Optimism price

📣 Unichain is live on WanBridge, connecting @unichain to 13 major chains! 💡 Did you know that it typically costs $2 or less to move $1,000 USDC between these chains? 👉 Example: move 1,000 $USDC from #Unichain to #BNBChain for $2! 🌉 Try it at

[Data] A simple audit of the TVL for major ecosystems First of all, I must say that the DeFi TVL may be inflated. After all, if an ecosystem issues several tokens and then adds them to DeFi protocols, it can increase the DeFi TVL. However, the issuance of stablecoins requires asset collateral, and RWA TVL corresponds to real-world assets, which are purely valuable. Moreover, stablecoins and RWA TVL are less affected by fluctuations in the crypto market. Therefore, this article mainly analyzes by calculating two ratios: "On-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL", "RWA TVL/DeFi TVL". Excluding Tron and those ecosystems where the on-chain stablecoin value cannot be found, the average value of on-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL for the remaining ecosystems is 0.92, which is considered relatively healthy around 0.92. Considering those with no RWA assets as having RWA TVL of 0, the average value of RWA TVL/DeFi TVL is 0.41, which is also considered relatively healthy around 0.41. ┈┈➤ RWA TVL ╰┈✦ First, let's look at the rankings First, let me correct a mistake made by Brother Bee earlier; the correct RWA TVL rankings should be: 1st place: Ethereum 12.369b 2nd place: Avalanche 871.21m 3rd place: Polygon 793.49m 4th place: BSC 717.99m 5th place: Solana 633.5m 6th place: Aptos 588.9m 7th place: Arbitrum 353.53m 8th place: ZKsync Era 285.93m 9th place: XRPL 198.13m 10th place: Plume Mainnet 183.82m 11th place: Base 166.34m 11th place: Gnosis 162.82m 12th place: Algorand 127.89m These are the ecosystems with RWA TVL exceeding 100 million USD. ╰┈✦ Now let's analyze RWA TVL First, Ethereum's RWA TVL is far ahead, and it seems that Ethereum has not engaged much with traditional financial institutions. It can only be said that traditional financial institutions are more confident in Ethereum's security. Second, Avalanche and Polygon's RWA TVL have surpassed BSC, which is somewhat unexpected. Especially Polygon, as we know Avalanche is a U.S. project, but Polygon's development team is from India. However, it should be noted that @0xPolygon, as an Ethereum Layer 2 or sidechain, has multiple validators recording through PoS consensus (according to the OKLink block explorer, there were 37 active validators on Polygon in the last day), and the blocks recorded by multiple validators are not centralized (as shown in the image), so Polygon's degree of decentralization is much higher compared to other Layer 2s, which is why Polygon's RWA TVL is higher than all Layer 2s and even ranks among the top in Layer 1. Third, we can see that @Aptos is a watershed; above Aptos, RWA TVL exceeds 500 million USD, and apart from Ethereum, these ecosystems are closely competing. Arbitrum's RWA TVL is over 200 million less than Aptos. Fourth, Aptos and SUI, both Move language public chains, show a very obvious difference in RWA TVL; SUI's DeFi TVL is more than three times that of Aptos, but Aptos's RWA TVL is more than 12 times that of SUI. This indicates that traditional financial institutions are not very confident in SUI's security, but are very confident in Aptos's security. It should be mentioned that although both use the Move language, Aptos uses the native Move language of Libra, which is more mature and secure. However, SUI has made significant modifications to the Move language to achieve more complex functions, but currently, its security and developer-friendliness are still lacking. Fifth, the BASE chain backed by Coinbase has a relatively low RWA TVL. The RWA TVL of Arbitrum and OP Mainnet, both part of the OP series Layer 2, is also relatively low. Among them, @arbitrum's technology is relatively independent, while Base is developed using OP Stack. It can be seen that traditional financial institutions are not very confident in the security of Layer 2, and their confidence in OP Stack's security seems to be even lower. In fact, these Layer 2s only have one sequencer, or only one node, so their degree of decentralization is indeed insufficient. ┈┈➤ Comprehensive analysis of the two ratios The first ratio: "On-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL", The second ratio: "RWA TVL/DeFi TVL". ╰┈✦ Some ecosystems may not have fully developed If both of these ratios are high, it indicates that the ecosystem of this public chain has not fully developed, and there are not many altcoins or meme coins issued in the ecosystem, so the DeFi TVL is relatively small. Such ecosystems mainly include XRPL and Aptos. Among them, XRPL's two ratios are 2.5 and 2.36, which are the 2nd highest and the 1st highest, respectively; indeed, we rarely hear about any applications on XRPL. Aptos's two ratios are 2.41 and 0.87, which are both ranked 4th highest. Both of these comparisons are relatively high, indicating that Aptos's ecosystem has developed somewhat, but it is far from reaching a prosperous stage, and there may still be significant development potential in the ecosystem. ╰┈✦ Some TVLs may be relatively saturated or have bubbles However, if both of these ratios are low, it may indicate that the ecosystem has issued too many altcoins or meme coins, leading to a high