205 - 以太坊二层网络现状

这种可行性在多大程度上能够实现还有待观察，但总体而言这是一个令人兴奋的领域。

And to what extent that will be feasible or not is TBD and is an exciting area overall.

不过有一个值得深入探讨的要点是，据我们所知，没有任何系统能够实现这些系统之间的同步调用这一终极目标。

One point that is worth unpacking though is that to the best of our knowledge, none of the systems offer, let's say, the holy grail of synchronous calls across all of these systems.

不存在这样一种情况：你可以让a调用b，b再回调a，然后一起完成大量操作，除非你所处的设计环境本质上就是一个单一链。

There's no world where, you know, you can say a calls b, which calls back to a and does a lot of, like, things together unless you're in the design where you're you're basically one chain.

而Optimism Superchains的设计正是朝这个方向发展的。

And that is where the Optimism Superchains design is going toward.

在大多数情况下，这些共享排序器设计能提供的，是区块顶部交易的原子性包含，这对于MEV很有用——我们两年前就讨论过这个问题，David。

For the most part, what you get from all of these shared sequencing designs, you get atomic top of block inclusion, which is useful for MEV, which we had talked about two years ago, David.

是的。

Mhmm.

其核心理念是，共享排序器能够保证五个交易始终位于区块的顶部。

So the idea there is that the shared sequencer is able to guarantee that five transactions will always be at the top of the block.

这五个位于区块a顶部而非区块b顶部的交易，将捕捉到某种存在的套利机会。

And these five transactions that will be on top of block a and not on top of block b will be extracting some kind of arbitrage opportunity that existed.

这能赚钱，提供这样的服务很有价值，运行这样的基础设施协议也可能很有价值。

And that makes money, and that's a valuable service to be offering, and that could be a valuable, like, infrastructure protocol to be running.

然而，若要进一步实现条件执行，比如我在A上发送一笔交易，就意味着这笔交易也必须在B上执行，诸如此类，我认为目前还没有任何设计能稳健地实现这一点。

However, to go far beyond that, you know, in terms of conditional execution, let's say, I send the transaction on a and that means that the transaction also delivers on b and stuff like that, I don't think we have any design yet that is soundly implementing that.

所以这部分仍处于研究阶段吗？

So that part is still in the research phase?

我认为，人们在不对其系统进行进一步修改的前提下试图实现这一点的方式，目前还不存在。

I would think that it's the way that people are trying to do it without doing further modifications to their systems, I think, is not there yet.

我所见过的最有前景的设计，是詹姆斯·普雷斯特维奇在一篇博客文章中描述的，该设计提出每个区块都会对超级链中的其他每个区块进行提交。

The most promising design that I have seen is one in a blog post by James Prestwich, which describes a certain way where each block commits on every other block in the super chain.

这仍然处于研究阶段。

Again, research phase.

当然。

Sure.

所以我要收回我之前说的，我们已经结束研究阶段的说法。

So I I take back what I said earlier that we're done with the research phase.

还有一个部分尚未解决。

There is that component that is not figured out.

但也要明白，也许完全解决它并不值得。

But it's also worth understanding that it might not be worth figuring out fully.

你知道的。

You know?

也许那个完美的功能集方案，根本没人需要。

Maybe the holy grail solution of feature set, nobody needs.

也许你可以用一个能在一年或六个月内部署的方案来解决真正的问题，而真正的问题其实不是可组合性，而是去中心化。

And maybe you can get away with something that can ship in, like, in a year or in six months that solves the real problem, which is not actually the composability, but the decentralization.

问题是，这些系统每一个都由一个人运行。

The problem is that every one of these systems run by one person.

而理想情况下，这根本不是什么大问题。

Whereas ideally, there's not that much of a problem.

正如你之前所说，我们有一个交叉点。

As you said earlier, we have a cross.

我们有大约十个桥接协议来处理所有转账。

We have, you know, 10 bridge protocols to do all the transfers.

让市场自己去解决这个问题吧。

People will figure let the market figure that out.

但去中心化这部分更为关键，尤其是随着越来越多的基础设施上线，我们把信任寄托在了少数中介机构身上。

But the part about the decentralization is more critical, especially as, you know, more and more infrastructure gets launched and we put our, kind of, like, trust on few intermediaries.

嗯。

Mhmm.

乔治奥斯，你能再详细讲讲共享排序吗？

Georgios, could you go into shared sequencing a little bit more?

共享排序为各条链带来了哪些可组合性优势？

Just what composability benefits does shared sequencing give chains?

如果我们讨论的是所有这些链都处于单一系统中，这个讨论会改变吗？

And does that conversation change if we are talking about all these chains inside of a single setup?

比如，所有将成为超级链一部分的OP Stack链。

Like, all the OP stack chains that are going to be a part of the super chain.

这些链可以在一定程度上共享排序，并带来一些可组合性优势。

These can shared sequence with each other in some degrees and produce some composability benefits.

然后，正如你所说，还有乐观主义和 Arbitrum 共享排序的潜力，也能获得这类可组合性优势。

And then there's also the potential, like you said, of optimism and ARBITRUM shared sequencing and also getting those kind of composability benefits.

总的来说，共享排序能为我们带来什么？

Overall, what does shared sequencing get us?

没错。

Right.

它解决了可组合性问题，在一定程度上也解决了去中心化问题。

So it solves you composability and to some degree decentralization.

不过，就目前所描述的而言，它只在很小程度上解决了可组合性问题，是否能更大程度地解决，还有待观察。

Composability though, it solves to a small degree as described today, and TBD, whether it can solve it to a larger degree.

嗯。

Mhmm.

当然，在同一个生态系统、同一种架构内实现共享排序会更便宜、更容易、兼容性更好；而要让两个不同的生态系统相互沟通，则会更困难，甚至在某种程度上可能并不被期望。

And surely, shared sequencing in the same ecosystem, in the same flavor is going to be cheaper, easier, more compatible, whereas trying to make two different ecosystems talk with each other will be harder and might not even be, you know, desired to some extent.

嗯。

Mhmm.

是的。

Yeah.

因为这一直是我认为会很困难的地方，毕竟序列化是Layer 2的金矿。

Because that's always what I've thought is gonna be difficult because sequencing is the golden goose for Layer 2s.

也就是说，这是它们获取大量费用的地方。

Like, that is where they get a lot of their fees.

那么，为什么ARBITRUM和OPTIMIZM要为了一个尚可但边际的可组合性收益，就把自己的序列化费用让给Espresso呢？

So why would ARBITRUM and OPTIMIZM want to give up their sequencing fees to espresso in the name of a decent but marginal amount of composability benefits?

对。

Right.

我认为这个问题还悬而未决，而且取决于你问谁，你会得到不同的回答。

I think jury is still out there, and I think depending on who you ask, you will get a different response.

从我的角度来看，比如Optimism生态系统，希望围绕另一组基础设施组件或价值——比如治理和整个链上法律流程——构建护城河。

From my point of view, the Optimism ecosystem, for example, wants to build a moat around a different set of, let's say, infrastructure components or values, for example, the governance and the entire process around the law of chains.

嗯。

Mhmm.

而这就相当于承认了技术中最重要的部分是开源的，会被无偿提供。

Whereas the it's kind of almost acknowledging that the biggest part of the technology is open source, is to be given away.

这根本算不上护城河。

It is not really a moat.

或者即使算是护城河，也是一个非常薄弱、会随时间消逝的护城河，真正的护城河在别处。

Or if it is a moat, it's a very weak one that's going to go away over time, whereas the real moat is elsewhere.

所以这是一种看法。

So that would be one take.

而且别忘了，要加入Superchains生态系统，正如安德鲁会明确告诉你的，你需要支付租金。

And also remember that to opt in to the Superchains ecosystem, and Andrew will tell you that very well, you pay a rent

嗯。

Mhmm.

回到Superchains，也就是Optimism集体。

Back to the Superchains, the Optimism Collective.

而这正是它的关键所在。

And that is where it comes in.

实际上，Optimism 提供了一项服务，包括共享升级、共享治理和共享排序，这些部分将由 Optimism 智能合约强制执行，而 Optimism 乐于从中抽取分成。

Effectively, Optimism is offering a service that is the shared upgrades, the shared governance, and the shared sequencing, which is going to be in part mandated by Optimism Smart Contracts, and it's happy to take a cut for it.

其余的部分，让生态系统自己去解决，因为自己挑选解决方案很难。

And all the rest, let the ecosystem figure out because it's hard to pick a solution yourself.

也许你根本不想自己去构建它。

Maybe you don't even want to build it yourself.

嗯。

Mhmm.

