It's quite unexpected that RGB++ has just been launched, and UTXO Stack has also been launched at the same time. I like the technical superpowers of the CKB Nervos team. Let me say two simple words first:

1) People often ask me, what do you think of the development potential of CKB? My judgment logic is very simple: as long as you think that BTC layer2 has market space, CKB will definitely have a place. Because its programmability is really strong.

The reason why the technology iteration is fast is directly related to its powerful technical bottom layer. It is not an exaggeration to call CKB a "substitute chain" for BTC. The "substitute" defined here does not mean "replacement". Under the modular idea, it is more like an Execution layer with functional supplements.

2) At first glance, UTXO Stack is very similar to Ethereum's OP Stack stack strategy. The fact is. The significance of OP Stack to Ethereum is only seen as "one-click chain launch", but this is only superficial. The real value of OP Stack is to consolidate the position of Rollup layer2 in Ethereum's expansion strategy.

Now CKB has brought out the UTXO Stack, which seems to be a flag for the layer2 of the UTXO structure. It seems that in the BTC field, EVM-Compatible layer2 and UTXO layer2 are about to start a head-on confrontation.

3) I believe that many people will be amazed at CKB's technical landing capabilities. RGB++ was launched when it was still debating the trade-off between privacy and practicality. This is very important. In the BTC field, there are too many unresolved gameplays that have not really demonstrated the value of landing, from colored coins to Ordinals ecology to Taproot Assets. The difference of CKB is that "RGB client verification" has been quickly implemented.

After the implementation, there will be ecological asset issuance gameplay and ecological project development relay, which will bring different perspectives and evaluation standards.

Note: For more content, I will talk about it in detail when I have time. To be honest, I really hope that BTC layer2 can flourish before and after the halving and become lively again. In addition to the MeMe that pops up from time to time, there has not been a long-term mainstream narrative boom for a long time.

I watched the heated discussion about "layer3" in the overseas community and found it particularly interesting: some people saw the inter-chain nesting dolls where data was repeatedly compressed, some saw the atomic communication capability of ZK as the underlying technical architecture between multi-chain applications, and some saw the wider application scenarios of Eigenlayer's AVS staking + reward and punishment mechanism. How to understand the extended significance of layer3? Let me explain my understanding:

1) Since both layer2 and layer3 theoretically rely on the main network settlement, a common assumption is that layer3 first compresses the data and then submits it to layer2 for secondary compression, which is equivalent to Rollup on Rollup. This method has been criticized and questioned because once you imagine layer4 and layer5 with a similar architecture, this method will be squeezed into a dead end, after all, data cannot be compressed all the time.

2) In fact, the interaction between layer3 and layer2 may not necessarily require compression and recompression. In the layer3 strategies planned by Arbitrum, zkSync and other layer2 stacks, layer3 is defined as a specific application chain, which will be highly autonomous in terms of consensus mechanism, Gas Fee selection, economic model, etc. The problem lies here. Autonomy does not mean complete independence. Its underlying architecture is likely to be constrained by the basic infra built by layer2, for example, sharing key components such as Sequencer and Prover with the layer2 chain.

This means that layer3 transactions will be packaged directly through layer2's Sequencer and submitted to the main network for final status confirmation. Layer2 is more about the interoperability Function between layer3 chains. The so-called "settlement layer" is only the settlement of data packaging, not the final deterministic settlement in the true sense. Layer3 transactions also need to be queued for packaging on layer2, and it makes sense to treat the layer3 application chain as a special Sequencer pipeline.

3) If we assume that layer3 is a form of inter-chain nesting, then the scalability is naturally limited, but such a practical approach is only a theoretical assumption. If layer2 and layer3 share key components such as Sequencer and Prover, there are many ways to expand the multi-chain capacity of layer3 horizontally, especially after the inter-chain interoperability is improved.

1. As @gluk64, the founder of zkSync, said, based on ZK technology as the basis for inter-chain interoperability, since ZK technology allows two Counterparty to verify the authenticity of information without revealing specific information, when layer3 crosses chain assets to layer2, the atomic transfer of assets between chains can be realized through the ZK bridge, without the need to stack inter-chain consensus or other processing.

The bridge technology supported by ZK technology can provide a foundation for the multi-chain expansion of layer3, because no matter how many layer3s appear, they are directly "technical settlement" with layer2 through ZK Proof, and will not affect the relationship between layer2 and the main network;

2. As explained by @sreeramkannan, the founder of Eigenlayer, let Eigenlayer's AVS active nodes coordinate the consensus between different multi-chains across chains, which is equivalent to allowing the same batch of nodes to participate in the consensus construction between multiple chains. In this way, as long as AVS is given a layer of reward and punishment Slash mechanism, the possibility of nodes doing evil by themselves will be reduced in theory. When the node approves the flow of assets from layer3 to layer2, if there is any evil behavior, it will be Slashed.

This kind of reward and punishment economic mechanism will also be applied to the trust problem in the multi-chain environment. Although it cannot be 100% trustworthy like ZK, it can roughly create a trustworthy environment built on the economic model.

