<p>自從 [文本開始] 以來，基於 [Unipeg] V4 Hook 的創新引發了一場小型熱潮。除了我在之前文章中介紹的案例，最近幾天還出現了一些新案例，例如基於 Hooks 的永續合約市場和隨機變化的 NFT 等。無論這些項目未來的發展如何，我對這一創新趨勢感到非常高興。雖然我歡迎這一發展，但我仍然希望其中一些項目最終能夠結出成果，真正成長為具有用例、商業模式和可持續現金流能力的項目。只有這樣的項目才值得真正的投資者投資，而不是在參與者之間變成零和遊戲。從這個角度來看，我認為有必要回顧一下我們在加密生態系統發展過程中所學到的一些教訓。坦率地説，在如今的加密生態系統中，在應用領域（不包括公鏈），唯一可以真正被認為具有用例、商業模式和可持續現金流能力的項目是 DeFi。在 DeFi 項目中，最知名和經典的包括：Uniswap、AAVE 和 MakerDAO。文本=&#34;&#34;&gt;Spark）和 OpenSea。這些項目各自開創了各自的細分市場：Uniswap 推出了基於 AMM 的長尾交易市場；AAVE 推出了借貸市場；MakerDAO... Spark 推出了以太坊的去中心化穩定幣；OpenSea 推出了 NFT 交易市場。與今天基於 Hooks 的創新相比，回顧這些應用，我發現它們有幾個顯著的共同點：它們創造了一個真實的應用場景；它們的出現立即服務於市場上現有的加密資產。即使沒有創造新資產，它們也滿足了當時市場的一些需求。當時人們可能持懷疑態度。但這種懷疑僅僅集中在它們所服務的市場規模以及這些看似微不足道的市場是否能夠後來成長為重要的應用場景。這兩點，在我看來（儘管是事後諸葛亮），是它們最終成為加密生態系統核心應用的關鍵。這並不是説擁有這兩點就能保證未來的成功；然而，沒有它們，我認為它們肯定不會成為今天加密生態系統的支柱。為什麼我現在特別關注這兩個特徵？回顧過去的銘文爆炸和當前基於 hooks 的創作浪潮，我發現這兩個特徵幾乎完全缺失：相當一部分這些新項目（例如銘文和當前的 hook 創新）並沒有服務於現有的加密資產，也沒有充分探索這些資產中是否仍然存在未被發現但真實的需求。相反，它不斷地憑空創造新資產，而沒有應用場景的支持，並基於這些新資產創造新模型。例如，各種銘文協議創造了新資產，然後基於這些銘文資產創造了新的玩法；Unipeg 和 Slonks 創造了新代幣和新的&#34;NFTs&#34;，然後創造了新的代幣與幣的轉換模型；SATO 創造了新代幣，然後創造了新的買賣曲線；這些創造的銘文資產、Unipeg、Slonks NFT 和 SATO 代幣是否有支持的應用場景？似乎沒有。創造新資產並沒有錯。然而，過去的經驗似乎表明，試圖憑空創造新資產和模型而沒有支持的應用場景，成功的可持續性不大，更可能退化為參與者之間的零和遊戲。我認為這是值得認真關注和觀察的事情。加密生態系統中最簡單的事情就是創造新資產，而基於這些資產創造新模型也並不困難；這僅僅是將新模型、新邏輯和新概念添加到智能合約中。這正是 Hook 的優勢，也是它的便利性和高效性。這並不意味着我否定這種類型的創新；相反，與之相比，我現在更渴望看到經典 DeFi 項目中的創新模型——創造能夠服務於現有加密資產的新商業模式和應用場景，或者即使創造了新資產，這些新資產也必須得到應用場景的支持。我相信這種創新更有意義，更可能產生價值，並更有可能最終產生可持續的現金流。關於僅基於缺乏支持應用場景的資產創新的前者模型，我想再次強調：如果處理不當，它很容易退化為參與者之間的零和遊戲。因此，展望未來，雖然我將繼續關注各種創新，但我將更加關注能夠服務於現有加密資產的商業和應用創新，以及基於支持應用場景的資產創新。</p>

