Nasan南山

In the midst of fierce competition among numerous public chains, Vanar Chain is carving out a unique path of its own. Not only is it a high-performance Layer 1 blockchain, but it is also a Web3 infrastructure tailored for mass adoption.

First of all, environmental protection is a major highlight of Vanar. In today's world where blockchain energy consumption is highly controversial, Vanar has chosen to collaborate deeply with Google Cloud, utilizing its green energy data centers to run nodes. This makes Vanar one of the few blockchains that can truly achieve carbon neutrality, clearing obstacles for global major brands that prioritize ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) to settle in.

1

1

6

It tries to solve the Ethereum scalability problem using ZK technology. But how wide is this road? How should the token economy be designed? Can the ecosystem come to life? I'm a bit curious.
Technical implementation: The 'translator' of ZK-Rollup

ConsenSys is making ZK EVM, with 'EVM equivalent' in the name, which roughly means they want smart contracts to run on LINEA as they do on Ethereum. It sounds good, but it's hard to implement. The core of ZK-Rollup is to process transactions off-chain, then generate a proof, and send it back on-chain. This proof must be trusted by the Ethereum mainnet.

LINEA uses tools like ConsenSys's ZoKrates. The threshold for ZK technology is high, but the benefit is that in theory, it can achieve transaction privacy and low cost. The question is, what does EVM equivalence mean? Can all Solidity code run? Is the virtual machine layer aligned? These details determine whether it can attract developers.

First sentence:
“MORPHO is like an experienced driver, turning the curveball of interest rates in DeFi lending into a straight line.”
Main text:

My first encounter with MORPHO was on a certain summer afternoon in DeFi. At that time, various lending protocols were competing for liquidity, and the interest rate models were a tangled mess. Users were either being harvested by high rates or treated as sheep by low rates. MORPHO's point-to-pool hybrid model suddenly made me feel like this thing had installed GPS for interest rates, directly connecting the previously winding borrowing paths into a highway.

1. Technical Implementation: Lower interest rates are not always better

Ultimately, it acts like a translator between multiple chains, and like a postman, specifically responsible for sending messages and assets from one chain to another. This kind of multi-chain interoperability is currently a hot topic. Major public chains are eager to make themselves the center of the universe, but they can't communicate with each other, and the efficiency is painfully low. XPL popped up at this time, trying to solve this problem.

I need to break down what it has done. On the surface, it is a protocol, but the technology behind it is actually quite complex. It uses state channels and zero-knowledge proofs, which sound impressive, but the actual effect depends on how the code performs. To be honest, I have a reserved attitude towards this kind of technology. If a protocol relies solely on theory and does not solve practical problems, it is better not to pursue it. I pay attention to XPL not because it is a technological miracle, but because it may truly be able to break down the barriers between public chains, which is a real pain point.

My connection with INJ has to start with the topic of cross-chain functionality. Injective is all about modularity, focusing on flexibility and adaptability. Just think about it; in the DeFi space, everyone is crowding onto the same path, causing a lot of congestion. Injective aims to pave a new way, specifically lighting the green light for derivatives and high-frequency trading.

The technical architecture of this chain is quite interesting; it uses order book matching, which is unique in the Cosmos ecosystem. The advantage of an order book is that it offers fast trading speeds and deep liquidity, making it particularly suitable for market makers and high-frequency traders. Moreover, Injective also supports the IBC protocol, which means it can interact seamlessly with other chains in the Cosmos ecosystem. Just imagine, your assets can flow across chains without a hitch; isn't that appealing?

Speaking of which, it reminds me of the self-service ordering machine in the coffee shop. In the past, I used to level up by defeating monsters in games and completing tasks for rewards, which felt quite dull. Now, the YGG Play Launchpad allows me to unlock game tokens while playing, just like an ordering machine lets you order and taste at the same time, saving the waiting time.

From a technical perspective, what attracts me most about this project is the design of its token economic model. Tokens are not only used to incentivize players to complete tasks but also serve as a medium for transactions within the game. This design gives the tokens actual utility rather than being just empty promises. However, there is a concern: if the circulation of tokens is too large, could it lead to value dilution? I tend to believe that as long as the game has enough appeal, the value of the tokens can remain stable.

The intuition of a blockchain game PM tells me that the Lorenzo Protocol is not simple. It brings the traditional financial concept of "fixed deposits" onto the chain, using new certificates like stBTC/enzoBTC to unlock yields for native BTC. In simple terms, it's like turning the gold buried at the bottom of a box into a digital deposit that can generate money.

Compared to those established solutions based on wBTC, Lorenzo's innovation lies in the details. First, let's look at the staking mechanism, which allows BTC holders to directly stake native coins, bypassing the WBTC conversion. It's like skipping the hassle of withdrawing cash from an ATM and then depositing it, doubling the efficiency. Secondly, the yield structure is more flexible. Besides the basic staking fee, there are governance token rewards, equivalent to giving stocks for deposits. Thirdly, the ambition for multi-chain expansion is significant, and in the future, it may shift from Ethereum to other chains to avoid the gas fee hell.

