Soros's March portfolio (non-investment advice)
DeFi Kingdom (hereinafter referred to as DFK) is the first subnet project supported by Avalanche. DFK will deploy the version of DeFi Kingdom Crystalvale (hereinafter referred to as DFK Crystal Palace) on the avalanche in the form of DFK chain.
DFK Crystal Palace will have its own token crystal, and after the sale, it will start the cash mining incentive in the form of single currency/dual currency LP of AVAX/JEWEL/CRYSTAL. Avalanche will offer AVAX tokens worth 654.38+0.5 million dollars to encourage DFK Crystal Palace. JEWEL will be used as the general gas fee for the multi-chain ecology of DeFi Kingdom, and the combustion and deflation mode will be started.
After the release of DFK Crystal Palace at the end of March, we can soon see the impact of the introduction of crystal on jewelry prices. The team's incentive design for LP pool will affect the price of JEWEL to some extent. The team has established JEWEL as the core direction of the mother currency of DFK ecological universe, so the price of JEWEL is likely to rise after the sale of DFK Crystal Palace.
The DFK team has a conscience. It has many opportunities to squeeze users, but it chose to grow with the community. The DFK project rejected the invitation of several exchanges (this was an overdraft before the game was fully developed).
At present, the team has not developed PVP and other game fighting modes, so it can't be denied that DFK is still a DeFi wearing a GameFi coat. In the early days of DFK, there was no agency to enter the market, and there was no low-priced locking chip of the agency, so there was no continuous selling pressure; What's important is that in the past three months, the DFK team has made great efforts to discuss, regardless of the loss of users, not developing games, and insisting on making their own subnets and cross-chains. This strategic choice requires courage.
At present, most of JEWEL's chips are still locked (most of the reward chips that provide LP are locked), and will be unlocked in July this year, linearly for two years.
Because the game of DFK has not been developed, there is still great uncertainty in Jewel. The deployment of DFK on the avalanche this time, first, has established the positioning of multi-chain GameFi, which is of great significance. At the valuation level, it is certainly not possible to evaluate it simply by a single game, but it will be more appropriate to evaluate it by the meta-universe. The second is to gain time, let the development team continue to develop games, and let DFK get a break and continue to live.
For the harmonious and public chain, its greatest achievement is to hatch the DFK project. DFK is almost the only harmonious game. However, due to the performance problems of harmony itself, players who have used harmony know the harmony comparison card. Since JEWEL has been established as the mother currency of DFK universe, and the mother currency is in a harmonious chain with poor performance, will it be a big worry in the future?
The future GameFi must be the further integration of multi-chain, DeFi and games. DFK is undoubtedly the best. As the most powerful competitor of AXS, DFK will give DFK2-3 years to make the market value of DFK catch up with AXS.
LUNA was the most powerful project in the public chain sector last month. As the market bottomed out in the short term, the price rebounded strongly by 65,438+000%, returned to ATH and broke a new high.
The previous guess is that all the ecological projects in luna are aimed at stabilizing UST and luna, and UST and luna will draw blood from all the ecological projects. One reason for this impression is that some tokens of luna Eco-project will be airdropped to users who promise UST and luna.
From a strategic point of view, LUNA's core strategy is to describe the grand story of "degenerate stable coins" around the stable currency UST. While the mechanism of burning luna and forging UST makes the share of UST increase, luna coin holders can also get a price increase, which is essentially to let players enjoy the bonus of increasing the market share of stable coins.
It can be seen from the experiment of BASIS/ESD algorithm to stabilize coins two years ago. Although these generations of algorithmic stable coins ended in tragic sacrifices, there was a crazy speculative frenzy at that time because of the huge upper limit of the stable currency market. Once the stable currency of an algorithm is strongly understood by a wide range of users, the return on investment is calculated as100000 times.
Luna finally won a series of coins with stable algorithm. At least at present, it is successful, and whether it can continue to increase its market share and maintain its leading position in the future needs further observation.
From the famous theory "fat protocol" put forward by USV at the beginning, to "thin protocol, fat application" put forward by Placeholder, and then to "App chain" put forward by Cosmos, the protocol theory has gone through seven or eight years of iteration.
