<p>自从 [文本开始] 以来，基于 [Unipeg] V4 Hook 的创新引发了一场小型热潮。除了我在之前文章中介绍的案例，最近几天还出现了一些新案例，例如基于 Hooks 的永续合约市场和随机变化的 NFT 等。无论这些项目未来的发展如何，我对这一创新趋势感到非常高兴。虽然我欢迎这一发展，但我仍然希望其中一些项目最终能够结出成果，真正成长为具有用例、商业模式和可持续现金流能力的项目。只有这样的项目才值得真正的投资者投资，而不是在参与者之间变成零和游戏。从这个角度来看，我认为有必要回顾一下我们在加密生态系统发展过程中所学到的一些教训。坦率地说，在如今的加密生态系统中，在应用领域（不包括公链），唯一可以真正被认为具有用例、商业模式和可持续现金流能力的项目是 DeFi。在 DeFi 项目中，最知名和经典的包括：Uniswap、AAVE 和 MakerDAO。文本=&#34;&#34;&gt;Spark）和 OpenSea。这些项目各自开创了各自的细分市场：Uniswap 推出了基于 AMM 的长尾交易市场；AAVE 推出了借贷市场；MakerDAO... Spark 推出了以太坊的去中心化稳定币；OpenSea 推出了 NFT 交易市场。与今天基于 Hooks 的创新相比，回顾这些应用，我发现它们有几个显著的共同点：它们创造了一个真实的应用场景；它们的出现立即服务于市场上现有的加密资产。即使没有创造新资产，它们也满足了当时市场的一些需求。当时人们可能持怀疑态度。但这种怀疑仅仅集中在它们所服务的市场规模以及这些看似微不足道的市场是否能够后来成长为重要的应用场景。这两点，在我看来（尽管是事后诸葛亮），是它们最终成为加密生态系统核心应用的关键。这并不是说拥有这两点就能保证未来的成功；然而，没有它们，我认为它们肯定不会成为今天加密生态系统的支柱。为什么我现在特别关注这两个特征？回顾过去的铭文爆炸和当前基于 hooks 的创作浪潮，我发现这两个特征几乎完全缺失：相当一部分这些新项目（例如铭文和当前的 hook 创新）并没有服务于现有的加密资产，也没有充分探索这些资产中是否仍然存在未被发现但真实的需求。相反，它不断地凭空创造新资产，而没有应用场景的支持，并基于这些新资产创造新模型。例如，各种铭文协议创造了新资产，然后基于这些铭文资产创造了新的玩法；Unipeg 和 Slonks 创造了新代币和新的&#34;NFTs&#34;，然后创造了新的代币与币的转换模型；SATO 创造了新代币，然后创造了新的买卖曲线；这些创造的铭文资产、Unipeg、Slonks NFT 和 SATO 代币是否有支持的应用场景？似乎没有。创造新资产并没有错。然而，过去的经验似乎表明，试图凭空创造新资产和模型而没有支持的应用场景，成功的可持续性不大，更可能退化为参与者之间的零和游戏。我认为这是值得认真关注和观察的事情。加密生态系统中最简单的事情就是创造新资产，而基于这些资产创造新模型也并不困难；这仅仅是将新模型、新逻辑和新概念添加到智能合约中。这正是 Hook 的优势，也是它的便利性和高效性。这并不意味着我否定这种类型的创新；相反，与之相比，我现在更渴望看到经典 DeFi 项目中的创新模型——创造能够服务于现有加密资产的新商业模式和应用场景，或者即使创造了新资产，这些新资产也必须得到应用场景的支持。我相信这种创新更有意义，更可能产生价值，并更有可能最终产生可持续的现金流。关于仅基于缺乏支持应用场景的资产创新的前者模型，我想再次强调：如果处理不当，它很容易退化为参与者之间的零和游戏。因此，展望未来，虽然我将继续关注各种创新，但我将更加关注能够服务于现有加密资产的商业和应用创新，以及基于支持应用场景的资产创新。</p>

BKKT

ETHE

CRCL

<p>最近基于 Uniswap V4 Hook 的创新引发了关注，但许多新项目缺乏现实世界的应用场景和可持续的商业模式。作者强调了创建服务于现有加密资产并满足市场需求的项目的重要性，并以成功的 DeFi 项目如 Uniswap 和 AAVE 为例。没有支持的应用场景，新资产可能导致不可持续的模式和参与者之间的零和游戏。关注点应转向能够创造价值和可持续现金流的有意义的创新</p>

