zkSync will be unrivaled in the short term
At first, I had limited understanding of Arbitrum, Optimism, StarkNet, and zkSync. I followed the tutorials to try out the next three projects, but StarkNet was a bit complicated, so I gave up. My experience is:
User experience:
The Arbitrum UI is pretty standard, the transition from L1 to L2 is smooth, the DApp is also relatively smooth to use, and the gas fee is pretty standard.
The Optimim UI is quite gorgeous, and the transition from L1 to L2 is smooth. However, DApp often reports errors when using it, and the gas fee is more expensive than Arbitrum.
The zkSync UI is very simple, the transition from L1 to L2 is smooth, there is no DApp, and the gas fee is average.
Community:
Since Arbitrum clearly did not have any tokens at the time, I did not pay too much attention to it. However, Arbitrum gave me the impression that it used various marketing channels in the overseas community and the community atmosphere was also good.
I personally feel that the Optimism community is rather lax. The project owners are in charge of their own affairs and the community participation is relatively low.
The zkSync community is quite technical, the project's external information is quite realistic, and the discussions are basically about technology, which is a good thing!
At that time, the characteristics of the three projects, Arbitrum, Optimism, and zkSync, were obvious. However, from my point of view, I am more optimistic about zkSync, mainly based on the following points:
zkSync has the greatest technical difficulty, and its approach of relying entirely on mathematics is in line with the concept of decentralization. At the same time, projects that choose the right direction, rather than the simple direction, are often more likely to produce top products.
The zkSync project team has a technical background, and the project information is relatively transparent. There is no phenomenon of using some seemingly advanced publicity to fool the community, which makes it easier for people to understand the progress of the project.
The project roadmap of zkSync takes into account a solution that is 100% compatible with Ethereum, which means that its ecosystem is highly portable and can more easily attract Ethereum's project ecosystem.
The project development process of zkSync complies with software engineering practices and can explain the problem in a very simple way, which shows that the project party has solid engineering capabilities and technical foundation.
I think the development of each project was actually as I expected. The gas fee of Arbitrum Odyssey event was higher than that of Layer 1; the Optimism token issuance community could not receive it immediately, and there was a market maker incident later that was shocking. For a while, the two projects were in a mess. However, zkSync took steady steps, continuously improved the project through the iteration of the test network, and kept each time point of the roadmap.
1. zkSync token airdrop analysis
I think the ultimate goal of most people in the industry to pay attention to a project is to make money. The real charm of the Web3 era lies in the win-win situation between "buyers" and "sellers", which is mainly achieved through project tokens. As for the value of tokens, it is not within the scope of this analysis. Let's assume that the tokens of the zkSync project are valuable.
The distribution of project tokens has also evolved from ICO, IEO to airdrops as the industry develops. I think airdropping tokens is the best solution for the project and the community to grow together. As for why airdrops are the best solution, it is beyond the scope of our discussion here.
1.1 Some insights into the “chain-level” airdrop solution
I think airdrops can be divided into "chain level" (similar to web2 platforms, Taobao, JD.com, Pinduoduo) and "application level" (similar to stores on the platform, such as Durex). This distinction makes sense:
The "application level" may want to know that the client is valid, so in web3, the project party hopes that you will use Twitter, Discord, email, DID binding or other ways to torment you to give you airdrops.
The "chain level" focuses more on bringing sustainable development capabilities to the platform, and it should be all-inclusive. The subjects on the chain can be users, applications, scientists, etc. In other words, all kinds of subjects must come to my platform, so that my platform can develop more perfectly. It's like a society, there are good people and bad people, and the role of the bad group can make us more perfect laws and regulations!
From the perspective of "chain level", I think we should mainly consider the following two core points:
Decentralization. Web3 is based on blockchain, and one of the three core principles of blockchain is decentralization, which represents freedom and individual rights. Therefore, all so-called screening actions will have a negative impact on the chain. For example, to check for witches, to determine whether they are witches, a centralized judgment must be made somewhere. Making this judgment at the chain level (such as fingerprint judgment of IP addresses, browsers, and operating systems) directly destroys the core of "decentralization", which will affect the long-term development of the chain.
Time precipitation. The value of time precipitation is a more complicated issue. Let's use an example to illustrate. If a person lives in China, whether he chooses to lie down or struggle, as long as he lives in China all his life, he is valuable to society and can enjoy the dividends of this social development; however, if he was born in China, stayed in China for a few months, and then lived in other countries all his life, then this person cannot enjoy the dividends of China's social development (of course, he can enjoy everything in his country). Therefore, I think that users who spend most of their time on zkSync and users who spend a little time on zkSync and most of their time on other projects should be able to use chain transparency to identify.
1.2 Time Accumulation of zkSync
The issue of decentralization depends on the project owner. From the perspective of time, the development of the zkSync project over the past year:
1.0 Mainnet:
Use of 1.0 main network, cross-border assets from L1 to L2, account activation, transfer, NFT, Swap.
1.0 testnet (based on Rinkeby):
Before the 1.0 test network, the Rinkeby test network (now offline) was the most commonly used one, which also transferred assets from L1 to L2, activated accounts, transferred funds, NFTs, and swaps.
1.0 testnet (based on Goerli):
The 1.0 test network is now based on the Goerli test network, and the assets are also transferred from L1 to L2, activating accounts, transfers, NFTs, and Swaps.
2.0 testnet (based on Goerli):
The first 2.0 testnet announced was an experience for Uniswap.
after:
2.0 testnet in February 2022.
The 2.0 testnet will be reset in April 2022.
The 2.0 testnet will be reset in June 2022.
The 2.0 testnet will be reset in August 2022.
The 2.0 testnet will be reset in October 2022.
The 2.0 testnet will be reset in October 2022.
2 Conclusion
Based on my understanding above, I think that if zkSync chooses to reward the community at this point, all the aspects that can be evaluated are listed above.
3 Airdrop Plan Prediction
Tokens are available, otherwise there is no way to decentralize Validators. The main purpose of tokens is to achieve decentralization.
Tokens should be given to the community. The community is part of the ecosystem. It has been made clear that the entire ecosystem will receive 2/3 of the total tokens.
Checking witches is prone to centralized operations. It takes time to accompany and select users. The airdrop evaluation mainly focuses on the use of the main network and the participation of multiple rounds of test networks.
The first round of token distribution will be completed before the 2.0 mainnet is open to the public, at the earliest by the end of December 2022 and at the latest by the end of the first quarter of 2023
The token is called ZKC
