Defi技術的成熟已經創造了悖論

隨著成千上萬的項目建立在越來越標準化的基礎設施以爭奪有限資本池的情況下，生態系統面臨系統性挑戰

The maturation of DeFi technology has created a paradox: while battle-tested codebases and rising technical proficiency have lowered the barrier to entry for launching new protocols, securing sustainable liquidity has never been harder.

DEFI技術的成熟度創造了一個悖論：儘管經過戰鬥測試的代碼庫和提高的技術水平降低了啟動新協議的進入障礙，但確保可持續的流動性從未如此困難。

As thousands of projects built on increasingly standardized infrastructure compete for a finite pool of capital, the ecosystem faces a systemic challenge that threatens genuine innovation and growth.

由於成千上萬的項目建立在越來越標準化的基礎設施上爭奪有限資本池時，生態系統面臨著一種系統性的挑戰，威脅到真正的創新和增長。

You're reading Crypto Long & Short, our weekly newsletter featuring insights, news and analysis for the professional investor. Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Wednesday.

您正在閱讀Crypto Long＆Short，這是我們每週的新聞通訊，其中包括專業投資者的見解，新聞和分析。在這裡註冊以將其在每個星期三的收件箱中獲取。

The multi-dimensional fragmentation problem

多維分裂問題

Liquidity in DeFi is fragmented across protocols, chains and token pairs. For new protocols, securing adequate liquidity is existential — without it, user adoption stalls, costs rise, yields fall and the growth flywheel fails to accrete value. This creates a fundamental challenge: every new DEX, lending platform or yield farm must compete for the same finite pool of capital, further dividing available liquidity. The demand for liquidity vastly outstrips the influx of new capital.

DEFI中的流動性在方案，鏈條和令牌對之間分散。對於新協議，確保足夠的流動性是存在的 - 沒有它，用戶採用攤位，成本上升，產量下降和增長飛輪無法獲得價值。這帶來了一個根本的挑戰：每個新的DEX，貸款平台或收益農場都必須爭奪相同的有限資本池，從而進一步分配了可用的流動性。對流動性的需求大大超過了新資本的湧入。

The traditional finance concept of "cost of capital" has evolved into "cost of liquidity" in DeFi, but without standardized frameworks to price this risk, protocols struggle to acquire the capital they need to launch and grow effectively. Protocols use their native tokens, ecosystem funds and sometimes their own capital to attract early liquidity. Some under-incentivize, failing to attract liquidity providers. Others over-incentivize, depleting treasuries and creating sell pressure when token incentives unlock. Both approaches ultimately undermine long-term sustainability.

傳統的財務概念“資本成本”已演變為DEFI中的“流動性成本”，但是如果沒有標準化的框架來定價這種風險，協議很難獲得他們需要發射和有效發展所需的資本。協議使用其本地代幣，生態系統基金，有時甚至是他們自己的資本來吸引早期流動性。有些人不足，無法吸引流動性提供者。其他人則過度誘使，耗盡國庫，並在代幣激勵措施解鎖時造成銷售壓力。兩種方法最終都破壞了長期可持續性。

The VC-protocol tension

VC協議張力

This mispricing creates a fundamental tension for projects with VC backing. Investors who fund portfolio companies via simple agreements for future tokens (SAFTs) want protocols to attract sufficient liquidity for growth and utility. However, aggressive liquidity incentive programs directly dilute their token holdings.

這種錯誤定價為具有VC支持的項目帶來了根本的張力。通過簡單的未來代幣（SAFT）的簡單協議為投資組合公司提供資金的投資者希望協議能夠吸引足夠的流動性來實現增長和公用事業。但是，積極的流動性激勵計劃直接稀釋其令牌持有量。

The result is often unsustainable tokenomics: high initial emissions to bootstrap liquidity, creating artificial success metrics that collapse when incentives decrease. This pattern hampers genuine innovation, as truly novel approaches face disproportionately higher costs to attract capital.

結果通常是不可持續的象徵學：引導流動性的高初始排放，創造了人工成功指標，當激勵措施降低時崩潰。這種模式阻礙了真正的創新，因為真正新穎的方法面臨著不成比例的更高成本來吸引資本。

Market opacity and information asymmetry

市場不透明度和信息不對稱

The problem is compounded by lack of transparency. Most significant liquidity arrangements occur through private over-the-counter (OTC) deals with unclear terms. New protocols have no visibility into market rates for comparable arrangements, while established players and insider networks control capital flow.

缺乏透明度使問題更加複雜。大多數重要的流動性安排通過私人非處方（OTC）處理不清楚的術語。新協議對可比安排的市場價格尚無可見，而已建立的參與者和內部網絡控制資本流。

Without standardized risk assessment frameworks, liquidity providers struggle to evaluate opportunities effectively. This leads to inconsistent risk premiums across similar protocols and capital concentration in projects with familiar designs rather than superior technology and innovation.

如果沒有標準化的風險評估框架，流動性提供者就難以有效地評估機會。這導致在具有熟悉設計的項目而不是卓越的技術和創新項目中，類似協議和資本集中的風險溢價不一致。

Toward a solution: a neutral liquidity layer

朝向解決方案：中性流動性層

What the ecosystem needs is connectivity between capital and protocols — a chain-agnostic, protocol-neutral layer focused on efficient capital routing. Such a system would:

生態系統的需求是資本和協議之間的連通性 - 鏈條不合時宜的，協議中性層的重點是有效的資本路由。這樣的系統會：

Establishing a system like this isn't about introducing new financial products, but creating a shared understanding of liquidity pricing that aligns incentives between capital allocators and protocols.

建立這樣的系統並不是要引入新的金融產品，而是對流動性定價的共同理解，該定價與資本分配者和協議之間的激勵措施保持一致。

Looking forward

期待

As DeFi matures, standardizing liquidity coordination and risk assessment will be essential for capital efficiency. The protocols that thrive should be those that solve real problems and bring real innovation to the space, not necessarily those with the most aggressive incentives.

隨著DEFI的成熟，標準化流動性協調和風險評估對於資本效率至關重要。蓬勃發展的協議應該是解決實際問題並為空間帶來真正創新的協議，而不一定是那些具有最積極的激勵措施的協議。

The challenge is clear: demand for liquidity in DeFi is effectively infinite and the finite supply is existentially important. Yet the infrastructure, services, and pricing mechanisms that determine how capital flows from holders to users have significantly lagged behind protocol innovation. Addressing this infrastructure gap represents not just an opportunity to increase efficiency, but a necessity for the sustainable growth of the entire DeFi ecosystem.

挑戰是明確的：在DEFI中對流動性的需求實際上是無限的，並且有限的供應非常重要。然而，確定資本從持有人流向用戶的基礎架構，服務和定價機制顯著落後於協議創新。解決這一基礎設施差距不僅代表著提高效率的機會，而且代表了整個Fefi生態系統的可持續增長的必要性。