LUNA is a very typical App chain protocol. On the surface, LUNA is a public chain, but in fact it is an application with stable currency as its core. Some people say that LUNA is worth investing because it is both a public chain and an algorithmically stable currency. So which of the two narratives, public chain and stable currency, comes first? Personally, I think the core is to stabilize the currency, and the public chain is just a shell narrative.
In other words, any application with a broad user base can make its own public chain later. Axie in 2 1 is a typical example. After becoming a leader in the field of GameFi, the team chose to leave Ethereum to build a Ronnie public chain and form a closed-loop ecology. On the one hand, it is because of the high handling fee and stretched performance of Ethereum, on the other hand, of course, self-built public chain can get greater benefits.
This is why the public chain is a grand narrative. Everything can be a public chain, as long as you have enough confidence and capital: users, funds, cash on hand.
We can vaguely see that the concept of APP Chain, which was first put forward by Cosmos, will lead a trend in the future, that is, the APP Chain protocol. As a public chain, only the explosive application of 1-2 is needed in the ecology, and the public chain itself can gain great value. The public chain conforms to APP Chain's narrative.
Judging from the composition of the public chain, stable currency, DEX and lending are the three axes of the public chain. For LUNA, a stable currency has achieved unprecedented success in history, so following this line of thinking, DEX and lending will be two major investment opportunities for LUNA's ecology.
Astroport, as the first DEX of LUNA, has also made great progress recently. Star Harbor has increased the liquidity of ecological core assets such as luna /UST/ANC, and the transaction volume has continuously broken through new highs. At present, it can be ranked as Top5 of the daily trading volume of DEX. Of course, this also benefits from LUNA's recent strong counterattack.
It is too early to recall the previous conjecture about the luna /UST blood-sucking ecological project. The development of ecological projects is gradual, and the three axes of public chain is the natural law of historical development. We just need to give ecological projects more time. Astroport has the same daily trading volume as DEX and Osmosis, while FDV has a five-fold gap. Its appearance also enables non-LUNA native players such as Ethereum to obtain the liquidity of LUNA ecological core assets without centralized exchange (converting US dollars into UST through the cross-chain bridge and then entering Astroport for purchase). To sum up, Astro is underestimated. The FDV of $654.38+000 billion is a reasonable valuation.
The competition of public chain is a continuous pulling process, and the increase or decrease of public chain TVL is an intuitive data.
TVL of public chain has its own ascending spiral. Public chain female coins are mostly PoS assets, and functional coins are mostly pledged. The pledged female currency TVL accounts for a large proportion, so as the asset price rises, TVL will also rise. But this part is TVL with water. After excluding this part of TVL, the net inflow of stable money outside the agreement is the real growth of public chain TVL.
In the past month, Terra's TVL has increased by 70%, partly due to the TVL inflow brought by Fantom's withdrawal (the reason for ac's withdrawal) and partly due to the growth of the agreement itself, which is mainly due to the stable currency deposit interest rate of 20% annualized by ANC. The deposit interest rate of the mainstream DeFi agreement is much lower than 20%. Of course, this requires a lot of subsidies from UST, and the subsidies can only last for more than 1 year. From the perspective of TVL, ANC has slightly surpassed AAVE, and their valuation has even reached $2.5 billion.
Van den is unlucky. Originally, Solidly's announcement attracted the attention of the whole industry. However, AC suddenly announced its withdrawal, which caused the price of Fantom and TVL to drop sharply. It is not surprising that the founder plays a great role in the success of the public chain. AC is an idealist and an emotional person (not derogatory). Just a little regret for Fantom. After such a long campaign, I finally got a squib.
The overall performance of TVL of ETH is stable, but due to the steady growth of TVL in LUNA/AVAX and other agreements, the proportion of TVL of ETH is declining. The continuous occupancy rate of TVL in Ethereum is a strong proof that the multi-chain era is slowly coming.
LUNA's TVL increased sharply when the market fell, and the price performance was negatively correlated with the market, which smacked of hedging. It is not impossible for TVL to catch up with ETH if LUNA is given two to three years. Between "dispersed stable coins", it is a multi-billion dollar circuit.
For four or five years, Cosmos and Polkadot's comments have been pulling. During 18- 19, one of the most discussed topics in the circle is which is better, Cosmos or Polkadot. This momentum is bound to separate the two.