<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) and OpenSea. 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.</p>
<div class="lb-trans"><p>自从 [文本开始] 以来，基于 [Unipeg] V4 Hook 的创新引发了一场小型热潮。除了我在之前文章中介绍的案例，最近几天还出现了一些新案例，例如基于 Hooks 的永续合约市场和随机变化的 NFT 等。无论这些项目未来的发展如何，我对这一创新趋势感到非常高兴。虽然我欢迎这一发展，但我仍然希望其中一些项目最终能够结出成果，真正成长为具有用例、商业模式和可持续现金流能力的项目。只有这样的项目才值得真正的投资者投资，而不是在参与者之间变成零和游戏。从这个角度来看，我认为有必要回顾一下我们在加密生态系统发展过程中所学到的一些教训。坦率地说，在如今的加密生态系统中，在应用领域（不包括公链），唯一可以真正被认为具有用例、商业模式和可持续现金流能力的项目是 DeFi。在 DeFi 项目中，最知名和经典的包括：Uniswap、AAVE 和 MakerDAO。文本=&#34;&#34;&gt;Spark）和 OpenSea。这些项目各自开创了各自的细分市场：Uniswap 推出了基于 AMM 的长尾交易市场；AAVE 推出了借贷市场；MakerDAO... Spark 推出了以太坊的去中心化稳定币；OpenSea 推出了 NFT 交易市场。与今天基于 Hooks 的创新相比，回顾这些应用，我发现它们有几个显著的共同点：它们创造了一个真实的应用场景；它们的出现立即服务于市场上现有的加密资产。即使没有创造新资产，它们也满足了当时市场的一些需求。当时人们可能持怀疑态度。但这种怀疑仅仅集中在它们所服务的市场规模以及这些看似微不足道的市场是否能够后来成长为重要的应用场景。这两点，在我看来（尽管是事后诸葛亮），是它们最终成为加密生态系统核心应用的关键。这并不是说拥有这两点就能保证未来的成功；然而，没有它们，我认为它们肯定不会成为今天加密生态系统的支柱。为什么我现在特别关注这两个特征？回顾过去的铭文爆炸和当前基于 hooks 的创作浪潮，我发现这两个特征几乎完全缺失：相当一部分这些新项目（例如铭文和当前的 hook 创新）并没有服务于现有的加密资产，也没有充分探索这些资产中是否仍然存在未被发现但真实的需求。相反，它不断地凭空创造新资产，而没有应用场景的支持，并基于这些新资产创造新模型。例如，各种铭文协议创造了新资产，然后基于这些铭文资产创造了新的玩法；Unipeg 和 Slonks 创造了新代币和新的&#34;NFTs&#34;，然后创造了新的代币与币的转换模型；SATO 创造了新代币，然后创造了新的买卖曲线；这些创造的铭文资产、Unipeg、Slonks NFT 和 SATO 代币是否有支持的应用场景？似乎没有。创造新资产并没有错。然而，过去的经验似乎表明，试图凭空创造新资产和模型而没有支持的应用场景，成功的可持续性不大，更可能退化为参与者之间的零和游戏。我认为这是值得认真关注和观察的事情。加密生态系统中最简单的事情就是创造新资产，而基于这些资产创造新模型也并不困难；这仅仅是将新模型、新逻辑和新概念添加到智能合约中。这正是 Hook 的优势，也是它的便利性和高效性。这并不意味着我否定这种类型的创新；相反，与之相比，我现在更渴望看到经典 DeFi 项目中的创新模型——创造能够服务于现有加密资产的新商业模式和应用场景，或者即使创造了新资产，这些新资产也必须得到应用场景的支持。我相信这种创新更有意义，更可能产生价值，并更有可能最终产生可持续的现金流。关于仅基于缺乏支持应用场景的资产创新的前者模型，我想再次强调：如果处理不当，它很容易退化为参与者之间的零和游戏。因此，展望未来，虽然我将继续关注各种创新，但我将更加关注能够服务于现有加密资产的商业和应用创新，以及基于支持应用场景的资产创新。</p>
</div>

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

- 创新基于 Unipeg V4 Hook，引发小型繁荣，出现新的市场案例如永久合约市场。  
- 对于这些项目的未来发展，期望能够实现可持续现金流，而非零和游戏。  
- 强调创新应服务现有加密资产，并支持实际应用场景。

在 Uniswap V4 Hook 浪潮中，谁才是真正的 “现金流之王”？