And here there’s also a particularly powerful moat logic: user mindshare!
The extra future will definitely be a “multi-L2” market, because each company’s business logic is different. If they want to put things on-chain, they must choose an L2 and design it according to their own business. It’s simply not feasible to have a generic L1 send a token and then do business-logic design in a contract.
If they don’t choose an L2, they have to face all the issues of cold-start: everything from building fundamental infrastructure to liquidity problems.
All this distribution and liquidity will inevitably happen on Uniswap—this is also Ethereum’s biggest advantage.
As for other DEXes, if they can still survive, their final destination is to play the role of a liquidity venue within some vertical chain, with no other choice.
What about aggregated DEXs? That’s even worse. As competition intensifies, various DEXes will gradually exit the historical stage. If an aggregated DEX is aggregating, who are they aggregating? What they can do is only the solver layer—making quotes more favorable. But don’t forget UniswapX is also working on this layer…
If we push the reasoning further—what about the wallet entry point? After all, wallets are C-end products that control the entry. But also don’t forget Uniswap’s collaboration over the past year: many terminal products have now integrated Uniswap APIs, such as Rabby Wallet, X Layer, and others. That means when users use these products, they’re not aware of Uniswap, but the liquidity is still provided by Uniswap.
……
With further development, it will ultimately turn into a situation where various applications rely on Uniswap’s liquidity to start up; if they move away, it’s hard for them to launch. Conversely, Uniswap also relies on these applications to provide it with liquidity and user traffic.
The extra future will definitely be a “multi-L2” market, because each company’s business logic is different. If they want to put things on-chain, they must choose an L2 and design it according to their own business. It’s simply not feasible to have a generic L1 send a token and then do business-logic design in a contract.
If they don’t choose an L2, they have to face all the issues of cold-start: everything from building fundamental infrastructure to liquidity problems.
All this distribution and liquidity will inevitably happen on Uniswap—this is also Ethereum’s biggest advantage.
As for other DEXes, if they can still survive, their final destination is to play the role of a liquidity venue within some vertical chain, with no other choice.
What about aggregated DEXs? That’s even worse. As competition intensifies, various DEXes will gradually exit the historical stage. If an aggregated DEX is aggregating, who are they aggregating? What they can do is only the solver layer—making quotes more favorable. But don’t forget UniswapX is also working on this layer…
If we push the reasoning further—what about the wallet entry point? After all, wallets are C-end products that control the entry. But also don’t forget Uniswap’s collaboration over the past year: many terminal products have now integrated Uniswap APIs, such as Rabby Wallet, X Layer, and others. That means when users use these products, they’re not aware of Uniswap, but the liquidity is still provided by Uniswap.
……
With further development, it will ultimately turn into a situation where various applications rely on Uniswap’s liquidity to start up; if they move away, it’s hard for them to launch. Conversely, Uniswap also relies on these applications to provide it with liquidity and user traffic.
