<div id="readability-page-1"><div><p>Since [the beginning of the text], innovations based on [the Unipeg] V4 Hook have sparked a mini-boom. Besides the cases I introduced in previous articles, new cases are emerging in the past few days, such as perpetual contract markets based on Hooks, and randomly changing NFTs, etc. Regardless of the future development of these projects, I am very pleased with this innovative trend. While I welcome this development, I still hope that some of these projects will eventually bear fruit and truly grow into projects with use cases, business models, and the ability to generate sustainable cash flow. Only such projects are worthy of genuine investor investment, rather than becoming a zero-sum game among participants. From this perspective, I think it's necessary to review some of the lessons we've learned in the development of the crypto ecosystem so far. Frankly speaking, in the crypto ecosystem as it stands today, in application areas (excluding public chains), the only projects that can truly be considered to have use cases, business models, and the ability to generate sustainable cash flow are DeFi. Among the DeFi projects, the most well-known and classic ones include: Uniswap, AAVE, and MakerDAO. text=&#34;&#34;&gt;Spark<span><span>) and </span></span><span><span>OpenSea</span></span><span><span>. These projects each pioneered their respective niche markets: Uniswap launched the long-tail exchange market based on AMM; AAVE launched the lending market; and MakerDAO... Spark launched Ethereum's decentralized stablecoin; OpenSea launched the NFT trading market. Compared to today's round of innovations based on Hooks, looking at these applications now, I find they share several prominent commonalities: They created a real-world application scenario; their emergence immediately served existing crypto assets in the market. Even without the creation of new assets, they met some of the market's needs at the time. People at the time were likely skeptical. But the skepticism focused solely on the sheer size of the market they served and whether those seemingly insignificant markets could later grow into essential application scenarios. These two points, in my view now (though hindsight), are key to their eventual becoming core applications within the crypto ecosystem. This isn't to say that having these two points guarantees future success; however, without them, I think they certainly wouldn't be the pillars of today's crypto ecosystem. Why am I particularly concerned about these two characteristics now? Looking back at the past explosion of inscriptions and the current wave of creations based on hooks, I've found that these two characteristics are almost entirely lacking: A significant portion of these new projects (such as inscriptions and current hook innovations) do not serve existing crypto assets, nor do they adequately explore whether there are still undiscovered but real needs within these assets. Instead, it continuously creates new assets out of thin air without the support of application scenarios, and creates new models based on these new assets. For example, various inscription protocols created new assets, and then new gameplay was created based on these inscription assets; Unipeg and Slonks created new tokens and new &#34;NFTs&#34;, and then created new token-to-coin conversion models; SATO created new tokens, and then created new buying and selling curves; Do these created inscription assets, Unipeg, Slonks NFT, and SATO tokens have supporting application scenarios? It seems not. Creating new assets is not wrong. However, past experience seems to suggest that attempts to create new assets and models out of thin air without supporting application scenarios are unlikely to succeed sustainably and are more likely to degenerate into a zero-sum game among participants. I think this is something that deserves careful attention and observation. The easiest thing about the crypto ecosystem is creating new assets, and creating new models based on those assets is also not difficult; it's simply a matter of adding new models, new logic, and new concepts to smart contracts. This is precisely the strength of Hook, and also its convenience and efficiency. This doesn't mean I deny this type of innovation; rather, compared to it, I'm now more eager to see innovative models from classic DeFi projects—creating new business models and application scenarios that can serve existing crypto assets, or even if new assets are created, these new assets must be supported by application scenarios. I believe this kind of innovation is more meaningful, more likely to generate value, and more likely to ultimately generate sustainable cash flow. Regarding the former model of asset innovation based solely on a lack of supporting application scenarios, I want to emphasize again: It can easily degenerate into a zero-sum game for the participants if not handled carefully. Therefore, going forward, while I will continue to pay attention to various innovations, I will focus more on business and application innovations that can serve existing encrypted assets, as well as asset innovations based on supporting application scenarios.</span></span></p></div></div>

BKKT

ETHE

CRCL

<p>The recent innovations based on Uniswap V4 Hook have sparked interest, but many new projects lack real-world application scenarios and sustainable business models. The author emphasizes the importance of creating projects that serve existing crypto assets and meet market needs, citing successful DeFi projects like Uniswap and AAVE as examples. Without supporting application scenarios, new assets may lead to unsustainable models and zero-sum games among participants. The focus should shift towards meaningful innovations that generate value and sustainable cash flow.</p>

- Innovations based on the Unipeg V4 Hook have led to new market developments, including perpetual contract markets and NFTs.  
- The author emphasizes the importance of having real-world applications and supporting scenarios for sustainable growth in the crypto ecosystem, citing DeFi projects like Uniswap and AAVE as successful examples.  
- They express concern that current innovations may lack the necessary application support, potentially leading to unsustainable models and zero-sum games among participants.

In the Uniswap V4 Hook wave, who is the real "King of Cash Flow"?