The enlightenment of these two cross-chain projects is that the evaluation projects must be placed on a time dimension, and things have been changing dynamically. Moreover, in Crypto, a fast-growing industry, the status of projects at different stages is really different. After 2022, it is obvious that the universe has the upper hand. According to the data of TVL, the TVL of Polkadot dropped by 70% in one year, which is somewhat surprising.
The advantages and disadvantages of Cosmos and Polkadot have been talked about by the industry in the past few years. Needless to say, it is worth mentioning that Cosmos pays dividends to community users, and the value of airdrop tokens obtained by pledging ATOM alone for ecological projects such as OSMO/JUNO is also quite rich. At the same time, most of Cosmos's ecological projects have no private chips, but the share of airdrops is huge, giving most of the benefits to community currency holders. Cosmos is obviously much better than Polkadot in giving back community dividends.
LUNA and Cosmos are both Cosmos ecosystems, but in the past few years, they have been separated. Since the infiltration technology of UST was introduced this year, the relationship between the two systems has become a little closer. Since the beginning of this year, Do Kwon, the founder of LUNA, has also increased his appeal for cosmic ecological coins.
Why did the DEX infiltration of Cosmos succeed? Here, we directly drink the view of "empty island teacher":
"App Chain's Nativetoken is" an underlying asset in itself "compared with the traditional design of DeFi governance token, which has more design space and imagination space in value capture. Some Ponzi designs can be integrated to achieve two purposes at the same time: 1. Improve network security. Realize value capture. App Chain's model is superior in value capture.
I think several projects are more suitable for this narrative: LUNA, needless to say, Ponzi Tokenism+powerful knowledge+financial resources is the best. OSMO shares, Lp bonds, Superfuild bets, and OSMO transactions in each currency. Rune node double pledge +LP and rune forced pairing+synthetic assets. All three companies have found their own market segments and have excellent economic models. "
Cosmos's three-axis project OSMO/EVMOS/ATOM (personally, it is three-axis). EVMOS was recently postponed due to network upgrade, but it is still expected that listing will cause a wave of "EVM chain" craze. As a competitor of the same track, Moonbeam is one level worse than EVMOS in terms of knowledge, users and community. Monbeam has too many private chips, too long unlocking time and too low cost.
Avalanche will release Subnet at the end of March and spend $300 million to stimulate subnet ecology. Subnet is similar to Cosmos application chain, which is an independent security mode and can be a verification node itself. The launch of Subnet will further enhance the industry's understanding of Appchain narrative. At the same time, the sub-network will lead the second avalanche market, and Kelabada and DFK, as the first two projects to receive ecological incentives from the sub-network, will bear the brunt of the benefits. Judging from Avalanche's classification of sub-network ecological project funding, Avalanche is betting on GameFi. Therefore, Avalanche is likely to become a public chain specializing in GameFi in the future.
Personally, Avalanche is a particularly large public chain that I have neglected. Its attention is far less than Cosmos/Polkadot/Solana. At the beginning, it can be said that it was only the aura of a gun professor. From the design of the underlying architecture, Avalanche's architecture design is very elegant and efficient, without losing Cosmos and Polkadot. Judging from the performance at this stage, it is difficult to distinguish it from Solana. In the community, it is better than Solana, and there is a hint of getting rid of Solana.
Solana declined slightly after 22 years, mainly because Alameda was the main ecological project before Solana, and the token economic design of the project was mostly low circulation, high valuation and endless low-price selling after listing. This is in line with the style of SBF. Community players have almost no bonuses. Over time, it will slowly lose fresh traffic. The profit space of Solana ecological project for community users is much lower than that of Cosmos/Avalanche/LUNA. Recently, however, Stephen, a SocialFi project on Solana, has set off an independent market with its unique application scenario.
But Solana's underlying architecture is naturally suitable for derivative projects. Previous speculation was that Solana would have one or two chain derivative projects to compete with DyDx. The derivative project on Solana is the largest public chain ecology except Taifang. However, it is embarrassing that derivatives themselves have certain limitations. Because the user threshold of derivatives is particularly high, it is destined to be only suitable for a small number of professional traders, so the existing derivatives projects are the second best, making structured products to adapt to the popular fool-like operation. The disadvantage of structured products is that users will lose money in extreme market conditions, and once structured, it means that players can only choose unilateral bets. Therefore, the track of derivatives needs further exploration and breakthrough.
