Exclusive interview with Berachain Lianchuang: The last interesting public chain in the cryptocurrency circle, we must carry out the grassroots movement to the end
Interview: Jack, BlockBeats
Translation: Lucy, Ladyfinger, BlockBeats
After the end of the Alt L1 era led by the “Solunavax Three Musketeers”, the “new public chain” track has become boring. L2 The improvement of modular infrastructure such as RaaS has made "chain building" a relatively simple matter. On the other hand, the large and comprehensive new public chains are highly homogenized from the ecological architecture to the front-end experience. A bunch of new words are used in the promotional materials, but in fact even the names are the same: random, random, random.
In the past year, the team and VC have focused too much on the so-called technological innovation of the chain, emphasizing TPS and settlement speed all day long, but ignoring the basic issue of product PMF.CommunityUnder these calls, the market is no longer willing to pay for these new ecological high-performance public chains, and many large projects have become ghost chains.
In contrast, Solana and TON, which use user activity as a breakthrough, are particularly popular. People are losing money happily on pump.fun and clicking on Telegram until their pinkies cramp. You can see from the price performance of SOL and TON that as long as there is a reason, people will pay for it no matter how expensive it is. Therefore, "VC coins" are not the fundamental reason for the birth and death of new public chains. "Technical thresholds" are all paper tigers. "Someone comes to play with you" is the key to survival, which is also the simplest way to judge the potential of public chains. According to this logic, if we examine the new public chains on the market today, Berachain is probably the only one that can pass the passing line.
Recently, BlockBeats interviewed BerachainSmokey The Bera, talked about their "sloppy" LOGO design and how they planned to "squander" the $140 million in financing.
Grassroots culture + super high valuation =?
Berachain is a chain that looks different from any angle, with a slightly abstract brand name, a lazy LOGO design, and even a consensus mechanism that has become a DeFi game. But such a grassroots chain has completed two rounds of financing of $140 million in the past year at a super high valuation. Before you have a deeper understanding of it, Berachain may really make you doubt that the world is a big grass-roots team.
However, in fact, Berachain has the purest Degen gene. It originated from a rebase NFT project called Bong Bears, which was then jointly launched by several DeFi OGs and quickly attracted a number of early DeFi investors to join. Although it focuses on grassroots culture, Berachain cannot be a grass-roots project in terms of strength or financial resources.
Interestingly, from Bong Bears NFT to today’s Berachain, “liquidity” seems to have always been the key word that the team focuses on when building products. Behind liquidity is the design of gameplay, gaming, and revenue. The product’s measurement standard is no longer the technical level, but the user portrait and activity level.
BlockBeats: Before we begin, could you please briefly introduce your background and why you decided to "transform" from an investor to a project founder?
Smokey the Bera:
I’ve spent most of my career starting companies or allocating capital to companies, and I was actually a founder before I became a venture capitalist. I was in healthcare and biotech, which is very different from crypto. But I think once you’re a founder in one field, it’s a lot easier to be a founder in another field, or you have a better understanding of what it feels like to be a founder. That’s why the transition was easier for me to adapt.
I think venture capitalists are a good path in some ways. I learned a lot through trial and error when I first started my company, which worked out pretty well, and then I thought, I can work in venture capital and use that to gain a lot of experience that I wouldn't necessarily learn if I was focusing on a single product.
Now, I can say that I was very informed by my previous experience as a founder and as a VC, and ended up being a founder again, but it wasn't particularly planned. As you mentioned, we initially saw Bong Bears as just a fun NFT experiment, but then things developed beyond our expectations, and at some point we realized that we needed to take this project seriously.
In short, I like to explore new and exciting things, and the role of a VC can help me do that to a certain extent, but I think you can have a greater impact on some things as a founder. So in many cases, if you want to see some rare opportunities, you have to do it yourself.
BlockBeats: Back to Berachain, even with your institutional background and the huge amount of financing the project has received, it still gives people a casual and Degen feeling, not like a regular "VC project". Is this atmosphere something you deliberately maintain?