Andrew 可以进一步从商业角度讲解这一点，比如 Rollups 实际上是如何运作的，因为我们迄今为止已经为多个客户做过这类项目。

And Andrew can cover more on how this looks like from the, you know, business perspective of how do roll ups actually you know, because we've done this with multiple customers so far.

是的。

Yeah.

对。

Yeah.

我肯定会想达到那个状态，因为我认为关于同步性、链的可组合性以及链治理的讨论，是最有趣的之一。

I would definitely wanna get there because I think that that conversation of Synchrony and chain composability and chain governance, think, is one of the most interesting ones.

我知道，安德鲁，Conduit，你正处在这一讨论的核心位置。

And I know that, Andrew, Conduit, you're, like, right at the heart of that conversation.

但在问安德鲁这个问题之前，乔治奥斯，我想再和你聊最后一个话题。

But, Georgios, one last conversation before I ask that question to Andrew.

通用可组合性是一个梦想吗？

Is Universal Composability a dream?

比如，以太坊上每一个二层网络，不同的架构、不同的设置，即使十年后也是如此。

Like, every single Layer two across Ethereum, different constructions, different setups, even if it's, like, ten years in the future.

这只是一个空想，还是我们能走到多远？

Is that a pipe dream, or how far can we get there?

我认为，要超越那些疯狂的以太坊科学家，这本身就是个前提难题。

I think it is hard to beat against the mad Ethereum scientists just to say it as a prerequisite.

所以，大卫，要在十年的时间尺度上做预测是很困难的。

So, know, David, it's hard to bet on a ten year time horizon.

当然。

Sure.

我的观点是我们并没有任何根本性的问题需要解决，但确实存在一定程度的优先级排序问题。

My view is that we don't have any fundamental, let's say, problems to be solved, but there's also a degree of, like, a prioritization.

我认为我们还需要考虑需求端。

And I think that we also need to think about the demand side.

当需求端要求我们解决通用可组合性时，相信我，我们一定会找到办法解决它。

When the demand side requires that we solve Universal Composability, trust me, we will find a way to solve it.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但我觉得有时候我们也该承认，在以太坊生态系统中，我们并不总是优先考虑最实际的、来自一线的需求，反而总是想着如何设计出未来十年最完美的协议。

But I think sometimes too, we should acknowledge that in the Ethereum ecosystem, we don't always take the most, let's say, boots on the ground demand side, then we always think what's the most perfect protocol I can design for the next ten years.

所以我认为，要回答这个问题，我们可以探讨一下，但更重要的是聚焦于当前真正重要的实际议题。

So I think trying to answer that question, we could entertain it, but I think it's more worth focusing on the What we can important topics on the ground.

对。

Yeah.

没错。

Exactly.

没错。

Exactly.

因为我们正处在加密货币的关键阶段，必须保持专注，贴近客户，关注用户体验。

Because we're in this very pivotal phase in crypto, and we really need to stay focused, stay close to the customer, and on the user experience.

我们解决费用问题，解决钱包问题。

We solve fees, we solve wallets.

我们解决钱包问题，解决产品问题，然后，没错。

We solve wallets, we solve products, and then, you know Right.

开始加速吧。

Off to the races.

而且，是的，前景一直在延续。

And, yeah, the horizon always continues.

安德鲁，我想谈谈这些超级链、轨道、超链和超级网络的诞生，因为从我的角度看，Conduit 是这些技术诞生的地方，因为在这里创建新链的成本最低。

Andrew, I wanna talk about the spawning of these Superchains and Orbits and Hyperchains and Supernets because from my perspective, Conduit is the place where these things spawn from since Conduit is the place where it's the cheapest to make more chains.

所以我总是觉得超级链是从 Conduit 中衍生出来的。

So I always kind of see the Superchains spawning out of Conduit.

也有其他竞争平台可以衍生出超级链，但很多 OP stack 链都是从 Conduit 产生的。

And there are competitors in which the Superchain also can spawn from, but a lot of OP stack chains come out of Conduit.

那么，你对这些系统的演进有什么看法？

So what is your perspective on the evolution of these systems?

像 Layer 2 这样的链，如果由 Conduit 优化并构建，它们有哪些优势？

What do alike Layer 2s what benefits do they have of being both optimized and built by Conduit?

但你可以称之为邻近链。

But, like, call it a neighbor chains.

对吧？

Right?

总的来说，你对这些生态系统的增长有什么看法？

Just overall, what's your perspective on the growth of these ecosystems?

是的。

Yeah.

我觉得这种增长非常令人兴奋。

I think the growth is really exciting.

我认为，从叙事角度来看，这里可能有一种乐观情绪，围绕着超级链以及同质化的区块空间、更紧密的互操作性。

I think, narratively, there's kind of optimism probably part of the first shot here around, like, the Superchain and, like, kind of homogenous block space, kind of tighter interoperability.

其他生态系统也迅速以自己的方式跟进，值得肯定。

And think other ecosystems have kind of quickly followed in kind of their ways and credit to them.

也许从更宏观的角度看，问题在于，这种互操作性对用户来说究竟有多重要？

Maybe, like, zooming out, I guess, the question would be, like, how much does that interoperability actually matter to users?

嗯。

Mhmm.

根据我们目前看到的应用程序，对我来说，除了现有的跨链协议之外，并没有明显的额外优势。

And, like, based off of the current applications that we're seeing, it's not clear to me that there's a huge benefit outside of the current bridging protocols that already exist.

随便举几个客户例子，比如Aivo。

And so just to rattle off a couple customers, somebody like Aivo.

对吧？

Right?

这有点像一个去中心化交易所，而且除了从其他rollup桥接之外，几乎没有多少互操作机会。

It's kind of this decentralized exchange and, like, you know, not a lot of interoperability opportunities outside of bridging from other rollups.

你可以看看公共物品网络，没错，它在运行一些比特币资助计划，但除了桥接到这条链之外，互操作的机会依然不多。

You can take a look at public goods network, right, and kind of running some Bitcoin grants rounds, but, again, not a ton of opportunity for interop beyond bridging to the chain.

Zoro网络也是如此，你可以提出同样的观点。

Zoro network, again, you can make the same case.

我认为，坦率地说，这些新的Rollup的启动方式就是必须做到一些差异化和创新的东西。

And I think that will just, frankly, be kind of how these new Rollups actually launch is they need to do something differentiated and new.

而根据定义，这实际上并不需要我们迫切认为每个人都需要的那种程度的互操作性。

And by definition, that isn't gonna actually need that level of interoperation that, you know, we desperately think everybody needs.

我认为在某种程度上，这就像一种残留观念，我不会称之为退化，但考虑到加密计算机的发展阶段，以及应用的开发阶段，我们还处于非常早期的阶段，很难断言这就是最大全球可组合性的最终形态，而且这最重要。

And I think in some sense, there is this, I'm not gonna call it vestigial, but I think, like, we're so early in terms of how, one, like, crypto computers developed, two, how applications have developed, that it's so hard to make the case that this is the end state of maximum global composability, and that's the most important thing.

或许可以类比一下Web 2.0时代，在我们拥有联网计算机之前，Unix管道大概就是可组合性的等价物，当时人们经常使用它们。

And maybe drawing an illusion to, like, Web two, you know, back before we had, like, networked computers, you know, Unix pipes were probably, like Unix pipes were, like, kind of the equivalent of composability and, like, people use them all the time.

而现在，你只是在本地计算机上用它来写一个bash脚本。

And then, now you just use it for, like, a bash script on your, like, local computer.

对吧？

Right?

然后，所有事情都在云端发生。

And then, like, everything happens in the cloud.

所有事情都通过网络进行。

Everything happens over the network.

因此，这是一种全新的主导模式，它之所以成为可能，是因为计算环境发生了巨大变化，其能力催生了新的可能性。

And so it's just kind of this new dominant model that became possible because the compute landscape really changed and the capabilities of that allowed for new things.

因此，我认为还残留着一种对极致可组合性的过度追求，即使从今天的实际数据来看，这也不是最大的使用场景，尤其是在新兴的Rollup中。

And so I think there's somewhat of this vestigial overhang of maximum composability that even if you look at the numbers today, aren't necessarily, like, the largest use cases, particularly in, like, emerging rollups.

有意思。

Interesting.

Georgios之前向我们介绍了关于Rollup的设计与构造。

Georgios previously gave us an access about a rollup designs and constructions.

当时谈到了可定制性以及成本。

There was, like, the customizability and then the cost.

我想向安德鲁展示另一个维度，围绕整个超级链的讨论。

I wanna present another spectrum, Andrew, along like this whole like Superchain conversation.