At present, the products suitable for the product market are order-based chain contract products. Two typical projects are DyDx and GMX. GMX is a derivative contract project with complete community drive, non-institutional investment and complete chain. The idea of GMX is similar to that of DFK. They all hope to acquire new users through multi-chain deployment. The deployment of GMX on avalanches in recent months has proved to be successful and effective. Various data indicators such as transaction volume, number of users, and income dividends have all increased.
However, GMX also has some bottlenecks. The first is to pull new problems. At present, GMX is a country with reasonable valuation. The user is saturated. The number of daily users in each chain remains stable at 300-400. If you want to further increase the number of users in the future, you must take new measures. The team has been developing the function of "user promotion and innovation" in full swing. The second question is how many contract players can be drawn in CEX. It is extremely difficult to change users' habits. The third is the iterative ability of the project, which is promising so far, but the core development and founder of the project are anonymous development, which is also an uncertain risk.
An important criterion for future public chain breakthrough is to be bigger and stronger in a certain segment. Simply copying the public chain of Ethereum will have no way out. The development path of public chain has developed from the grand blueprint of ETH to the first breakthrough from a single point to the leader in segmentation and then to the continuous horizontal and vertical expansion. As explained above, the proposition of public chain is essentially a gorgeous shell, which can be applied to anything. Everything can be linked together. So in short, the idea is "APP chain first, then public chain", that is, "application first, then public chain".
POKT, as a multi-chain infrastructure of Web3, has always been concerned. POKT's data shows that its revenue exceeds many DeFi header agreements, but it has moisture. It takes the high inflation obtained by the pledge node as the agreement income. On the other hand, POKT protocol does have practical uses. Harmony, as the official partner of POKT, has always ranked first in the number of relays on POKT, which greatly slowed down the load of Harmony's official RPC. Recently, the relay number of Polygon on POKT surpassed Harmony in one month, which is surprising. The growth rate is surprising. The actual adoption of Polygon makes me feel that POKT is still a middleware protocol that cannot be ignored. The current flaw is only how to modify the team to further reduce the issuance of POKT. As a competitor of alchemy and Infrua, POKT's odds are obviously attractive.
Ape issued coins, and BAYC acquired Punk and Meetbit to unite with Lian Heng, which once again ignited the PFP market. A series of strong capital operations of BAYC have also left other PFPs with no breathing space. The overall valuation of APE's listing is $654.38+000 billion. From the valuation point of view, there is little opportunity in the secondary market. A series of capital operations of Yujia Lab made PUNK/Meetbits/BAYC holders/investors/parent companies happy to make money, and finally some players who bought APE in the secondary market lost money. However, if a certain proportion of the lost money can flow back to the PFP market, it can be regarded as a disguised injection of funds into the screen market by issuing money, and the recent rise of blue-chip stocks such as Auzki/Doodles/CloneX more or less illustrates this point. In a word, APE's token issuance makes more funds pour into PFP. We are likely to start the third wave of PFP.
It is worth mentioning that NFT aggregator Gem and Opensea competitor Looksrare. The biggest function of NFT aggregator is to make it easy to sweep the NFT floor, which is convenient for big money to get involved in buying pictures. The aggregator is routed to two NFT exchanges, Opensea and Looksrare. Therefore, the issuance of APE coins and NFT aggregator Gem jointly contributed to the transaction volume of Looksrare. In addition, Looksrare's product iteration is also quite powerful.
A smog control project like Looksrare, that is, the story of "community version XXX" was told at the beginning of the project. Once you want to develop products and do projects seriously and reliably, it will be thousands of people. As we all know, leading projects such as Opensea/Metamask account for 99% of the market share, so it is difficult for competing products to catch up and compete for market share. From the investment point of view, it is precisely because the Big Mac projects with a valuation of 20-30 billion US dollars, such as Opensea and Metamask, make players have no room for profit, so everyone will choose the community version of XXX to get high odds.
