Original Title: "The End of the Era of Native Crypto"

Original Author: Zeke, YBB Capital Researcher

I. Bowing to Compliance

How did crypto move from niche to mainstream? Over the past decade, decentralized blockchain has provided a regulatory wilderness to the world. Satoshi Nakamoto's peer-to-peer electronic payment system did not succeed, but it opened the door to a parallel world. Laws, governments, and even society and religion cannot constrain this existence that resides on countless nodes across the internet.

Being outside of regulation is almost the only factor driving the success of this industry. From the asset issuance that began with ICOs and the countless variants that followed, to the DeFi ignited by UNI, and now the so-called super application stablecoins, all are built upon this factor. The removal of the trivialities of TradFi has created the industry we see today.

Interestingly, after the failures of exploring new continents during the Age of Exploration, people began to abandon sailing ships and return to the past. Perhaps it started with the BTC ETF, or maybe it began with Trump's election victory; native crypto has entered its end times. The industry is beginning to seek compliance, aiming to meet the demands of TradFi, with stablecoins, RWA, and payments becoming the mainstream of industry development. Beyond that, we are left with pure asset issuance—a picture, a story, a string of CA—being the only topics of conversation. "Shitcoin" chains are no longer a derogatory term.

How did we get to this point? I have analyzed this in many articles over the past two years, but ultimately, blockchain currently lacks effective means to constrain various entities from wrongdoing behind the addresses. We can only ensure that nodes are honest and that DeFi is intermediary-free. Beyond that, we cannot prevent anything that may happen in this dark forest; many things inevitably lead to desolation. NFT, GameFi, and SocialFi are all heavily reliant on the entities behind the projects. Blockchain has excellent fundraising capabilities, but who will ensure that these project parties use the funds reasonably? And turn a story into a real project.

The vision of non-financialization cannot be solved merely by improving infrastructure performance. If these things cannot be done well on a centralized server, how can we expect them to be done well on-chain? We cannot implement proof of work on project parties. Today, bowing to compliance may be the beginning of future non-financialization, which is indeed ironic yet helpless.

Crypto is indeed becoming a subset of the traditional. The discourse power of this ledger is beginning to be stripped away by the upper echelons. There are fewer and fewer bottom-up initiatives, and opportunities are being compressed; we are entering an era of on-chain hegemony.

II. Stablecoins

What is on-chain hegemony? I think it can be discussed from two aspects: one is stablecoins, and the other is the repetition of traditional internet stories.

First, regarding the former, today's stablecoins are essentially dominated by fiat-backed and YBS stablecoins. Recently, a significant event occurred regarding fiat-backed stablecoins: the passage of the "Genius Act." Let me briefly summarize the contents of the act:

· Definition and Issuance Restrictions: Defines "payment stablecoins" as digital assets used for payment or settlement, which must be fully backed 1:1 by US dollars or highly liquid assets (such as short-term government bonds). Only licensed issuers (who must register and accept regulation) can legally issue stablecoins, and unauthorized individuals or entities are prohibited from issuing them.

· Reserve and Transparency Requirements: Issuers must hold reserve assets equivalent to the stablecoins on a 1:1 basis (such as US dollars or high-quality liquid assets) to ensure stability and solvency. They are required to publicly disclose reserve status regularly, and issuers with a market capitalization exceeding $50 billion must undergo annual financial audits and comply with anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) regulations.

· Regulation and Compliance: Establishes a clear regulatory framework, stating that stablecoins are not considered securities and are subject to banking regulation rather than SEC regulation. A licensing procedure is established to regulate issuing institutions and enforce anti-money laundering, asset freezing, and destruction mechanisms.

· Promoting Innovation and Financial Inclusion: Aims to promote the development of the stablecoin industry in the US through a clear legal framework, enhance financial inclusion, and maintain the dominance of the US dollar in the digital economy.

· Restricting Large Tech Companies: Prohibits large tech companies from issuing stablecoins without regulatory approval to prevent market monopolization.

The long-standing concerns about Tether's collapse have finally become a thing of the past, and it is only a matter of time before downstream payments are integrated into the mainstream. The large-scale adoption of blockchain is beginning to take shape. But what will happen to stablecoins once they are incorporated into the regulatory framework? How will other countries respond to this? The reasons for the success of stablecoins need not be reiterated.

The passage of this act also means that on-chain transaction mediums are officially taken over by the US. American private enterprises are benefiting from US Treasury bonds, and with control over currency, this country will have a high degree of control over on-chain activities. Without even discussing the continuation of dollar hegemony, how should I imagine a scenario where all stablecoins in a DeFi project are suddenly frozen?

On the other hand, there are YBS stablecoins. Ethena's concept is good, providing UST-level yields in a bull market, with stability far exceeding that of traditional stablecoins. In my previous articles, I also mentioned that native on-chain stablecoins might ultimately achieve Delta-neutral hedging, such as the more complex f(x) Protocol, which hedges on Hyperliquid. However, it is strange that everyone is now starting to create YBS stablecoins, first with various traditional hedge funds entering, then market makers like DWF, and finally trading platforms wanting to get involved. They may not become Tether, but at least they want a piece of the ENA pie; this ideal is spreading like a virus.