在这个维度的一端，每条链都是超级链的一部分，无论是Optimism超级链、Arbitrum轨道还是Polygon超网；而在另一端，每条链都是完全独立的，不属于任何这些集合体。

And there is on one side of the spectrum, every single chain is a part of a Superchain, whether it's the Optimism Superchain or an Arbitrum orbit or as a Polygon Supernet, or every single chain is a complete independent chain and it's not part of these collectives.

我之所以一直觉得超级链这个话题很有趣，是因为它们是区块空间的数字集合体。

The reason why I always kinda thought this Superchain conversation is cool is because these are digital collectives of block space.

比如Optimism集合体，它负责管理超级链。

And there's like the Optimism Collective, which manages the Superchain.

我们最终会落在这个维度的哪个位置——是每条链都作为独立的生态系统，还是每条链都认定加入集合体更有利——只有未来才能告诉我们。

And where we end up on this spectrum where every single chain is its own independent ecosystem versus every single chain has determined that it's beneficial to be a part of a collective, only the future can really tell us.

乐观主义集合体的激进主张是：成为集合体一员的价值，享受共享升级和同质化区块空间的好处，足以抵消集合体收取的费用，也就是所谓的‘会费’。

The bold case for optimism, the optimism collective is that the value of being a part of the collective, the value of being part of those shared upgrades and that homogenous block space is worth it so that the fees that the collective charges, like the union fees, call it, is worth it.

这是一种值得的权衡。

That's a worthwhile trade off.

但也可能并非如此，人们更倾向于留在自己独立的二层网络生态系统中，放弃部分可组合性优势。

Or maybe it's not, and people are more inclined to stay an independent Layer two inside of their own ecosystem and sacrifice some of those composability benefits.

你对我们在这种联合式Layer 2与独立式Layer 2的连续谱中最终会落在哪里有什么看法吗？

Do you have a perspective as to where we end up on this sliding scale of unionized Layer 2s or independent Layer 2s?

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，或许我们可以重新定义一下Superchain的概念，去掉互操作性这一层，转而思考：拥有同质化的区块空间到底有多大的价值，你知道，这种空间让你能以相同的方式交互，并具备一致的安全保障。

I mean, like, maybe, like, a reframing of Superchains is kinda taking out the interoperability aspect is, like, how much is it worth it to have homogenous block space, right, that you know you can interact with in the same way, has all of the same security guarantees.

而在一个存在大量Rollup的世界里，这似乎非常重要。

And it seems like, you know, in a world of many, many roll ups, like, that matters a lot.

就像在Web2时代，人们会谈论API兼容性一样。

There's, you know, a reason why in web two, you talk about, like, API compatibility.

对吧？

Right?

不同的云服务商彼此模仿对方的API，这样用户就能轻松迁移过来。

And, like, different clouds, right, they copy each other's APIs so that you can just migrate in.

或者，当你推出一个新的数据库产品时，它会做到与Postgres兼容。

Or, like, you know, you make a new database product and it's, like, Postgres compatible.

因此，以兼容的方式进行操作并实现这些共享升级是有充分理由的，即使这并不一定与互操作性紧密相关，尽管互操作性可能是一个不错的未来扩展功能。

And so there is a good reason as to, you know, why to do it in a compatible way and to kind of have these shared upgrades that maybe isn't necessarily so tied to the interoperability aspect, even though that might be a nice kind of future add on.

我不认为这必须是Superchain的唯一组成部分。

I don't know that that has to be only part of the Superchain.

例如，你可以遵循相同的升级路径，即使不加入Superchain或不位于ARBITRUM ORBIT一侧也可以做到。

For example, like, you can follow the same upgrades and do that without being a part of the Superchain or even on the ARBITRUM ORBIT side.

对吧？

Right?

你可以紧贴规范，紧跟治理批准的版本，并与之同步升级。

You could stay closely to the spec, stay closely to what the governance kind of approved versions are, and kind of upgrade in concert with that.

我认为，最终，像Conduit这样的信息提供商将在这个领域发挥作用，我们提供的服务就是为你提供官方认证，证明你的链与这些主流网络兼容且等效，而这些网络非常流行，人人都在使用。

I think, ultimately, it's an area that, like, info providers, like Conduit will play and a service that we offer, right, is that you can get the gold stamp that your chain is gonna be compatible and, like, equivalent to all of these other major networks that are very popular and everybody use.

所以，回答你的问题，我认为兼容性是一个关键因素，尤其是在当前这个早期阶段——随着链的数量激增，我们正面临越来越多的集成难题，比如每天都有新链诞生，我该如何集成呢？

And so I think, to answer your question, I think compatibility is a key kind of thing, particularly in this early phase As we're getting this explosion of chains, as we're kind of getting these, like, integration headaches where it's like, oh, like a new chain spins up every day, how am I gonna, like, integrate?

而仅仅知道你的东西能正常运行

And, like, just knowing that your stuff is gonna work properly

是的。

Mhmm.

这是一个巨大的优势。

Is a huge benefit.

这也最终与我们在Conduit所关注的定制类型相关，你知道，有一件事我们不能公开讨论，但我们正在开发一些令人兴奋的定制链。

And that also ultimately ties into the types of customizations that we're interested in at Conduit where, you know, one thing we we can't talk about it publicly, but we have some exciting kind of custom chains in the works.

最终，我们提供的一项服务就是，听好了。

And, ultimately, one of the services that we provide is, like, listen.

我们很乐意进行定制，但我们也希望确保：第一，你的链能兼容未来的升级；第二，你不会因为太过独特而让别人无法使用你。

Like, we're happy to do customizations, but we also wanna make sure that, one, your forward's compatible with, like, future upgrades, and, two, that you're not doing it in a way that makes you so unique that people can't use you.

因此，我们对极致的兼容性以及这种广泛的定制可能性都感到非常兴奋，它们最终将催生出新型的应用程序。

And so we're very excited about both, kind of the max compatibility as well as this broad spectrum of customization that ultimately will enable, like, new types of applications.

MANTLE，前身为BitDAO，是首个由DAO主导的Web3生态系统，所有应用都构建在MANTLE的核心产品——Mantle网络之上。这是一个全新的高性能以太坊二层网络，基于OP栈构建，但采用了EigenLayer的数据可用性解决方案，而非昂贵的以太坊一层。

MANTLE, formerly known as BitDAO, is the first DAO led web three ecosystem, all built on top of MANTLE's first core product, the Mantle Network, a brand new high performance Ethereum layer two built using the OP stack, but uses EigenLayer's data availability solution instead of the expensive Ethereum layer one.

这不仅将Mantle网络的Gas费用降低了80%，还降低了Gas费用的波动性，为MANTLE的应用提供了更稳定的基石。

Not only does this reduce Mantle Network's gas fees by 80%, but it also reduces gas fee volatility, providing a more stable foundation for MANTLE's applications.

MANTLE的国库是最大的DAO拥有的国库之一，正在为MANTLE从整个Web3领域孵化一系列项目。

The MANTLE treasury is one of the biggest DAO owned treasuries, which is seeding an ecosystem of projects from all around the web three space for MANTLE.

MANTLE已经吸引了来自Web3各处的子社区加入，例如专注于Web3游戏的Game Seven、以及提供TBL、流动性和入口服务的Bybit。

MANTLE already has sub communities from around web three onboarded, like Game seven for Web three gaming and Bybit for TBL and liquidity and on ramps.

因此，如果你想在Mantle网络上构建项目，Mantle提供了一项资助计划，为有助于扩展、保障和去中心化Mantle的有潜力项目提供基于里程碑的资金支持。

So if you want to build on the Mantle network, Mantle is offering a grants program that provides milestone based funding to promising projects that help expand, secure, and decentralized Mantle.

如果你想开始参与首个由DAO主导的Layer 2生态系统，请访问Mantle官网mantle.xyz，并在Twitter上关注@mantlexyz。

If you want to get started working with the first DAO led Layer two ecosystem, check out Mantle @mantle.xyz, and follow them on Twitter at zero x mantle.

CELLO是一款以移动优先、EVM兼容且碳负排放的区块链，专为现实世界打造，而现在，一件大事即将发生。

CELLO is the mobile first, EVM compatible, carbon negative blockchain built for the real world, and now something big is happening.

隆重推出CELLO Layer 2。

Introducing the CELLO Layer two.

这是一个具有变革意义的提案，将把CELLO快速发展的生态系统带回以太坊。

It's a game changing proposal that's going to bring CELLO's rapidly growing ecosystem home to Ethereum.

Vitalik已在CELLO论坛上表达了对CELLO Layer 2的兴奋之情，Optimism的Ben Jones也是如此。

Vitalik has shared its excitement for the CELLO Layer two on the CELLO forum, so has Ben Jones from Optimism.

但为什么呢？

But why?

