肥胖钱包论文

纵观加密货币的历史，关于区块链堆栈中价值最终将在何处产生的讨论一直在持续。虽然从历史上看，

Throughout crypto’s history, there has been ongoing discourse around where value will ultimately accrue within the blockchain stack. While everyone has been busy debating the merits of protocols versus applications, I believe there is a third layer within the stack that everyone is ignoring — wallets.

纵观加密货币的历史，关于区块链堆栈中价值最终将在何处产生的讨论一直在持续。虽然每个人都忙于争论协议与应用程序的优点，但我相信堆栈中还有第三层，每个人都忽略了——钱包。

The “Fat Wallet” Thesis asserts that, as protocols and applications increasingly “thin-out”, more room is being freed up for whoever owns the two most valuable resources — distribution and order-flow. Moreover, as the ultimate front-end, I believe no one is better positioned to monetize this value than wallets.

“胖钱包”论断言，随着协议和应用程序越来越“稀疏”，更多的空间正在被释放给拥有两种最有价值的资源——分销和订单流的人。此外，作为终极前端，我相信没有人比钱包更能将这一价值货币化。

In this report we aim to accomplish four things. First, we will outline three structural trends that will continue to commoditize the protocol and application layers, leaving more room for front-ends to capture value. Subsequently, we will explore the various avenues for wallets to monetize their proximity to the end-user including payment-for-order-flow (PFOF) and selling apps Distribution as a Service (DaaS). From here, we will discuss two alternative paths — horizontally integrated super-apps and cross-chain front-ends — and why they could ultimately beat wallets in the race to owning the end user. Lastly, we will highlight the specific projects that stand to benefit from the “Fat Wallet Thesis”.

在本报告中，我们的目标是完成四件事。首先，我们将概述三个结构趋势，这些趋势将继续使协议和应用层商品化，为前端捕获价值留下更多空间。随后，我们将探索钱包通过其与最终用户的近距离货币化的各种途径，包括订单流支付 (PFOF) 和销售应用程序分发即服务 (DaaS)。从这里开始，我们将讨论两种替代路径——水平集成的超级应用程序和跨链前端——以及为什么它们最终能够在拥有最终用户的竞争中击败钱包。最后，我们将重点介绍将从“胖钱包论文”中受益的具体项目。

Towards “Thinner” Protocols

迈向“更精简”的协议

The question of where value will ultimately accrue within the blockchain stack can be reduced to a simple framework. For each respective layer of the crypto stack, ask yourself the following question:

区块链堆栈中价值最终在哪里产生的问题可以简化为一个简单的框架。对于加密堆栈的每一层，问自己以下问题：

If a product within this layer increases its take rate, will users leave for a cheaper alternative?

如果这一层内的产品提高了其使用率，用户会选择更便宜的替代品吗？

Downstream of this logic, we’re able to identify where switching costs are highest and thus who has asymmetric pricing power. Similarly, we can use this framework to identify where switching costs are lowest, and therefore which layer of the stack will become increasingly commoditized with time.

在这个逻辑的下游，我们能够确定哪里的转换成本最高，从而确定谁拥有不对称的定价能力。同样，我们可以使用这个框架来确定哪里的切换成本最低，从而确定堆栈的哪一层将随着时间的推移而变得越来越商品化。

Let’s start with protocols (i.e., blockchains). In 2018, Joel Monegro laid the groundwork for why protocols will disproportionately capture value. Joel’s logic was simple. Given blockchains serve as the shared infrastructure layer for apps, switching costs are much higher at the protocol layer. In other words, even if Ethereum raised its take rate back in 2018, Uniswap can’t leave for another chain because doing so would relinquish both Uniswap’s existing user base as well as Uniswap’s composability with other Ethereum-native DeFi apps. Consequently, Uniswap is forced to remain on Ethereum, and downstream of this, users must also remain on Ethereum.

让我们从协议（即区块链）开始。 2018 年，Joel Monegro 为协议为何会不成比例地获取价值奠定了基础。乔尔的逻辑很简单。鉴于区块链作为应用程序的共享基础设施层，协议层的转换成本要高得多。换句话说，即使以太坊在 2018 年提高了其接受率，Uniswap 也不能离开到另一条链，因为这样做会放弃 Uniswap 现有的用户群以及 Uniswap 与其他以太坊原生 DeFi 应用程序的可组合性。因此，Uniswap 被迫留在以太坊上，而下游用户也必须留在以太坊上。

Joel’s conclusion was that while applications disproportionately captured value in Web2, the opposite will be true in Web3 — the crypto stack will be composed of “thin apps” and “fat protocols”.

Joel 的结论是，虽然应用程序在 Web2 中获得了不成比例的价值，但在 Web3 中情况恰恰相反——加密堆栈将由“瘦应用程序”和“胖协议”组成。

While Joel’s thesis has turned out to be directionally correct thus far, a lot has changed since 2018. I would argue that there are three structural trends today that are increasingly “thinning-out” the protocol layer:

尽管到目前为止，Joel 的论文在方向上被证明是正确的，但自 2018 年以来发生了很多变化。我认为，当今存在三种结构性趋势，它们正在日益“稀疏”协议层：

The net effect of the these structural trends is that both transaction fees and MEV will continue to compress, leaving more room for value capture from other layers of the stack. Coming back to our original framework, if Arbitrum meaningfully increased their take rate on transaction fees today, I expect they would in fact lose market share to other L2s such as base or L1s such as Solana supporting the same apps. This is especially true in a world where agents are routing user intents. Taken to its logical conclusion, fees will asymptotically compress to their technical limit, perhaps rendering hardware as the strongest source of defensibility for a protocol.

这些结构性趋势的净效应是交易费用和 MEV 将继续压缩，为从堆栈的其他层获取价值留下更多空间。回到我们最初的框架，如果 Arbitrum 今天有意义地提高了交易费用的收取率，我预计他们实际上会失去市场份额，输给其他 L2，例如支持相同应用程序的 Base 或 L1，例如 Solana。在代理路由用户意图的世界中尤其如此。得出合乎逻辑的结论，费用将逐渐压缩到其技术极限，也许使硬件成为协议最强大的防御来源。

This brings us to the second argument from the “fat protocol” output.

这给我们带来了“胖协议”输出中的第二个参数。