This pathological YBS stablecoin craze has clearly deviated from its original meaning. Using one's original accumulation and adopting more aggressive strategies to seize market share, truly innovative projects are being crazily suppressed, and the barriers for startups are getting higher. Yes, technology and ingenuity are no longer important here; whether or not to decentralize is irrelevant. Innovative projects like f(x) Protocol are not receiving widespread attention; now, the combination of Cex and high-end quantitative teams is seen as the right approach. In this war, APY and convenience are everything.

Although compared to exchanging my ETH for small pictures or various bizarre narratives, YBS stablecoins might be a good choice. But the packaging of these Cex financial products becoming the only innovation in this round only indicates that most of the past paths were wrong.

III. Asset Issuance

Public chains are the largest asset issuance platforms, and ICOs were the beginning of this game. Everything that followed is a variant, but at least it promoted the birth of some narratives and pushed the industry forward, though now it is all moving towards traditional internet development. The profit models of Base and Pump are actually infinitely close to Web2, with almost zero feedback to the community, and in this regard, they are even worse than Cex. The original meaning of Web3 was to democratize everything; co-creation was meant to be about building and enriching together, but now it has become distorted. This is just the first point; now all oligarchs are studying how to create asset issuance platforms, questioning what constitutes innovative asset issuance.

Launchpads are now the only paradise where native crypto users can get rich, but it is equally pathological. Besides paying fees to platforms and tools like GMGN, one must also experience the feeling of shooting in the trenches. Asset issuance has also begun to become nested, even capable of developing off-chain. Well, although NFTs and GameFi are not strictly decentralized, at least they have some on-chain components, have driven the construction of Infra, and have allowed the industry to break out of its niche.

Since the AI framework from last year, completely off-chain projects can also issue tokens, and it itself is an off-chain asset issuance platform. Extreme speculation is continuously lowering the industry's bottom line; what is the meaning of all this?

CZ and Vitalik are perplexed by memes, leading to the concept of DeSci, allowing speculators to speculate and researchers to innovate. It seems to have found a common ground, but how can studying lab mice and classical mechanics be more interesting than today's internet memes and bizarre AI? This narrative has only been popular for a while; after AI and DeSci cooled down, it was time for celebrity coins to make their appearance, from President Trump in North America to President Milei in South America, completely draining liquidity.

When the market begins to cool down and narratives fail to transition, asset issuance resorts to Ponzi schemes. Virtuals combined the mechanics of Binance Launchpool and Alpha, staking to earn points for new tokens, and then staking again after the new token launch, leading to skyrocketing token prices. Emmm, so naked and direct, yet it no longer piques my interest. What comes next? Believe (the concept of internet capital markets)?

I cannot be sure, but in the last cycle, various flywheels, Ponzi schemes, and narratives still left behind a treasure called DeFi, which indeed sparked a lot of fresh ideas in the industry. What can speculation at this stage create? I only see a continuous simplification of issuance thresholds, accompanied by many malicious events. Do we need a new set of rules?

IV. Attention

In the past, the rise of a project relied on narrative and technology, bursting forth after building consensus. Now we are buying attention, using points to purchase like Blur, or using real money to form MCN companies for KOLs like trading platforms. The combination of PDD and Douyin's marketing methods permeates the circle; compared to founders running around to discuss technology, this method seems much more direct and effective.

Attention is undoubtedly one of the most valuable assets of this era, but it is also difficult to measure. Kaito is now quantifying it, but Yap-to-Earn is not really an innovation; it has been reflected in ancient SocialFi. Kaito's biggest innovation is being AI-driven, claiming to recognize the "value" of information and measure sales capabilities using AI. However, this model clearly cannot truly capture long-term value; tokens are becoming a type of "fast-moving consumer goods."

The drawbacks of the points system are something I believe everyone has experienced deeply; I have also reviewed the impact that Blur has brought to this circle in previous articles. If future projects rely on purchasing attention, I find it hard to evaluate whether this behavior is wrong. I can only say that there is no sin in projects striving for marketing, but there seems to be a trend of everyone in the circle becoming "pumpified." The old crypto era has indeed come to an end. Selling influence for profit has become a mature business, from the President of the United States to Binance and now to KOLs; no project has thrived because of this; everyone is just taking what they need.

Conclusion

Stablecoins will move towards the world, and blockchain payments have become a certainty. But the natives living here may not need these; we need native on-chain stablecoins, we need non-financialization, we need the next wave, and we do not want to live in a Web3 that sells traffic. Time is indeed proving that some of the BTC OGs were not wrong back then, but I still hope that in the future, they will be wrong.

This article is from a submission and does not represent the views of BlockBeats.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。