DeFi TVL, which could be a signal of ecosystem bubbles or saturation. GOAT, Linea, and Scroll exhibit such characteristics. GOAT's on-chain stablecoin accounts for only 0.000195 of the DeFi TVL, and RWA TVL has not been recorded by DefiLlama. Linea's ecosystem stablecoin accounts for only 0.127 of the DeFi TVL, and RWA TVL accounts for only 0.000003 of the DeFi TVL. Scroll's ecosystem stablecoin accounts for only 0.14 of the DeFi TVL, and RWA TVL has also not been recorded by DefiLlama. This may be because these three ecosystems are all Layer 2. Next are Movement, PulseChain, and Katana; these three Layer 1 chains' stablecoins account for only about 20% of the DeFi TVL, and RWA TVL has also not been recorded by DefiLlama, or the ratio of RWA TVL to DeFi TVL is very small. Among mainstream public chains, Berachain's stablecoin accounts for only 28.24% of the DeFi TVL; we know that Berachain's ecosystem mainly consists of some nested DeFi based on liquidity. Sei and Sui's stablecoins account for 40%~50% of the DeFi TVL, which is not too high, and the RWA TVL accounts for 2.16%~3.8% of the DeFi TVL. Of course, this ratio cannot be said to indicate an ecosystem bubble, but the ecosystem's development is relatively saturated, and the space for further development is lower compared to other mainstream public chains. Of course, unless there is innovation in the ecosystem, it can still achieve significant growth. ╰┈✦ Some ecosystems have relative advantages in stablecoins or RWA Among the two ratios, one is particularly prominent. For example, Tron’s on-chain stablecoin is 13.43 times the DeFi TVL, far exceeding other ecosystems, indicating that USDT has indeed gained a significant market on Tron, and this market is not entirely within the crypto circle. Similarly, ZKsync Era's RWA TVL is 6.61 times the DeFi TVL, indicating that ZKsync Era has a relative advantage in RWA. This may be because traditional financial institutions have relatively more trust in the security of ZK technology, or it may be because the team has worked harder to connect with traditional financial markets. ╰┈✦ Some ecosystems' RWA is in the early stages For example, Plasma's RWA TVL is somewhat laughable, at 65.49 USD; you read that right, it's less than 500 RMB. It’s not even as much as some ecosystems that simply haven’t done RWA; anyone could buy some treasury bonds and exceed this amount. However, Plasma's on-chain stablecoin is 1.31 times the DeFi TVL, reflecting that Plasma's ecosystem is relatively healthy, has certain development, and still has room for growth. ╰┈✦ Ecosystems may have bubbles If the RWA TVL/DeFi TVL ratio is not low, but the on-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL ratio is low, it may indicate that the ecosystem has bubbles. Because RWA is developing well, it is unlikely that there would be a lack of stablecoins on-chain. Such an ecosystem is only Cardano, which has an RWA TVL/DeFi TVL of 0.8, indicating that there are quite a few RWA assets in the Cardano ecosystem. However, the stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL is only 0.1, making it hard to imagine how this DeFi TVL is composed. ┈┈➤ Comparison of mainstream ecosystems Now let's compare the four major ecosystems. Ethereum has the highest DeFi TVL and RWA TVL, far exceeding other ecosystems, and is undoubtedly the king of public chains. The on-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL is very high, indicating that there are very few MEMEs in the Ethereum ecosystem. In contrast, Base chain's two ratios are the lowest among the four major public chains. The on-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL is significantly lower than the other three ecosystems, indicating that the Meme ecosystem on Base chain is relatively larger, as the tokens issued by Virtuals Protocol are paired with $VIRTUAL, leading to less demand for stablecoins. On the other hand, Base is built on OP Stack, which is currently single-node, having only one node/sequencer, resulting in a relatively high degree of centralization; thus, even with the backing of Coinbase, its RWA TVL amount and ratio are relatively low. Additionally, Solana's two ratios are also relatively low. Although Solana's MEMEs may be more than those on Base, the Solana chain has not only MEMEs but also various other application scenarios that have a certain demand for stablecoins, so the on-chain stablecoin market cap/DeFi TVL is higher than that of Base. Solana's RWA TVL/DeFi TVL is slightly higher than that of Base chain, but the actual value of RWA TVL is much higher than that of BASE chain, indicating that Solana has a certain influence and trust in the traditional financial sector. BSC chain's two ratios are second only to Ethereum, reflecting that BSC chain has a certain MEME ecosystem, but also has more application scenarios that require stablecoins: DeFi, trading, payments, and other ecosystems. RWA TVL/DeFi TVL is second only to Ethereum, and RWA TVL ranks second among the four major public chains, indicating that BSC chain's influence and trust in the traditional financial sector is only second to Ethereum. Overall, among the four major public chains, BSC chain has the best balance in various ecosystems such as MEME, DeFi, payments, and RWA, followed by Solana. Ethereum and Base are relatively "specialized"; Ethereum excels in DeFi and RWA ecosystems, while Base excels in MEME.