BKKT

ETHE

CRCL

<p>最近基於 Uniswap V4 Hook 的創新引發了關注，但許多新項目缺乏現實世界的應用場景和可持續的商業模式。作者強調了創建服務於現有加密資產並滿足市場需求的項目的重要性，並以成功的 DeFi 項目如 Uniswap 和 AAVE 為例。沒有支持的應用場景，新資產可能導致不可持續的模式和參與者之間的零和遊戲。關注點應轉向能夠創造價值和可持續現金流的有意義的創新</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>自從 [文本開始] 以來，基於 [Unipeg] V4 Hook 的創新引發了一場小型熱潮。除了我在之前文章中介紹的案例，最近幾天還出現了一些新案例，例如基於 Hooks 的永續合約市場和隨機變化的 NFT 等。無論這些項目未來的發展如何，我對這一創新趨勢感到非常高興。雖然我歡迎這一發展，但我仍然希望其中一些項目最終能夠結出成果，真正成長為具有用例、商業模式和可持續現金流能力的項目。只有這樣的項目才值得真正的投資者投資，而不是在參與者之間變成零和遊戲。從這個角度來看，我認為有必要回顧一下我們在加密生態系統發展過程中所學到的一些教訓。坦率地説，在如今的加密生態系統中，在應用領域（不包括公鏈），唯一可以真正被認為具有用例、商業模式和可持續現金流能力的項目是 DeFi。在 DeFi 項目中，最知名和經典的包括：Uniswap、AAVE 和 MakerDAO。文本=&#34;&#34;&gt;Spark）和 OpenSea。這些項目各自開創了各自的細分市場：Uniswap 推出了基於 AMM 的長尾交易市場；AAVE 推出了借貸市場；MakerDAO... Spark 推出了以太坊的去中心化穩定幣；OpenSea 推出了 NFT 交易市場。與今天基於 Hooks 的創新相比，回顧這些應用，我發現它們有幾個顯著的共同點：它們創造了一個真實的應用場景；它們的出現立即服務於市場上現有的加密資產。即使沒有創造新資產，它們也滿足了當時市場的一些需求。當時人們可能持懷疑態度。但這種懷疑僅僅集中在它們所服務的市場規模以及這些看似微不足道的市場是否能夠後來成長為重要的應用場景。這兩點，在我看來（儘管是事後諸葛亮），是它們最終成為加密生態系統核心應用的關鍵。這並不是説擁有這兩點就能保證未來的成功；然而，沒有它們，我認為它們肯定不會成為今天加密生態系統的支柱。為什麼我現在特別關注這兩個特徵？回顧過去的銘文爆炸和當前基於 hooks 的創作浪潮，我發現這兩個特徵幾乎完全缺失：相當一部分這些新項目（例如銘文和當前的 hook 創新）並沒有服務於現有的加密資產，也沒有充分探索這些資產中是否仍然存在未被發現但真實的需求。相反，它不斷地憑空創造新資產，而沒有應用場景的支持，並基於這些新資產創造新模型。例如，各種銘文協議創造了新資產，然後基於這些銘文資產創造了新的玩法；Unipeg 和 Slonks 創造了新代幣和新的&#34;NFTs&#34;，然後創造了新的代幣與幣的轉換模型；SATO 創造了新代幣，然後創造了新的買賣曲線；這些創造的銘文資產、Unipeg、Slonks NFT 和 SATO 代幣是否有支持的應用場景？似乎沒有。創造新資產並沒有錯。然而，過去的經驗似乎表明，試圖憑空創造新資產和模型而沒有支持的應用場景，成功的可持續性不大，更可能退化為參與者之間的零和遊戲。我認為這是值得認真關注和觀察的事情。加密生態系統中最簡單的事情就是創造新資產，而基於這些資產創造新模型也並不困難；這僅僅是將新模型、新邏輯和新概念添加到智能合約中。這正是 Hook 的優勢，也是它的便利性和高效性。這並不意味着我否定這種類型的創新；相反，與之相比，我現在更渴望看到經典 DeFi 項目中的創新模型——創造能夠服務於現有加密資產的新商業模式和應用場景，或者即使創造了新資產，這些新資產也必須得到應用場景的支持。我相信這種創新更有意義，更可能產生價值，並更有可能最終產生可持續的現金流。關於僅基於缺乏支持應用場景的資產創新的前者模型，我想再次強調：如果處理不當，它很容易退化為參與者之間的零和遊戲。因此，展望未來，雖然我將繼續關注各種創新，但我將更加關注能夠服務於現有加密資產的商業和應用創新，以及基於支持應用場景的資產創新。</p>
</div>

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

- 創新基於 Unipeg V4 Hook，引發小型繁榮，出現新的市場案例如永久合約市場。  
- 對於這些項目的未來發展，期望能夠實現可持續現金流，而非零和遊戲。  
- 強調創新應服務現有加密資產，並支持實際應用場景。

在 Uniswap V4 Hook 浪潮中，誰才是真正的 “現金流之王”？