4) @VitalikButerin also jumped out to reiterate his point of view in response to the discussion of everyone's own position. Layer3 cannot be simply stacked and extended for layer2, which cannot bring effective scalability. Because layer3 relies on layer2 for infrastructure, and layer2 cannot achieve endless expansion, let alone layer3. But in some specific scenarios, such as privacy, layer3 specific privacy application chains can solve the privacy preference of some transactions.

In short, layer3 is a highly customized function with the possibility of customized expansion. In my opinion, the expansion of layer3 should be customized according to the needs of application scenarios. The development paradigm of one-click chain launch is not feasible in the multi-chain direction of layer3 application.

It seems that @GoGalaGames on the gaming circuit is also starting to regroup. To be precise, we plan to build a series of ecological plans in an attempt to reshape the industry's understanding of it and make everyone realize that Gala is not just a platform token that bundles several games. So, what does it plan to do? With personal comments:

1) DePIN, of course Gala does not do DePIN natively, but it does make a great contribution to the IPFS DHT network. Because decentralized storage can ensure the security of game data, although dePIN is not directly implemented, the gaming industry will have a huge demand for dePIN infrastructure, which is also an important scenario for the implementation of DePIN;

2) GalaChain, the biggest competitiveness of the game platform lies in its attraction to game developers, so the integration service of to B must be in place. GalaChain lowers its participation threshold and does not even require Solidity, only the Typescript programming language. can be realised. Indeed, continuously lowering the entry barrier for developers, improving development efficiency, enriching the platform development environment, and having an active developer ecosystem are the foundation for platforms like Gala to have room for development.

3) Gala plans to build a fair form of issuing tokens. Different from ICO and IEO, the decentralized environment and process based on the Gala node itself can ensure that the issuance of tokens is more fair and transparent. How to understand it? This is actually a set of operating methods for asset issuance, which can provide developers who settle in Gala with early incubation support such as "traffic, users, funds, resources" and other key steps to solve the "hot start" problem. And according to its disclosed information, 6 companies have signed up with GalaChain for development.

4) C-side users of the Gala ecosystem can reserve their special domain names in the ecosystem through Burn $GALA . It seems that it only gives users certain network personalized privileges, but it actually sets a precedent for burning Gala to achieve deflation. After all, there are too many scenarios in the game platform where tokens are burned for privileges. Especially after the various vertical directions such as games and music are opened up, this kind of personalized "privilege" service will be crucial, just like the significance of a "skin" to King of Glory, so the subsequent impact of this mechanism design cannot be underestimated.

Personally, I like to see that some old chains can reorganize their narratives, find their correct positioning, and build in a more web3 Native way. This is also the beginning of the bull market's expansion of imagination.

After reading the latest announcement of @ParticleNtwrk, I discovered that it aims to be a new generation of "modular public chain" based on the "chain abstraction" advertised by the industry, which is equivalent to an enhanced version with a full-chain account layer + asset settlement layer + user experience layer layerZero. How to understand it?

1) The Wallet Abstraction wallet-side abstraction service provided by Particle involves the WasS heterogeneous environment framework, OAuth standard web2 social login, etc., allowing users to access complex blockchain ecological environments based on a unified standard framework and experience, which can greatly reduce costs. User participation threshold;

Particle was originally based on this B-side service and has accumulated a very broad developer ecosystem and user group base. According to its disclosed data, there are currently 17 million Users and 900 dApps. Previously, Particle’s inscription campaign was able to reach the entire network. It’s obvious that it created such a huge momentum;

2) Particle has done systematic packaging and customized development on Account Abstraction. It has developed cross-chain multiple interactive experiences such as multi-signature and payment on behalf of EVM isomorphic chains using technologies such as Paymaster and zkEVM at the bottom layer, targeting EVM and non-EVM. To face the challenge of full-chain coverage of the environment, Particle launched BTC Connect in a targeted manner, connecting 56 heterogeneous chains, accumulating more than $2B in relevant assets, achieving a perfect link with the BTC ecosystem, and has also been adopted by many BTC layer2 projects such as Merlin and BSquare. application;

3) Particle launched Universal Account, which includes unified accounts, unified liquidity, and unified Gas Token. It is quite a concept of "chain within chain" on all chains, which is equivalent to jumping from the original technical back-end service to the front desk. It has unified users and traffic aggregation center, and used a new "chain" to serve B-side service customers and C-side users, achieving a gorgeous upgrade of "public chain" and completing the last link of its B2B2C.

In general, Particle Network has a very clear route in Roadmap design. By continuing to provide the industry with a unified technical framework and development service standards, it has been upgraded from a dedicated technical service provider to one that can be implemented for multiple heterogeneous chains. Unifying the "account layer", one can realize a unified "settlement layer" for multiple decentralized liquidity pools.

Particle, which has always been determined to solve "abstract" problems, finally has a less abstract industry understanding and positioning: to be a new generation of "modular" public chain that provides a standard and unified user experience based on the abstract characteristics of the chain.