CELLO Layer 2 将带来巨大优势，例如去中心化的排序器、链下数据可用性以及单区块最终性。

The CELLO Layer two will bring huge advantages, like a decentralized sequencer, off chain data availability, and one block finality.

这些意味着什么？

What does all that mean?

坚如磐石的安全性、与以太坊无信任的桥接，以及更多无需妥协的以太坊真实世界应用场景。

Rock solid security, a trustless bridge to Ethereum, and more real world use cases for Ethereum without compromise.

真实世界的采用正在发生。

And real world adoption is happening.

过去六个月，CELLO的活跃地址增长了500%以上。

Active addresses on CELLO have grown over 500% in the last six months.

借助CELLO Layer 2，Gas费用将保持低廉，你甚至可以用ERC-20代币支付Gas费。

With the CELLO layer two, gas fees will stay low, and you can even pay for gas using ERC 20 tokens.

但CELLO是一个由社区治理的协议。

But CELLO is a community governed protocol.

这意味着 CELLO 需要你的参与，让你的声音被听到。

This means that CELLO needs you to weigh in and make your voice heard.

加入 CELLO 论坛的讨论。

Join conversation in the CELLO forum.

关注 Twitter 上的 celloorg，并访问 cello.org，共同塑造以太坊的未来。

Follow at celloorg on Twitter and visit cello.org to shape the future of Ethereum.

好的。

Okay.

所以兼容性，我真的很想深入聊聊这一点。

So compatibility, I really wanna double click on that.

你是说，拥有同质化的区块空间和真正的可组合性，在区块链交易层面，这正是最近加密推特关注的焦点，确实带来了一些优势。

So you're saying that there's some benefits of having homogenous block space and true composability in the blockchain transaction sense of the focus that so much of crypto Twitter has been on lately.

但我觉得你是在说，这还带来了生态系统层面的好处。

But I think what you're saying is that there's also just ecosystem benefits.

还有基础设施层面的好处。

There's infrastructure benefits.

还有共享标准的好处，也许这超出了我的专业范围，因为这一切都非常技术性。

There's shared standard benefits, maybe developer outside of my wheelhouse here because this is all very technical.

但就像EVM的好处，或者Optimism生态系统的Rust语言OP栈客户端，我认为Georgios和Paradigm的许多其他人正在使用它。

But just there's, like, you know, the benefits of the EVM, for example, or, like, what the Optimism ecosystem has Rust, the Rust OP stack client that I think Georgios and many others at Paradigm are using.

所以如果你想成为这个共享生态的一部分，你是否能从OP栈或Superchains中获益？

And so if you wanna be a part of that shared ecosystem, do you you have benefits of being inside of the OP stack or part of the Superchains.

这是你回答的一部分吗？

Is that part of your answer?

我认为，就像浏览器和JavaScript主导了网页开发，所有东西都围绕着这种核心的开源软件一样，保持EVM兼容并与Optimism Superchains等任何兼容且拥有庞大开源社区的项目合作，有着充分的理由，以便受益于这些网络效应。

I think that, like, similar to how, you know, browser and the JavaScript have taken over kind of web development and everything is based around this kind of core kind of open source software stuff, there's a very good reason to stay EVM compatible and, like, work with, you know, the Optimism Superchains, really anything that's, like, compatible and has a big kind of open source community around it to benefit from all those network effects.

你可以亲眼看到Georgios在RETH、OPRETH以及其他这些项目上所做的工作，你只需与EVM打交道。

And, like, you can see firsthand with what Georgios is doing with RETH and, like, OPRETH and, like, all these other things that, you know, you just work with the EVM.

你只需与Optimism或任何其他角色框架合作，就能免费获得巨大的性能提升。

You work with, like, Optimism or whatever role framework, and you just get these massive performance improvements for free.

最终，我认为作为一名开发者，以及一个即将启动自己链的人，你希望顺势而上，而不是逆流而行。

And, like, ultimately, I think as a dev and as somebody who's gonna launch their chain, you wanna be able to ride that wave up versus fighting against the tide.

是的

Mhmm.

乔治奥斯，你能比我更好地阐明一下留在这个生态系统中的技术优势吗？

Georgios, could you just illuminate much better than I could the technical benefits of staying inside of the ecosystem?

加入这些更广泛的生态系统，而不是孤军奋战，开发者能获得哪些生态系统的助力？

Just all of the developer ecosystem tailwinds that one would get by joining one of these broader ecosystems versus swimming alone, for example.

比如，有哪些好处？

Like, what are the benefits?

你能帮我们稍微解释一下吗？

Can you help us shed some light on that?

从基础设施运营方的角度，也就是链的构建者，以及使用该链的最终用户，都有各自的好处。

Well, there's the benefits from the infra operator side, the, you know, the chain builder, and then there's the end user using a chain that's a part of that.

我认为，对于基础设施运营方来说，你基本上能获得一项托管服务，而这些服务原本需要你自己去完成，比如安全升级、治理、补丁更新、随时待命的支持等等。

I would think that from the infra operator side, you basically get a managed service of something that you would otherwise you yourself need to do, whether it's security upgrades, governance, patching, having on call support, all of these things.

我觉得这些优势比人们想象的要重要得多。

I think these matter a lot more than people think.

从用户角度来看，成为这样一个系统的一部分，你的用户将获得免费的可组合性。

From the user side, by being part of such system, you would get the free composability to your users.

嗯。

Mhmm.

而且你还会获得，当然，一个统一的RPC。

And you also get, of course, that, you know, one RPC.

你不需要分别与每一个系统进行交互。

You don't need to talk to every single thing separately.

所以总的来说，用一个词来形容，你获得的是同质性。

So in general, in one word, maybe what you get is that you get homogeneity.

我看到你在文档里写字了，大卫。

I see you writing in the doc, David.

你正在把信任作为差异化因素写下来。

You're writing the trust as a differentiator.

我认为，如果每个系统都做得妥当，信任本来就会自然获得。

I think you get the trust anyway if each system is done properly.

是的。

Mhmm.

我认为老实说，现在我们正处于一种有点尴尬的状态，即你并不会获得多少无压力感。

I think it's honestly you know, right now, it's we're in a bit of an embarrassing state where, no, you don't get that much stresslessness.

最终，无论你是否处于共享系统中，只要该系统基于某个更广泛标准的特定版本运行，我认为它是否属于Superchains都不重要。

In the end state, whether you are in a shared or not system, if that system is, like, running off of a specific version of a broader standard, I think it doesn't matter if it's part of a Superchains or if it's not.

举个例子来说明，如果Blast L2正确部署并配备了适当的错误证明机制，那么你所获得的协议安全性就与其他任何L2相同。

Ultimate you know, just to illustrate the point of an example, if the Blast l two is, like, deployed correctly with appropriate fault proofs and you're in it, you have same, you know, protocol security as any other Mhmm.

如果L2或L2生态系统以适当的参数部署，情况也是如此。

L two or l two ecosystem if it's deployed with the appropriate parameters.

你能获得相同的可组合性吗？

Do you get the same composability?

不能。

No.

因为如果你的L2部署在独立的生态系统中，情况就不同了。

Because maybe you're deployed on a separate ecosystem if you're that l two.

如果你在生态系统中，那么你就能获得可组合性。

If you're in the ecosystem, then you get the composability.

关于信任层面，我觉得你本来就没问题。

So on the trust component, I feel like you're you're good anyway.

即使从更基础的层面来看，我认为工具的兼容性也很重要。

And even at a more pedestrian level, I think, like, compatibility is important for tooling.

我知道乔治奥斯提过，但为了明确一点，像区块浏览器、Tenderly、Dune 这些工具，都需要支持 RBC。

I know Georgios brought it up, but just to make it explicit, things like Block Explorers, things like Tenderly, things like Dune, all of this, like, tooling, you know, they need to run RBCs.

它们需要针对 RBC 运行。

They need to run against RBCs.

他们的

Their,

你知道，这些软件是针对特定版本工作的。

you know, software works against certain versions.

所以，如果你认为每一个这样的工具都有自己的破解版 Inferteam，并且能跟上所有不同的定制化需求，那你就太低估了这个行业工程师的数量了。

And so, like, if you think that every single one of these tools has, like, a cracked Inferteam and is gonna be able to keep up with all the different customizations, I think you have a very overrated sense of, like, how many engineers there are in the industry.

我认为，最终来说，你只是希望能够顺应这股潮流，通过简单地切换 RPC 端点就能实现相同的组件即插即用，而不是去对抗一个高度定制化的系统。

And I think, ultimately, again, you just wanna be able to ride this wave where you have the same stuff you can plug and play just by switching out an RPC endpoint versus something massively custom that then you're fighting against the tide.

