1. Which one has more potential, Matic or ORDI?

When I first saw this question, I thought it was simply comparing investment targets. However, upon further consideration, I realized that exploring this question from different perspectives might lead to interesting insights.

Looking at these two coins, the first thing that comes to mind is risk: which of these coins has less risk?

From this perspective, I would definitely consider ORDI to have less risk. The likelihood of ORDI going to zero is extremely low, while the possibility of Matic going to zero is at least greater than that of ORDI.

Let's delve deeper:

With so many layer 2 solutions for Ethereum, if Matic were to disappear or go to zero one day, would we feel regret? It seems unlikely. Would we feel that the Ethereum ecosystem is affected? It also seems unlikely.

But if one day ORDI were to go to zero, I would immediately think: the origin of this round of Bitcoin innovation is gone. If ORDI can go to zero, then which other token assets are safe? If token assets are not safe, then where is the anchor point for Bitcoin's layer 2 expansion, and what is the foundation of the development direction of the Bitcoin ecosystem?

So, from a risk perspective, the significance of ORDI is far greater than that of Matic.

However, if we look to the future and consider future application scenarios, our imagination can be completely different.

ORDI itself is a solidified asset, it does not bear the burden of technological upgrades and transformations, nor does it carry the development of future ecosystems. Its growth potential depends entirely on the consensus of the Bitcoin ecosystem, and is not closely related to itself. This is a passive relationship.

Matic, on the other hand, is different. Its hope and potential definitely lie in the development of its future ecosystem, which entirely depends on the operation and construction of the project team. This is an active relationship.

If Matic can work miracles in the development of its ecosystem, then its potential is great, and may even surpass that of ORDI; but if it continues to languish as it is now, its potential is very limited.

Therefore, to compare and evaluate the future of these two coins, it depends on how investors comprehensively assess their risks and application potential.

2. Are options considered contracts? Can I participate in XXX's dual-currency win?

I only trade spot, and my trading frequency is extremely limited, only a few times a year, which is through dollar-cost averaging and selling at a fixed time.

I don't use any other financial instruments, as they are not suitable for me.

I have not participated in any financial activities such as financial management, lotteries, or staking on any centralized exchanges. Exchanges are already very unfamiliar to me.

3. What are the key factors for measuring the success of L2 and L3? What are the main contradictions of these chains? It seems that the previous TVL has become ineffective.

There is currently no unified standard for measuring the success of L2 and L3. I think the factors commonly used to measure L2 and L3, such as trading volume, number of transactions, and TVL, are not very reliable.

I actually think a more intuitive factor is more reliable: if there is an application on a certain L2 or L3 that everyone must use, or is very popular, or will go down in history, then I think that L2 or L3 is very good.

TVL is just a static standard and cannot reflect the activity of an application. In my opinion, it can only be considered a method that is unable to measure the popularity of a system in the current environment.

I believe the main contradiction of the chains is still the lack of innovative applications. Without new applications, there is only intra-chain funds playing around, engaging in meme trading. But these funds are not sustainable and it is difficult to generate strong momentum.

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。