The increase in the trading share of Looksrare gives me a glimpse of the possibility that the incentive of mining may make it enter the next round of positive spiral. Imagine that mining without trading is not competitive at all. Even if mining with trading is done, it may not be successful in the end. Therefore, don't blindly criticize trading and mining. From the point of view of competition, mining by trade is a last resort.
Add XDEFI, open LUNA/ASTRO, ASTRO is LUNA's alpha bet, LUNA is the basic bit (similar to ETH), and it will continue to increase in the future. DFK positions remain unchanged, and long-term bets are made on avalanche subnet hotspots and GameFi multi-chain ecology (the goal is to catch up with AXS in 1-2 years). POKT's position did not increase, and the original position lost 75%, so it did not increase. Observe further. GMX's position has not changed, and the pledge period is 35%, so it will continue to be held. APE and Stephen did a short cleaning. Open the warehouse and see the clearance BTRFLY/RBN/GEL.
Simply holding BTC and ETH for a long time will greatly reduce the income in the next 5- 10 years. The reduction here refers to comparing the future rate of return with the rate of return in the previous two cycles. Although I am very amateur in macro judgment, I dare to make a prediction. In the future, the market trend will be a wide fluctuation in the short and medium term and a long-term spiral rise. This is the premise of the industry, stabilize the market, and then the rest fly around. This also reflects fairness to a certain extent, that is, "lying flat can't get too high excess income"
The change of market structure is that there are too many idle funds/hot money left in the market, which can be maneuvered at any time and ignore the market, which is different from the last cycle. Most of the profit-taking discs in the last round have withdrawn from the circle, while most of the profit-taking discs in this round remain in the venue and can do things at any time.
Various Web3 projects are also hotly discussed, but without exception, the biggest problem of these tool projects is value capture. Personally think that the composition of a good project is intuitive and stable growth data? What can cause everyone to go to FOMO? A good token economic model, typically, the data growth of Luna and UST is intuitive, the upper limit of the story of decentralized and stable currency is too high, and the Ponzi economic model is added.
Nowadays, all kinds of Web3 projects can hardly form an economic flywheel and Ponzi, so it is difficult to support a tree. I think we need to give this track some time. There is no bad project, only the wrong time.
The overpass bridge, which was optimistic before, has changed a little recently. I don't think the cross-chain bridge can capture the maximum value, and the cross-chain Dapp may be the final form and beneficiary of the cross-chain bridge. Simply put, for example, multi-chain AAVE is covered by cross-chain bridges. However, the cross-chain bridge itself is like a project, such as DeFi derivatives. It has been trying to catch fire for years, but it has been unable to catch fire. In essence, it is an eccentric tool and cannot form effective Ponzi and flywheel effects.
As for the cost of crossing two bridges, it is foreseeable. To put it bluntly, where can the handling fee be for a large transaction volume? Predictable income means no imagination. This is the disadvantage of tool classes. Future Hop/Connnext, including the recent Stargate, will face such a dilemma. Not to mention that the cross-chain bridge is the most frequently attacked place by hackers. If you have money, such as Wormwhole, you can make full compensation. After all, the master's father is rich. But a cross-chain bridge without money, being hacked once means death. Therefore, under the current thinking, I will not consider buying any overpass bridge projects.
Individuals don't hold too many etheric coins, which have grown into a large class of assets. In terms of cost performance, it is not as high as the new counterfeit currency and its stability is not as strong as the US dollar. From the perspective of asset appreciation, Ethereum is a bad asset. It means that Ethereum has been unable to obtain super alpha. Note that the emphasis here is super strength, such as 100 times the income. Holding Ethereum for a long time is an extremely correct choice in itself.
Because for the whole society, there are many principal holders of large-cap stocks BTC and ETH, and they can live a moist petty-bourgeois life by themselves, so there is no need to make more efforts. For most people, being on an equal footing with BTC/ETH is a dream that most people can't realize in this life. The so-called "your life, my dream" So this is a personal choice made entirely according to individual circumstances.
Anyway, please remember: in the 100 year of this century, the players in the password industry are undoubtedly the luckiest generation.
Zhenbencong community is the frontier community of domestic encryption industry. This article has been approved and forwarded by the tg group of Soros.