Georgios，我想再确认一下关于信任这个部分，确保我们讨论的是同一个事情。

Georgios, I just wanna double check on that trust element, make sure that we're talking about the same things.

我对这个问题的理解是，当有上万条不同的链时，用户去理解他们所处或打算使用的链的安全性和可靠性，其认知负担会太大。

The way that I kinda understand this is that when there's going to be 10,000 different chains, the overhead for users to understand the safety and security of the chain that they're on or they're interested in using is gonna be too much.

但当我访问任何网站时，我其实并不会去想这个问题。

And I don't really think about this when I go to any websites.

这很合理。

That's fair.

但有时候，当我访问某些网站时，我的浏览器会提醒我：这个网站你可能需要三思。

But sometimes there's one of these websites that I go to and my browser is like, hey, this website you might wanna think twice about.

如果浏览器不告诉我这一点，我根本不知道该如何识别这种情况。

I would have no idea how to identify that if the browser didn't tell me this.

这就是无论哪条链都基于共享状态（比如 op stack）的好处之一。

This is one of the benefits of having a shared state of whichever the chain is built on, so the op stack.

你可以想象，当你访问一个HTTPS网站时，浏览器中那个小小的安全盾牌，可能也会有类似的东西。

You could imagine that little shield of security in your browser when you go to an HTTPS website, you might have something similar.

所以，这意味着你正在使用一个经过验证的OP Stack链和经过验证的客户端。

So it's like, you are on a verified o p stack chain with a verified client.

这正是我所说的信任。

That's kinda what I mean by trust.

这是个很好的观点。

That's a great point.

这是个很好的观点。

That's a great point.

我之前说话时没有意识到这一点。

I had not appreciated that earlier when I was talking.

是的。

Yes.

说得太对了。

Spot on.

我们浏览器中的每一个安全防护机制，当每个浏览器都内置了防火墙之类的东西时，这些浏览器中的每一个防护机制在连接到OP堆栈链、轨道链或其他类似架构时，无疑都会得到额外的保护。

Every shield that we have on our browsers, when every browser will bundle a wall and then whatnot, every shield that we have in the browser will for sure be extra shielded, let's say, when it captures an OP stack chain or a, you know, an orbit chain or whatever else.

是的。

Mhmm.

我不确定用户是否能分辨出这是否属于某种特定类型的链。

I don't know that the user will know whether it is part of a specific flavor Right.

但用户需要一个特定的保险箱来表明这一点。

But the user will need a certain lockbox to indicate it.

太棒了。

Beautiful.

太棒了。

Beautiful.

我想转到模块化的话题。

I wanna pivot to the modular conversation.

安德鲁，在我们开始这个播客之前，我注意到Conduit发了一条推文，关于他们的一个OP堆栈链Lyra，将其数据可用性从我所认为的以太坊一层切换到了CELESTIA。

Andrew, right before we started this podcast, I actually noticed that Conduit put out a tweet about Lyra, which is one of the Conduit OP stack chains, pivoting its data availability from what I believe was the Ethereum layer one to CELESTIA.

请你谈谈你对这类趋势的看法，现在我们有以太坊二层网络，但这些二层网络有可能会选用CELESTIA来提供数据可用性支持。

Give us your perspective as to the evolution of this conversation where we have Ethereum layer twos, but that are potentially consuming CELESTIA for data availability.

你觉得2024年这个领域会发展成什么样？

Where do you think this goes in 2024?

对。

Yeah.

我认为这一变化最核心的作用是大幅降低了Rollup的成本，这个成本降幅足以支撑很多全新的应用落地。

I think what this really enables is bringing roll costs down significantly to a point that really enables, like, new apps.

对吧？

Right?

所以我觉得，汇总链的成本现在还是挺高的，尤其是回头看12月的情况，

And so I think, like, roll ups kind of quite expensive, particularly if you look at December.

对吧？

Right?

主网的Gas价格那时候都暴涨了。

Mainnet gas prices were, like, spiking.

这里有很多活动。

There's a ton of activity.

即使你有自己的滚动链，你仍然无法完全避开那里实际发生的各种活动。

And even if you have your own rollup, you're still not fully insulated from all the activity that actually happens there.

对吧？

Right?

因为当主网Gas价格飙升五倍、十倍、甚至一百倍时，你的应用——原本可能只有不到一分钱的手续费——现在每笔交易却要花一美元，这会从根本上改变许多滚动链的商业模式和经济模型，因为坦白说，很多滚动链要么……

Because as main net gas prices increase, like, five x, 10 x, 100 x, whatever it is, suddenly, like, your app, which, you know, maybe had subcent fees, sub 10¢ fees, you're paying, like, a dollar per transaction, and that meaningfully changes the business model and the economic model for a lot of these rollups where, you know, frankly, a lot of them are either one.

区块链的核心意义就在于手续费低廉，以支持新的行为模式，比如在Zuora网络上，收集和铸造的成本非常低。

Like, the point of the chain is that fees are low to enable new types of behavior, like on Zuora network, like collecting and minting is very cheap.

或者，很多这类应用其实是在为用户支付Gas费，结果累积起一笔巨大的账单。

Or, frankly, like, lot of these applications are paying gas fees for their users and, like, you know, they're just running up this huge bill.

而这就是AltDA层真正发挥作用的地方：将数据成本与以太坊主网上的活动分离开来，当然，这也会带来额外的安全假设，即这些数据必须可用，并能中继到以太坊，最终与欺诈证明集成。

And that's ultimately where AltDA layers are really gonna come into play is, like, separating that data cost from the activity that's happening on Ethereum mainnet while, you know, there is an additional kind of, like, security assumption around, like, that data being available and being able to relay it to Ethereum and, like, eventual integration with fraud proofs.

但今天，坦白说，将费用降低一千倍，对滚动链而言，这简直是无法忽视的经济优势，它真正让任何团队都能轻松启动自己的滚动链。

But today, frankly, the just economic reasons of having 1,000 x, thousand x cheaper fees or really just bottom line for the Rollup are just, like, too insane to ignore and are really enabling any team to launch a roll up today.

有意思。

Interesting.

应用链的看空者之一认为，应用链可能没有足够的用户或交易量来证明其合理性，因为Rollup是有成本的。

One of the perspectives for app chain bears will say that app chains probably won't have enough users or transaction volumes in order to justify themselves because roll ups have costs.

使用CELESTIA或更便宜的数据可用性提供商来获得比以太坊更便宜的数据可用性，有助于支持这一观点——如果数据可用性成本更低，这正是Rollup的主要成本。

Using CELESTIA or just cheaper data availability providers for cheaper DA than Ethereum helps with this thesis where, well, if we have cheaper data availability, it's the main cost for roll ups.

因此，将会有更多能够经济上自洽的特定应用Rollup出现。

So therefore, there are going to be more app specific roll ups that can economically justify themselves.

你对这个观点怎么看？

What's your perspective on this?

我们能在多大程度上推进特定应用Rollup的长尾市场，使其在经济上实现自洽？

Like, how far will we be able to go down the long tail of app specific Rollups being able to economically justify themselves?

所以这里有两个变量。

So there's like two variables here.

一个是用户更多，交易更频繁，因此我们可以通过这种方式实现更多自洽。

There's just more users making more transactions, and so we can justify more that way.

此外，基础设施和数据可用性方面的成本也在下降。

And then there's also cost going down on the infrastructure and data availability sides.

能跟你聊聊你对未来的看法吗？

Just give us a peek forward on your perspective with

这个。

this.

是的。

Yeah.

我的意思是，正如你所说，使用 Altea 时，roll up 的成本中有 95% 或更多都来自于此。

I mean, I think, like, ultimately with Altea, as you said, it's, like, 95 or more percent of kind of the cost of a roll up.

而 Altea 基本上让这部分成本变为零。

And AltiA basically makes that free.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我认为这将催生更多应用场景，并让初创公司能够自由地进行尝试。

I think enables, like, a lot more use cases and enables startups to just experiment.

而且，这些并不是都会永远存在。

And, like, not all of these are gonna stay around forever.

比如，初创公司有90%左右，或者说某个惊人的比例，最终都会失败。

Like, startups rate 90% or, like, some wild statistic, like, 90% of them fail.

我认为在并购公司的长尾部分，你可能会看到类似的情况。

I think you may see something similar along the kinda like long tail of roll ups.

但关键是，如果你去AWS，启动一个EC2实例。

But the fact that, you know, if you go to AWS, you spin up an e c two instance.

每个月只需要花费大约20美元。

It costs you, like, $20 a month.

最终，如果你能把成本降到几乎零风险、可以随意尝试的程度，我认为这正是Conduit希望实现的世界，也是我们想推动的方向。

Like, ultimately, if you can get the price down to a point where it's kind of risk free to start and just kinda see where it goes, I think that's ultimately the world that Conduit wants to live in and what we wanna enable.

