancements (e.g., TVL, price, revenue, transaction volume, etc.) must bring attention and visibility to the chain to: Funding new apps, new developers learning about the technology, and new users being able to use everything we've built to improve their lives will inevitably bring: innovation, as well as infrastructure and application improvements to increase efficiency and explore new use cases and architectures. Collaboration is especially critical in the innovation phase, but it also often spreads teams apart due to natural incentives. Innovation drives economic progress, and the cycle starts again. The problem with Ethereum is simple – we break every part of this flywheel. Note: This article discusses Ethereum's high-level technology roadmap and does not focus on the societal roadmap. The two must be combined to get the full picture. First, accept the question New apps, developers, and users are all on L2! Innovation happens on L2! Economic progress is also shifting towards L2. If these L2s are able to generate feedback on the flywheel, this is not a problem for Ethereum, but this tends to be uncommon. Where is the root cause of the flywheel break? Ethereum (circa 2020) believes that scaling through rollups is the only way to scale, and grossly overestimates the contribution of L2 to Ethereum's overall flywheel. Rollups are seen as a scaling solution. Compared to sharding, Rollups appear simpler, avoid diluting the security of Ethereum L1, and can even lead to better composition. But rollup isn't just a scaling architecture, it's also an incentive architecture. A simplified logical chain might look something like this: We need to scale Ethereum. Some form of sharding is necessary to scale a blockchain with the characteristics we need. In protocol execution, sharding is overly complex and has other problems. As a result, rollups are the only way to scale Ethereum. In my opinion, point 2 here is the first major mistake. It is empirically obvious that we are wrong (at least to some extent). For example, both Solana and Monad have shown reasonable scaling roadmaps that don't involve any form of sharding. At the same time, many of Ethereum's core developers have proven that we can push L1 performance further than we do now. While I don't believe one chain can fit all, I think we got to this endgame before we pursued L1 scaling opportunities. The fourth point in this reasoning is also insufficient. We failed to properly assess the potential drawbacks of a rollup-centric roadmap for the L1 network effects flywheel. Ideal for flywheels I believe we can reframe the network effects flywheel like this: L2 should not siphon network effects out of the flywheel, but rather accelerate the flow between each network effect. In concrete terms, this means: Provides virtually unlimited flexible scaling as an overflow Drive customization, specialization, and bold experimentation Engage users and developers Increase the total revenue of the Ethereum ecosystem as well as the revenue of Ethereum L1 itself Maintain a high degree of combinability with Ethereum This interaction had the desired effect for both Ethereum and L2 – a rising tide lifts all boats. Slides of my presentation at "Sequencing Day" in November 2024 Solid foundation To effectively restart the flywheel, we need a powerful L1. An L1 worth combining. An ETH worth holding in your vault. A focal point for innovation. How? The answer couldn't be simpler. Actively extend L1. We started with innovation at the L1 level. There are three reasons for this: Extending L1 increases network effects under the ideal flywheel Scaling L1 raises the barrier to competition for any L2 Extending L1 is good for L2! (especially the kind I'll talk about in the next part) Most of you reading this article probably understand what scaling L1 means in practice, but the core is to increase TPS and gas per second while decreasing slot time. We have to make Ethereum L1 the most robust settlement network, yes, but also an execution network. Combined, that's the solid foundation that L2 needs. Let the rollup come back As L1 expands and builds its own network effects, the time spent optimizing L2 to contribute to the ideal flywheel is not to be wasted. There are a few things that need to be balanced here: Ethereum gives Rollups the impression that they will be prioritized in Ethereum. Rollups have managed to grow their own network effects. Any shift that regresses to L1 expansion must be careful not to completely alienate the primary L2 (although some L2s have no reason to exist in the first place and should definitely die). I'm proposing a simple rollup design: Rollups use Ethereum for data availability (DA). Rollups are executed using Ethereum. This means that it is a native Rollup. Rollups are sorted using Ethereum. This means that it is a rollup-based platform. Rollup uses ETH as its native gas token. Rollups of this design are called "Ultrasound Rollups" and "Based on + Native Rollups". I have already written about them in detail! "Ultrasound Rollups" are not yet possible on Ethereum. To enable its native part, Ethereum needs to add a new opcode, the Execution Engine Opcode, via a hard fork. There are also some practical issues with sorted-based design, all of which are closely related to extending L1. Assuming we can achieve this, what do we get? Ultrasound Rollups contribute to Ethereum's network effects flywheel by maintaining composability and enabling customization. Their combined scaling capabilities are theoretically so powerful that any one ultrasound rollup can push execution like MegaETH or RISE. The Ultrasound Rollup is not a step backwards, but a step forward. The synergy between Ultrasound Rollups and Ethereum is so strong that I see it as an extension of Ethereum's network effects. Solana's philosophy on network scaling is correct, but Ultrasound Rollups aren't just about increasing Ethereum's capabilities, they're Ethereum's network in their own right. There is a possibility for existing rollups to transition to ultrasound rollups. In fact, some teams have already committed to exploring this option further. New rollups and appchains should prioritize this direction. In this way, a unified Ethereum ecosystem can achieve "Universal Synchronous Composability", which brings insane scalability while also having unlimited expressive power. In this ecosystem, user and developer activity takes place on L1 or specialized rollups. Important and controversial states may remain at L1. Developers don't need to focus on the underlying gaps between chains to build cross-chain applications. Users experience Chain Abstraction within Ethereum's scaled economic zone. This is the era of Ethereum's consolidation. From "many choices" to "obvious choices" Ethereum is building top-of-the-line data availability (DA), sorting-based rollups are outputting our ever-improving sorting technology, and native rollups will provide superior execution capabilities. Ethereum L1 integrates the core rollup service into a unified ultrasound rollup. While the marketplace is still permissionless and the chain can remain modular, Ethereum itself provides such an important and well-established service that it becomes irrelevant to any competitor. In this model, the accumulation of value (in the form of fees) becomes simple and straightforward: providing the most valuable services, accessing the largest synchronous economic zone, the strongest economic security, the most censorship-resistant ordering, the most reliable settlement layer, and the most secure data availability. The narrative also naturally forms: "Ethereum is the best" – > Ethereum is indeed the best. Extend L1. Let the rollup come back. Integrate everything. And roll it out as soon as possible.