GAIB is quite interesting. It has created a dual-token system of AID/sAID, connecting the cash flow of real-world infrastructure like AI and robots through on-chain tokens. In simple terms, AID is like the 'dollar' of AI, while sAID is your 'certificate'. If you stake AID, you can get sAID, and then continuously distribute real-world computing power earnings and robot financing profits to holders through DeFi protocols. It sounds like moving real-world earnings onto the blockchain and then distributing them through DeFi.

I need to first explain my understanding of it. The core of GAIB is 'tokenizing real-world cash flow', which is quite challenging, but GAIB attempts to bridge AI, robots, stable assets, and DeFi using AID and sAID. For example, traditional assets like U.S. Treasury bonds and stablecoins, along with earnings from AI computing power, are all distributed to holders through on-chain protocols. It's somewhat like plugging an 'extractor' into power, allowing the water flow (earnings) to be delivered to users through pipes (on-chain protocols).

When I first saw GAIB's dual-token design, I was a bit stunned. AID and sAID are a pair, one manages the money and the other manages the certificates. In simple terms, it's turning the old relics of U.S. Treasury bonds and the cash flows generated by AI robots into something usable on-chain. This idea reminds me of the electronic piggy bank I played with as a child; you throw coins in, and the machine automatically records it, even calculating interest.

2. Why now? The chemical reaction of AI + RWA

The GAIB collateral structure is very clear, with U.S. Treasury bonds, stablecoins, and AI robot cash flows each accounting for a portion. I checked, and the U.S. Treasury bond portion has the highest share, effectively providing a secure foundation for the entire project. The stablecoin part acts like a cushion for the system, while the AI robot cash flow component is the most interesting; it also includes the profits generated by machines working. This combination reminds me of a sandwich, where U.S. Treasury bonds are the bottom layer of bread, stablecoins are the filling in the middle, and AI cash flows are the top layer of bread. Only when combined do they create flavor.

When I first saw GAIB's dual-token design, I was a bit stunned. AID and sAID are a pair, one manages the money and the other manages the certificates. In simple terms, it's turning the old relics of U.S. Treasury bonds and the cash flows generated by AI robots into something usable on-chain. This idea reminds me of the electronic piggy bank I played with as a child; you throw coins in, and the machine automatically records it, even calculating interest.

2. Why now? The chemical reaction of AI + RWA

The GAIB collateral structure is very clear, with U.S. Treasury bonds, stablecoins, and AI robot cash flows each accounting for a portion. I checked, and the U.S. Treasury bond portion has the highest share, effectively providing a secure foundation for the entire project. The stablecoin part acts like a cushion for the system, while the AI robot cash flow component is the most interesting; it also includes the profits generated by machines working. This combination reminds me of a sandwich, where U.S. Treasury bonds are the bottom layer of bread, stablecoins are the filling in the middle, and AI cash flows are the top layer of bread. Only when combined do they create flavor.

GAIB uses AI dollars AID and staking certificate sAID to chain U.S. Treasury bonds, stable assets, and computing power yield. This reminds me of the relationship between a plumber and a smart faucet. Cash flow is like water pressure, and the token is the regulating valve.

Compared to stablecoins like USDT/USDC, GAIB has additional sources of yield. But it is not as aggressive as USD.AI. It is more like exchanging dollars in a safe for a smart financial management account. I need to take a closer look at how its yield structure is designed.

The design of GAIB's sAID token is quite clever. It serves as both a yield certificate and a governance tool. This dual role is rare in DeFi. I guess they want to enhance token stickiness in this way.

Last year when the ETH mainnet gas fee soared to nearly $50, I started paying attention to this track. Now, looking at LINEA, this move is quite clever, playing around with ConsenSys's zkEVM.

First, regarding the technology, I always feel that just saying 'EVM equivalence' is too vague. It's like telling a friend, 'My computer is powerful,' but not explaining how it's powerful—how would your friend believe you? LINEA has achieved over 99% compatibility and has open-sourced the validator code, which is like taking apart a car and showing it to people—at least you won't question in the middle of the night whether your car has suddenly turned into a donkey cart.

Speaking of the economic model, this project is really interesting. They implemented a dynamic destruction mechanism; the more frequent the transactions, the greater the amount destroyed. Imagine this like a mall holding a promotion: the more customers there are, the bigger the discounts. But there's a subtle balance here—destroying too much would dilute future profits, while too little wouldn't provide enough incentive. I've observed that they control the monthly destruction amount to about 1% of the circulation, which is a smart pace.

The interest rate model is the lifeblood of the entire protocol. MORPHO's pair pool mixing model, on the surface, seems to be a compromise between fixed and variable rates. But upon closer thought, it resembles providing users with a possibility for dynamic adjustments. Imagine this as an automatically adjusting thermostat that neither locks completely at a certain temperature nor fails to respond to external environments.

However, the complexity of this model may bring some issues. Users need to understand the conversion logic between different interest rates, which could increase operational difficulty. From a risk management perspective, whether this design is transparent enough and whether it allows users to clearly understand the actual returns on funds are questions worth considering.