而且，我认为这样会带来更多的创新。

And, ultimately, I think we'll see a lot more innovation that way.

而且，说实话，我们离真正实现这一点还差一点。

And, you know, I'd say we're still kind of not quite there yet.

我认为Altea让我们更接近这种现实。

I think Altea gets us a lot closer to that reality.

安德鲁，你能从你刚开始创办Conduit时的成本说起，给我们讲讲随着时间推移，整合业务的成本是如何降低的吗？那时候还有大量可以挖掘的空间。

Can you, Andrew, give us some perspective of the lowering costs of being a roll up over time since when you started Conduit and there was a lot of juice left to squeeze?

你已经榨取了一些价值，现在整合业务更容易、更便宜了。

You've squeezed some juice, and now roll ups are easier and cheaper to deploy.

我相信，现在还有更多空间可以挖掘。

There's more juice left to squeeze, I'm sure.

给我们讲讲，整合业务的成本最初是什么水平，后来经历了哪些变化，最近又到了什么程度，未来趋势会如何？

Give us a sense of, like, where things started, where things have been, and where they are recently, and then where they are going in terms of just, like, the trend of lowering cost of roll ups.

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

For sure.

所以我想，大概一年前公司刚起步时，根本没有文档。

So I think, like, maybe a year ago when the company was starting, you know, there was no documentation.

你知道，代码库正在发生非常重大的变化，而且并不是所有的软件都已达到生产就绪状态。

You know, the code base is changing in very significant ways, and, like, not all the software was production ready.

因此，在这样的环境中起步非常具有挑战性，但我认为这让我们掌握了所使用技术栈的 expertise，并真正构建了生产级别的、真正可用的部署方案。

And so kind of starting in that environment was very challenging, but I think it's allowed us to get expertise in the stacks that we're using and really build production grade, kind of production ready deployments.

最终，我认为最重要的是理解这些技术栈的痛点和脆弱性，了解哪些地方可能出错，然后让我们内部能够为此构建解决方案。

And, ultimately, like, I think that's kind of the most important thing is understanding the pain points, understanding the vulnerabilities of these stacks, like where things might go wrong, and then allowing us internally to build, like, solutions for that.

我认为一个很好的例子是我们内部开发的 Conduit Electr，它能够实现 OP 栈链以及 ARBITRUM 和 ORBIT 链的高可用性序列化。

I think one good example of that is something that we built internally called Conduit Electr, which allows for high availability sequencing of, you know, OP stack chains as well as, like, ARBITRUM, ORBIT chains.

而在那之前，升级一条链必须停机。

And, you know, prior to this, in order to upgrade a chain, you'd have to have, like, downtime.

对吧？

Right?

你得停止序列器，升级代码，让它重新同步，然后再启动起来。

You'd have to bring down the sequencer, upgrade the code, let it sync up again, bring it back up.

而停机意味着用户无法使用这条链。

And, you know, downtime means that people can't use the chain.

你在亏钱。

You're losing money.

你在损失收入。

You're you're losing revenue.

Conduit Electra 实际上允许你以零停机时间推出这些升级，这意味着用户甚至不会察觉到升级已经发生。

Conduit Electra actually allows you to roll out those upgrades with zero downtime, which means that users don't even notice that an upgrade happened.

这对于硬件故障之类的情况也很重要，我们可以自动故障转移，而不是像现在许多 OP Stack 链那样需要手动故障转移——这意味着当系统宕机时，必须有人被叫醒，他们需要找出问题所在，然后实际执行故障转移。

That's also important for things like if a hardware failure happens or something like that, we automatically failover versus, you know, I think for a lot of op stack chains out there today, it's a manual failover, which again means that when it goes down, somebody needs to get paged, they need to wake up, they need to figure out what the issue is, and then they need to, like, actually fail it over.

因此，通过早期这些经验的磨练，我们打造出了业界顶尖的解决方案，这不仅极大地提升了链的可靠性，也让我们对共享排序等未来方向有了深刻洞察。

And so cutting our teeth on kind of those early prompts allowed us to build, like, a best in class solution that, you know, one, much better for kind of the reliability of the chain, but also, frankly, giving us a lot of insight into the future of things like shared sequencing.

嗯。

Mhmm.

是的。

Yeah.

这正是我一直思考 Conduit 和其他这些 Rollup 即服务提供商的有趣之处：正如我前面提到的，这简直就是众多区块链的中心枢纽。

It's one of the interesting things I always just think about Conduit and these other, like, Rollups as a service providers is, like I alluded to earlier, this is just like an epicenter of many chains.

所有的链在RAAS内部都彼此紧密相连。

Like, all the chains are, like, approximate to each other inside of a RAAS.

你能跟我们分享一下RAAS的商业模式吗？

Could you just just share with us what what's the RAAS business model?

一个典型的RAAS商业模式是什么样的？

The the archetypal archetypal, like, business model for a RAAS.

RAAS是怎么赚钱的？

Like, how does a RAAS make money?

那么，RAAS能为链之间的互联做些什么？

And then what can a RAAS do for the webbings between the chains?

是的。

Yeah.

当然。

For sure.

所以，从商业模式的角度来看，通常包含两个部分。

So I guess in terms of business model, it's typically two components to that.

有基础设施和托管费用，你知道的，你正在为这条链运行一堆东西。

There are the infrastructure and, like, hosting fees, which are, you know, you're running a bunch of stuff kind of for the chain.

你在运行排序器。

This you're running the sequencers.

你还在运行任何与第一层同步的额外组件。

You're running any additional components to sync with Layer one.

你在运行RPC，希望它是自动扩展的，而不是固定数量的节点。

You're running the, you know, RPC, hopefully, it's auto scaling versus kind of like a fixed set of notes.

这实际上是一个相当不容易解决的问题。

It's actually like kind of a, you know, nontrivial thing to solve.

然后你还有监控、告警系统，所有这些都需要确保它具备生产就绪能力，能够顺利上线主网。

And then you have your metrics, you have your alerting, so you have all the stuff to make sure that it's, you know, production ready and and gonna be ready for Mainnet.

这一切都是SaaS类的东西吗？

And is this all just, like, SaaS stuff?

这只是一个SaaS模式吗？

This is just SaaS model?

所以这基本上就是一个SaaS模式。

So that's kinda just like a SaaS model.

对吧？

Right?

而且我觉得随着时间推移，成本会降低。

And, like, I think over time, costs will be brought down.

我觉得加密软件在设计时并没有考虑到如何轻松实现多租户，比如。

And, like, I think crypto software hasn't been engineered in a way that makes it easy to do multi tenancy, for example.

所以，如果你看看很多传统的Web 2.0公司，无论是PlanetScale还是其他任何SaaS服务，它们都把多租户内置到了模式中，这意味着你可以让多个客户共享同一套硬件资源。

So, like, if you look at, a lot of traditional Web two companies, whether it's, like, PlanetScale or like you pick any SaaS, they've kind of built multi tenancy into the model, which means that you get to share, you know, a bunch of customers across like one kind of hardware stack.

如今，一切都相当独立。

Today, everything is pretty distinct.

这意味着每个人都有自己的专用资源。

And what that means is, like, everybody gets their own dedicated capacity.

所以，这对稳定性和正常运行时间来说是很好的。

And so, like, that's great for, like, stability and uptime.

这意味着对于长尾部分来说，运行成本会更高一些。

It does mean that for kind of the longer tail, it's just, a bit more expensive to run.

随着时间推移，我们内部正在开发一些解决方案，再次降低成本，并让你根据使用量进行扩展。

Over time, like, internally, we're working on solutions here that will, again, bring the price down and allow you to scale with your volume.

是的。

Mhmm.

所以如今，RBC某种程度上就是这样，但你可以想象一下测序的情况。

And so today, the RBC is somewhat that, but, like, you can imagine for sequencing.

对吧？

Right?

主要的瓶颈在于处理这些交易以及对状态的访问。

And the main kind of bottleneck being, you know, processing these transactions and kind of access to states.

我们可以弹性地扩展以应对交易高峰，然后再缩减规模。

We can elastically kind of scale that up to absorb like a burst of transactions and then scale that down.

因此，随着时间推移自动实现价格与性能的最佳平衡，确实是我们非常关注的。

And so just getting the kind of price to performance ratio automatically correct over time is definitely something that we're keen on.

商业模式的另一个方面是排序器费用。

The other aspect of the business model is sequencer fees.

正如你所知，排序器出售L2的Gas并购买L1的Gas。

So as you know, sequencers sell L2 gas and buy L1 gas.

对吧？

Right?

这个差价就是排序器的净收入。

And so that diff is the sequencer kind of, like, net revenue.

