Why can't some "infrastructure ecosystems" succeed? See through the essence of infrastructure

*Author: *Crypto V, AC Capital

The Occam’s razor principle shows that everything revolves around its first nature, and in crypto, almost everyone first sex is to make a profit, and there are basically only two means: creation and distribution (issuing plates and trading), and projects that have nothing to do with it inevitably become additional leverage for both. When liquidity tightens the market to deleverage, “extra leverage” will inevitably be in trouble. This is the reason why we can basically only see exchange variant projects shining in the market at present, and similarly, an “infrastructure”, if it cannot “reduce the marginal cost of issuing orders and trading” (the more you use it, the lower the unit cost), will inevitably become a dispensable additional lever in itself. Therefore, the development of low-cost, controllable and replicable, ecological energy with money and volume, transaction exit path is conducive to control, and the use of flow tactics is the ideal type of bear market bank.

This standard allows you to see through the essence of infrastructure:

1. Wallet: traffic distribution, AA is not important, whether it will do traffic is important (customer acquisition cost);
2. AMM: Provide unlimited liquidity (market-making cost), but cannot replace CEX (on-chain transparency cannot cover the shipment of project parties and cannot reduce exit costs);
3. L2: As AC says, the essence is a cross-chain bridge + EVM side chain. The only moat is liquidity, and the bear market is something ETH Zhuang does not lack.

It can also explain why many “infrastructure” are struggling:

1. Non-EVM/RUST chain: not the development of these two systems is rare, without giving benefits, it will not attract the establishment team, and it is more likely to attract inexperienced or one-person teams, pure liveliness;
2. MPC wallet SDK: Demand project parties are generally highly customized, and third-party risks increase development costs;
3. DA layer: almost useless for starting development costs. The asset is in the settlement layer and cannot affect the market-making exit cost.

** And let you find a lot of infrastructure tracks that are not like infrastructure:**

1. Quote / Contract Scan TG Robot: Dirt Dog Discovery and Price Propagation (Customer Acquisition Cost);
2. Dexscreener: Provide contract information and K-line API, unsupported chained dogs can not be found (customer acquisition + development cost);
3. Unibot: Ostensibly a tool, it is actually a potential collective market-making tool, better aligned with the banker’s intention (or alignment by the bank) (market-making cost + exit cost).

What does it mean for retail investors and developers:**

1. For retail investors, you must firmly believe that the world is a grass team, and that there is no such god and that god, everything is just a hasty attribution and artificial creation of gods after success. Understand technology, but don’t believe in the narrative of technology: it doesn’t matter what potential technology has and what it can be used for, it matters what it can be used to do now. Bet on the ecology that is beneficial to the control cost of the bank, and play with the distribution of those who will engage in distribution;
2. For developers, the biggest sadness of developers is to accompany the scumbag ecology. Again, don’t be brainwashed by technology, don’t overthink what ecology can be used for, think more about what this ecology can do for you. Don’t lose yourself in the ecological “buidler”. Don’t fantasize that Long Aotian can change the life of an infrastructure ecology. Its fate has long been predetermined by the core team and narrative. Remember, the moment you deploy the contract, you are Zhuang.