In everyone's impression, the definition of the "Four Kings of L2" is still biased towards the "technical" dimension. However, the current situation is that Starknet and zkSync, which have excellent technical foundations, are falling behind, while Base and Mantle, which excel in operations and TVL, are overtaking.

Written by: Haotian

Looking through the data from @l2beat, I found that @0xMantle, which focuses on providing native yield for ETH assets, has reached a total TVL of $1.82 billion, surpassing Blast to become the fourth largest layer2 by locked value, thus joining the ranks of the "Four Kings" of layer2. Many people may wonder how Mantle has managed to rise step by step through the combination of mETH + cmETH + Cook. Next, I will systematically outline this:

The Dual Interaction of mETH: L1 Native Yield + L2 Unified Interoperability

1) L1 Native Yield

Mantle is a layer2 chain directly constructed based on the OP Stack Codebase. At its launch, the overall Ethereum layer2 was suffering from a lack of "native yield." Therefore, Mantle and Blast adopted a similar Tokenomics economic model design, with the core idea being to allow users to deposit ETH into layer2 to generate native yield on the Ethereum mainnet. For example, users can deposit ETH into LiDO to enjoy around 4% APY from POS staking.

As a result, Mantle launched the Ethereum liquid staking protocol mETH on the Ethereum mainnet, which has currently accumulated 483,000 ETH, ranking behind stETH, wBETH, and rETH.

The native yield that Mantle layer2 focuses on comes partly from the POS staking yield of mETH. The key point is that mETH, as a critical protocol for LSP, will also be integrated into other LRS protocols such as Eigenlayer, puffer, Renzo, and Kelp, allowing it to enjoy their points and ecological governance mining rewards. In addition to on-chain yields, Mantle has partnered with Bybit exchange to connect C-end users with B-end AMM market makers' funding needs, generating off-chain yields from borrowed funds.

In summary, the goal of the mETH protocol is to connect as many diversified yield sources as possible to provide lasting Pump for its layer2 Tokenomics. For instance, its liquidity protocol will also cover alt-layer1s like Bearchain and Fuel.

The logic is not hard to understand. Besides the stable yield from Ethereum POS, the yields from LRT platforms are dynamic, unstable, and lack sustainability. To effectively convey the story of feeding mainnet yields to layer2, mETH must expand the possibilities of diversified yields.

2) L2 Unified Interoperability

In addition to the native yield properties of the underlying mETH, Mantle has introduced another core feature to its layer2 chain: a liquidity center for interoperable operations. Recently, @VitalikButerin and various layer2 project teams have been working together to drive the liquidity integration of Ethereum layer2, indicating that the current scattered liquidity situation in Ethereum layer2 has become a core challenge in the Rollup-Centric grand strategy.

In fact, from its inception, Mantle has integrated "interoperability" as part of its underlying technical framework. Specifically:

Mantle employs the atomic cross-chain logic provided by @LayerZero_Core, with a master contract controlling the total supply deployed on Mantle, and subcontracts controlling local supply and cross-chain minting instructions deployed on various layer2s. If a user wants to cross-chain ETH from Arbitrum to Optimism, they can first stake ETH on the Mantle chain, where the master contract mints mETH to increase supply. Meanwhile, LayerZero's relay nodes will synchronize messages to the subcontracts on Optimism, which will mint mETH corresponding to the user's deposit address upon receiving the instructions.

The existence of mETH assets is based on the interoperability of layer2, especially when there are large amounts of idle ETH funds on other layer2s. With the underlying atomic cross-chain feature, users will naturally tend to aggregate their ETH assets onto Mantle's mETH to earn yields. The Omini Contract achieves atomic cross-chain, using APY yields as an anchor to attract users to pool funds.

mETH has been meticulously designed from upstream funding sources to downstream business closed-loop logic.

cmETH + Cook: Activating the Operation of the L2 DeFi Economy

So, what is the rationale behind the emergence of cmETH? If there were only mETH, the market might perceive Mantle as a leading figure rallying other L2s to launch a "vampire" attack on the Ethereum mainnet.

Clearly, this won't work. The destiny of layer2 is still to provide blood transfusions to the mainnet, so L2 must possess self-sustaining capabilities. cmETH is the key for mETH to achieve self-sustainability.

Users can convert mETH into cmETH to participate in DeFi projects on L2 through Restaking, earning yields generated by the L2 DeFi ecosystem. Although cmETH carries an additional layer of re-staking risk compared to mETH, it also enjoys more aggressive incentives and mining yield expectations from L2. For example, Mantle has launched the Methamorphosis event, where users can re-stake mETH to receive Powder equity certificates, allowing them to obtain future governance tokens $COOK.

Many may wonder, with $MNT already in existence, why is there $COOK? This relates to the dual-token model designed by Mantle. MNT is the native token of the Mantle layer2 network, used for paying network gas fees, ecological governance, and maintaining the security of its POS network, with the goal of sustaining the economic operation of the Mantle chain.

On the other hand, $COOK is intended to cover the unified rights and governance of mETH on the mainnet and the unified layer of interoperable operations on layer2. It is a generic governance token exclusive to the mETH protocol, primarily used for liquidity mining rewards and community incentives. According to the overall planning of mETH and cmETH, it may eventually flow into the overall layer2 liquidity system, while also enjoying yield possibilities across the entire layer2 ecosystem.

That's all.

The previously renowned Blast attracted attention not only for its massive capital absorption capability but also because there was hope that its funds could inject a catfish effect into layer2, providing a breakthrough point for the existing dilemmas in the layer2 economy. Similarly, with a large capital volume and excellent token model design, Mantle aims to bring a "variable" to the layer2 industry as well.

In everyone's impression, the definition of the "Four Kings of layer2" is still biased towards the "technical" dimension. However, the current situation is that Starknet and zkSync, which have excellent technical foundations, are falling behind, while Base and Mantle, which excel in operations and TVL, are overtaking.

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。