最终，大部分收入都会归客户所有。

And, ultimately, like, most of that goes to the customer.

这是他们的权利。

It's their right.

对吧？

Right?

这有点像收入模式。

It's kind of like the revenue model.

然后，通常RAAS提供商都会从中抽取一定比例，而World Frameworks这样的公司，比如Optimism和ARBITRUM，也可能从这部分收入中抽取一定比例。

And then, typically, RAAS providers take a percentage of this, and then World Frameworks, for example, Optimism and ARBITRUM are kind of, you know, name your role up here, may also take a kind of a percentage of that as well.

也会抽取一部分比例。

A percentage of that as well.

就是那个BASE支付给Optimism Collective的15%费用吗？

And is that the fee, the 15% optimism fee that BASE pays to the Optimism Collective?

你指的是这个吗？

Is that what you're talking about?

没错。

That's right.

对于Superchains来说，是15%。

So for the Superchains, it's 15%.

对。

Right.

至于ARBITRUM，我认为根据不同的许可协议，大约是10%。

And then I believe for ARBITRUM, depending on the license, I think it's around 10%.

好的。

Okay.

好的。

Okay.

明白了。

Understood.

这些模式显然在不断演变。

These models are obviously kind of evolving over time.

当然。

Sure.

当然。

Certainly.

是的。

Yeah.

加密货币不一直在不断发展吗？

Well, crypto's evolving all over time, isn't it?

所以RaaS商业模式纯粹靠量。

So the RAAS business model is just volume.

就是靠量。

It's just volume.

对吧？

Right?

就是总交易量。

It's just total transactions.

这确实是它的来源吗？

That's really where it comes from?

是的。

Yeah.

交易的组合。

Mix of transactions.

我的意思是，这真的取决于网络。

I mean, like, it really depends on the network.

例如，对于Zoro网络，我们在托管费用和序列器收入方面大约各占一半。

For example, for Zoro network, we're probably around 50 50 in terms of hosting fees and, like, sequencer revenue.

嗯。

Mhmm.

但同时，由于他们有大量集成，实际上在我们目前尚未盈利的RPC端点上承载了巨大的负载。

But, also, they have one of the largest because they have so many integrations, actually just have a ton of load on the RPC endpoint that we don't monetize today.

因此在未来，你可以想象，我们会大幅降低成本，然后更精细地对RPC服务收费。

And so in the future, you can imagine, again, us, like, bringing costs down, like, significantly and then being able to charge more granularly kind of with the RPC.

好的。

Okay.

想象一下，有一个链，规模巨大，交易量非常大。

So imagine that there's a chain that's just massive, tons of volume.

这是一个单链，处理着海量的交易量。

It's a single chain that's doing a ton of volume.

你在这笔收入中的份额，按百分比来看可能会下降，但以绝对金额来看会增加。

Your share of the revenue of that, it probably decreases as a percentage, but it increases in nominal terms.

对吧？

Right?

所以对于一些规模较小、使用较少、不太受欢迎的链，你们可能采取大约五五分的分成方式。

And so maybe some of these smaller, less used, less popular chains, you guys are taking, like, maybe, let's take a more of a fifty fifty split.

但随着这些链变得更大，你们在每条链上的收入占比会下降，但总收入（以美元计）会上升。

But then as these chains get larger, your percentage of your revenue comes down on a per chain basis, but the total, like, US dollar revenue goes up.

是这样吗？

Is that right?

我认为这是一种可能的运作方式。

I think that's one way that it could work.

我认为，从长远来看，我们仍然处于这些模式的非常早期阶段。

I think, ultimately, we're still very early in, like, these models.

是的。

Mhmm.

以及序列器收入是否是客户的主要收入来源。

And whether or not sequencer revenue is the primary revenue driver for the customer.

一个例子是，我老是提到Zohr网络。

One example is, like, I keep bringing up Zohr network.

对吧？

Right?

他们收取1美元的铸造费。

They have a $1 mint fee.

嗯。

Mhmm.

所以，如果你只看铸造费和他们的铸造次数，那就是主要的收入来源。

And so if you just look at the mint fee and how many mints they have, that's the primary revenue driver.

因此，序列器费用对这一点来说就没那么重要了。

And so sequencer fees are kind of less important for that.

对。

Right.

所以，最终还是要根据客户的具体情况来判断。

And so, ultimately, it's gonna be case by case based on the customer.

而且，你知道，我们想做的就是让激励机制保持一致，确保我们在为客户提供价值时也能获得相应的回报。

And, you know, what we wanna do is just kind of align incentives and make sure that, you know, we're getting value when we're providing value for the customer.

根据客户具体情况来处理，客户指的是链，这听起来很难规模化。

Case by case based on the customer, the customer being the chain, that that sounds hard to scale.

如果我们真要实现数百万个Rollup——这是我们大家都希望的，至少先从几千个开始——那该如何扩展一种每个链的经济模型都需要单独谈判的商业模式呢？

If we're gonna have millions and millions of Rollups, which is what we all kinda want, at least thousands, starting with thousands, how do you scale out a business model in which each the economics of each chain has to be negotiated?

确实如此。

Definitely.

所以，我认为，就目前而言，我们的理念是：做那些无法规模化的事情。

So that's where I think, like, today, our ethos is, like, do things that don't scale.

未来，我们得想办法重新回到这个问题，找到一种更可扩展的解决方案。

And in the future, we'll have to figure out a way to kinda, like, wrap back to this and and figure out something a bit more scalable.

嗯。

Mhmm.

我觉得，我们现在的重点是尽可能服务更多的链，把我们的基础设施推广出去。

I think, like, our focus today is on just serving as many chains as possible and getting our infra kind of out there.

所以我们现在不太关心具体的分成或其他细节，更关注如何在市场中成长，因为一年前，人们还不知道它的存在。

And so we're less concerned today about, like, particular splits or kind of whatever, and we're more interested in kind of growing in the market because I think a year ago, people didn't know it existed.

而现在它正以令人兴奋的方式快速发展，我们只是希望在未来一年内将其规模扩大十倍甚至百倍。

And now it's taking off in an exciting way, we just wanna 10 x or a 100 x that kind of over the next year.

大卫，从一开始，我就一直把Conduit想象成基础设施领域的瑞士。

And, David, one way that I've been thinking at least about Conduit from the very beginning is that almost like the Switzerland of infrastructure.

只需部署你的东西即可。

Just deploy things.

它就在那里，随时为你服务。

It's there for you.

我们很乐意托管各种服务。

We will collocate services happily.

我们会提供所有非标准化的服务，几乎以成本价提供，因为我们希望聚焦于价值所在，并最终如安德鲁所说，把蛋糕做大。

We will offer every service that is not a commodity, like, for basically cost price because we want to go where the value is and to ultimately, as Andrew said, grow the pie.

而如今，如果你看一下基础设施市场，人们为那些其实运行成本极低、操作并不复杂的服务收取高昂费用，这实在有点令人尴尬。

Whereas right now, if you look at the infra market, it's a bit embarrassing how much people charge for services that are embarrassingly, you know, cheap to run or, you know, not that sophisticated to operate.

因此，通过Conduit，我们希望将所有这些领域商品化，并转向真正创造价值的地方。

So with Conduit, we hope to kind of commoditize all of these areas and to go to where the actual value is.

Andrew，我还有一个关于RAAS经济模式的问题。

Andrew, one more question about, like, kind of the economics of a RAAS.

我一直认为，RAAS和Rollup框架之间存在一种拉锯战。

I've always understood that RAASes are kind of in a tug of war with the Rollup frameworks.

而Rollup框架，比如OP堆栈、Arbitrum Orbits，它们都希望收取费用。

And so the Rollup frameworks, the OP stacks, the Arbitrum Orbits, they want their fees.

RAAS也希望收取费用。

RAASes want their fees.

这两者之间就像一场谁来拿走费用的拉锯战。

And there's kind of, like, a thumb of war of who gets the fees.

你如何看待RAAS和Rollup框架之间的关系？

How do you think about the relationship between RAASes and Rollup frameworks?

我认为，如果从长远来看仔细分析的话，你说得对。

I think, like, maybe in the long run, like, if you really analyze it, I think you're right.

未来可能确实会存在某种竞争关系。

There probably is some sort of, like, competitive aspect there in the future.

我认为，以今天的市场状况来看，还处于非常早期的阶段。

I think, like, given the state of the market today, it's so early.

市场规模太小，增长空间太大，所以我根本觉得这还不是个问题。

It's so small, and there's so much room to grow that I just don't think it really comes up.

归根结底，我的想法是我们希望与所有不同的Rollup框架紧密合作，推动它们软件的分发。

And, ultimately, the way that I think about it is, like, we wanna work very closely with all the different role of frameworks and enable the distribution of their software.