Why can the TRON stablecoin USDD maintain stable growth and TVL? Recently, someone asked me, principal, why USDD can be so hard, maintain a high annualized while the price is stable and steady growth, I thought about it, looked at USDD's TVL, it is indeed very stable, TVL has always remained at about 400 million, then there can only be another popular science article. Why is the price of USDD so stable? 1/ PSM exchange module, at present, this is the greatest Mint and launch mechanism of stablecoins, which can always be exchanged 1:1 without wear and tear, when the USDD price is lower than 1USDT, someone will buy arbitrage, and when the USDD price is higher than 1USDT, someone will sell arbitrage, ensuring that the USDD price will always = 1USDT. 2/ Over-collateralized minting mechanism, anyone minting USDD through TRX, sTRX, USDT must use excess value minting to ensure price stability and avoid liquidation risks. What is the reason for the steady growth of USDD? 1/ TRONDAO maintains a high APY subsidy, and there is no risk of mining and selling, but it is directly subsidized by the TRONDAO Foundation with income, which has no impact on USDD itself. 2/ The PSM and overcollateralization mechanisms ensure liquidity for minting and exiting, reducing liquidation risk, while the auction mechanism avoids serial liquidations. 3/ TRON has built a diversified stablecoin system composed of USDT, USDC, TUSD, USDJ, USDD, and USD1, among which the issuance of USDT has surpassed the Ethereum ecosystem. This strong ecological foundation provides USDD with a user base and market trust. 4/ USDD 2.0 has been optimized in terms of security, decentralization, and stability, introducing real-time collateral adjustment and predictive analytics, and enhancing its ability to resist market risks. It provides a guarantee for the stability of USDD in extreme market conditions. So students, don't worry about USDD unanchoring anymore, this time you want Brother Sun's earnings, Brother Sun really doesn't want your principal, if you don't believe it, Aite will give him a look and let him say a few words. @justinsuntron @usddio #TRONEcoStar

Hindsight Narrative: Massive ETH move was inevitable because it has top stables share, enterprises are building there, largest TVL by far

#169 • MANTRA ══════════════ $OM $0.5012 🟢🟢🟢 +38.0% #MC $486.8M #FDV $840.7M 1.7 MC #TVL $573.0K 0.0 MC 🟢 +2.1% #VOL $342.8M 0.7 MC

Ignore the noise from traditional finance adopting blockchain. This has absolutely nothing to do with the coins in your hand, not even BTC. The Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) tried as early as 2018 to put the entire share registry of the stock exchange on a public blockchain, but it ultimately came to nothing. In 2018, Australia's Open Market trading platform and subsequent licensed forex platforms (schemes) allowed direct crypto trading and even crypto deposits (the method was to deposit crypto, which was instantly converted to fiat currency, and then you could buy crypto again—essentially incurring slippage losses twice). Stablecoins and regional stablecoins were used for payment trials by ANZ Bank in 2022, and government bonds were issued on Ethereum in the same year. But it was all in vain. The so-called billions in TVL (Total Value Locked) were just a few accounts moving numbers from one side of the traditional balance sheet to the other. For them, using blockchain is a cost, and their real profit model is charging management fees on TVL. Therefore, yield farming protocols that allow free entry and exit without charging management fees on principal are an existential threat to them. Market prices are determined solely by the funds entering this market. Every cycle in the crypto space teaches us that any buzzword with traditional financial value inclinations—if it becomes popular among people who have never made money in a crypto-native market formed by that trend—will inevitably fail to take off. Unless a global war leads to crypto mass adoption, financial nihilism will dominate the globe for the next generation. Especially in crypto, only "real industries" that provide practical services for this "nihilism" are meaningful "real industries."