是的。

Mhmm.

而要做到这一点，所需的技能与开发核心协议本身是完全不同的。

And I think it's a very different skill doing that than core protocol development of the actual role.

因此，我认为这里存在大量协同效应和互补技能，我们非常期待将我们在OP栈和Arbitrum栈上的成果打包，推广到新的框架和生态系统中。

And so I think there's a ton of kind of synergies and complementary skills here, and we're very excited to kind of package up what we've done with the OP stack and the ARBIT stack and bring that to new frameworks and new ecosystems.

而且，归根结底，我们今天的立场是：让我们一起把蛋糕做大，而不是争夺今天那些微不足道的残羹冷炙。

And think, ultimately, again, our attitude today is, you know, let's grow the pie together versus, like, fight over the small scraps that exist today.

太棒了。

Beautiful.

乔治奥斯，我想把话题转向L2安全。

Georgios, I wanna turn the conversation to L2 Security.

你之前提到了多客户端欺诈证明，我认为这和多证明者是一回事，但这里的证明者是ZK意义上的。

You brought up multi client fraud proofs earlier, which I believe are the same things as multi provers, but provers are in the ZK sense.

如果我理解错了，请纠正我。

Correct me if I'm wrong.

我想从这里开始。

I wanna start there.

很多人关注rollup因为没有共享排序而显得中心化，但我其实不这么认为。

There's a lot of focus on rollups being centralized because they don't have shared sequencing, but I actually don't think that that's right.

我一直认为，rollup之所以有优势，是因为欺诈证明和ZK证明使其能够实现中心化计算。

Of the benefits I've always thought is like rollups actually get to have centralized computation because of fraud proofs, because of ZK proofs.

也许你能更详细地解释一下，比我讲得更好，然后我们再深入讨论为什么多证明者和多客户端欺诈证明很重要。

Maybe you can unpack that a little bit more and explain it better than I can, and then we'll get into the conversation of why multi provers and multi client fraud proofs are important.

但你能谈谈共享排序在去中心化中的作用吗？它有多重要？

But can you just talk about the role of shared sequencing when it comes to decentralization and how important is that?

当然。

Of course.

Rollup 是主区块的扩展。

So a rollup is an extension of the main block.

排序者是一个拥有特权的参与者，你可以信任他们做一些事情，比如对交易进行排序，并在扩展主网区块之前提供一些批量处理的好处。

And a sequencer is just a privileged party that's able to would trust them for some things to order and to give us some batching benefits before we extend that mainnet block.

目前，我们只有一个排序者。

Now right now, we only have one sequencer.

而这个唯一的排序者，可能会行为不当。

And that one sequencer, maybe they can misbehave.

他们可以做任何他们想做的事情。

They can misbehave by doing anything they want.

他们可能会引入一个无效的状态转换。

They could introduce an invalid state transition.

他们可能会遗漏一笔交易。

They could omit a transaction.

他们可以做很多事。

They could do a lot of things.

为了应对这种情况，他们的二层系统设计基本上引入了一种证明、游戏或你愿意称作的任何机制，要求排序者必须遵守，以确保即使只有一个人，也无法损害我们——这意味着他们不能拿走我们的资金，也不能审查我们。

To combat that, their Layer two system design basically introduces a proof or a game or whatever you wanna call it that the sequencer needs to follow in order to make sure that even though it's one person, that person cannot screw us, which means that they cannot take away funds from us and they cannot censor us.

为此，Rollup采用了两种机制。

And for that, there is two mechanisms that Rollups employ.

一种是错误证明和有效性证明，确保排序者无法盗取我们的资金，因为如果他们这么做了，在乐观情况下，有人会出来挑战，从而中止无效的状态转换。

One is the fault proof and the validity proof, which ensures that the sequencer cannot steal funds from us because if they do, somebody in the optimistic case will come in and challenge them, and that will abort the invalid state transition.

或者在有效性证明的世界中，排序者还负责发布一些加密信息，表明：嘿。

Or in the validity brief world where the sequencer is responsible for also posting some cryptographic information that says, hey.

我所做的实际上是正确的。

What I did is actually correct.

至于审查用例，不是关于我们的资金安全，而是针对审查问题，每个Rollup协议都内置了一个强制包含功能，这意味着如果排序者宕机、停止响应、去度假或发生其他情况，用户都可以前往一层智能合约。

Now for the censorship use case, not for the, you know, soundness of my funds, but for the censorship use case, every rollup protocol also comes in with a force inclusion function, which means that if the sequencer dies, stops responding, you know, goes on vacation, whatever, the user can go to the Layer one smart contract.

而他们的钱包，理想情况下在未来——这在今天仍然处于一个尴尬的状态——钱包应该能够自动判断：如果序列器宕机了，就不要发送交易。

And their wallet, ideally in the future, again, this is something that's also in an embarrassing state today, The wallet should basically choose, hey.

而是直接将交易发送到Layer 1，这样系统才能继续运行。

Sequencer is down instead of sending the transaction.

序列器实际上会把它发送到Layer 1，从而保证流程持续进行。

The sequencer actually send it to the l one, and that will keep things going.

嗯哼。

Mhmm.

但我们现在还不在那个世界里。

Now we're not in this world.

因此，由于我们还不在那个世界，所有序列器升级都采用多重签名机制，我们也清楚序列器的身份。

So because we're not in this world, we have multisigs on all sequencer upgrades, and we know who the sequencer is.

在我们能够允许任何人提交错误证明，以及允许任何人启动序列器以在前一个序列器宕机时继续链上运行之前，我们只能继续依赖多重签名，系统仍将保持中心化。

So until we have the ability to have anyone to be able to submit the fault proof, And until we have the ability for anyone to spin up a sequencer to continue the chain if the previous sequencer dies, we're going to stay in with multisigs, and it's going to remain centralized.

那么，我们如何才能进入这样一个世界：任何人都可以提出错误证明，任何人都可以成为序列器？

Now how do we get to this world where anyone can propose fault proofs or anyone can be a sequencer?

这就是多签证明或你愿意称其为其他名称的多签机制，比如多签故障证明或多签有效性证明。

That is the word of multiproverts or of whatever you wanna call them, multisig of fault proofs or multisig of validity proofs.

想法是，由于故障证明和有效性证明是新兴技术，与其让其中一种决定争议或某个操作的结果，为什么不使用两个、三个或更多呢？

And the idea is that because the fault proofs and the validity proofs are novel technologies, instead of having one of them decide the outcome of a dispute or of a certain operation, why not have, let's say, two or three or more?

我们为什么不采用一个多数决机制，比如三分之二多数？

Why don't we have a quorum, let's say, a two of three quorum?

会存在许多不同的配置方案。

Many configurations will exist.

但例如，在Optimism的场景中，我们将使用一个基于Geth构建的MIPS故障证明。

But for example, in the Optimism context, we're going to have one fault proof that runs on MIPS built on Geth.

我们还会拥有另一个故障证明，同样基于MIPS，但构建于RETH之上。

We will also have another fault proof that again runs on MIPS but built on RETH.

我们还将第三个证明基于零知识证明，它实际上是一个有效性证明。

And we'll have a third proof that is built on risk zero and is actually validity proof.

只有当其中两个或三个证明对结果达成一致时，我们才允许提款进行。

And we will only allow a withdrawal to go through if two or three of them agree on the outcome.

那我们为什么要这么做呢？

Now why would we do that?

因为这样能提供更多的冗余。

Because it gives us more redundancy.

是的。

Mhmm.

有了更多冗余，我们就能更全面地增强对系统安全性的信心。

And with more redundancy, we gain more confidence in the security of the system in aggregate.

通过这样做，我们终于能实现所谓的第二阶段去中心化和rollups，从而摆脱辅助工具。

And by doing that, we can finally reach the so called stage two decentralization and roll ups, which will let us remove the training wheels.

是的。

Mhmm.

我认为这将在2024年发生。

I think this will happen in 2024.

哦，天哪。

Oh, wow.

今年。

This year.

这一直是阻碍二层滚动协议实现完全去中心化和无信任状态的主要问题之一。

This has been, like, one of the big things that's been holding Layer two roll ups back in terms of just their full decentralization and trustlessness.

对吧？

Right?

我对这个问题的理解是，正是以太坊的多客户端设计多次保护了以太坊的安全。

And the way that I kinda think about this is like, it's just the multi client design for Ethereum that has protected Ethereum so many times.

现在，为二层网络做同样的事情

Now, doing the same things for Layer 2s

是的。

Yes.

但在欺诈证明的背景下。

But inside of the fraud proof context.

所以，是的。

And so Yes.