Smokey the Bera:
Yes, when we look back at the last few years of crypto projects or actually being able to build realCommunityWhen you are building a project in the ecosystem, you can see a ripple effect: you must initially attract some crypto-native users or "on-chain Degen", and then this influence will gradually spread to other users.
For us, being too formal would have achieved little in terms of the team personality and the brand we have built around BeraNFT. We are not trying to present ourselves as Sui or Aptos, even though we have a very qualified team that can compete fiercely with any other organization. But the progress we have made so far, even on a very limited marketing budget, speaks well for it.
fromCommunity对齐的角度来看，这也是一个合适的选择。正如之前提到的，Berachain 起源于一个与相关的 Bong Bears NFT 项目，这几乎无法以正式的方式呈现，但反过来却也成了我们社区最强大的部分之一。因为这是一个非常草根、非常有机的概念，人们因文化相聚在一起，而不是用机器人水军或者 PUA 用户完成各种任务，只是一些相信这个概念并享受相互调侃和社交的人的「聚会」，并试图创造一种同事般的环境。
BlockBeats: In the current market, people are increasingly missing those naturally grown “organic small-cap experiments”, which is exactly the atmosphere that Berachain conveys to users. But at the same time, you have also raised a lot of VC capital. On the one hand, you want to maintain the natural small group atmosphere, and on the other hand, there are a lot of capital and hair-pulling parties waiting for returns. How do you balance this conflict?
Smokey the Bera:
I think it's a multifaceted answer. There's a saying that capital and community can't coexist, but I think that's actually wrong. Capital can help you grow community and create asymmetric opportunities and transactions that most groups can't access, especially now that we're seeing more and more people with considerable financial reserves.
Many low FDV and early grassroots projects are at a disadvantage in the future community because they are forced toTokenSell to the open market or OTC platform. Our view is that we would rather raise VC funds to give us greater leverage in the market and attract the best talent than sell to the community in the future. Every time I see the Ethereum Foundation sellTokenWhen people talk about Ethereum, they say “The Ethereum Foundation is selling itself,” and we don’t want to do that.
我认为另一个重要的方面是，当我探索新的生态系统时，不论是 Arbitrum、Optimism 还是其他新 L1，在大部分情况下，真正创造财富的不是质押或治理的 Gas Token，而往往是那些在链上推出代币的项目。回顾最近的所有 L1 或 L2 Most of them do a poor job of attracting potential projects that have the opportunity to go from zero to one to TGE on their own chains. They are basically relatively general forks of existing products, so people will lose interest after playing for a month or two. Looking at the Blast ecosystem, Orbit Protocol once had a TVL of $500 million, and now the FDV is less than $3 million. When the market is unfavorable for L1 or L2 tokens, people don’t want these tokens at all, so they tend to become very common “Pump & Dump” projects.
If we truly want an ecosystem to thrive and maintain a sense of community, there needs to be early community-driven, highly connected projects that really provide opportunities for people. This is why we focus on building the local ecosystem before launch to avoid the situation where most L1s have nothing interesting to play with in the first 6 to 12 months. On Berachain, we expect to see a range of exciting new projects that will TGE quickly, giving people the opportunity to experience new things and continue to create wealth effects.
I think this way we can achieve the best of both worlds, with capital that can support projects to maintain runways for more than five to ten years, while also being able to take advantage of various strategic opportunities in the ecosystem. We have an incubator that helps us work with the best teams in the ecosystem and quickly advance their development from a resource perspective. So far there are 10 projects, 5 of which have completed the first batch of incubation, and two of which have received investments from Binance Labs and Polychain. This brings top talent to the ecosystem and sets the bar high, a process that usually takes months or years. So we see this "treasury funds" as a means to truly serve the community, rather than extract value from it.
BlockBeats: Berachain has many VC institutions behind it, and there is also an official accelerator within the ecosystem. How do you ensure that there will be no "VC party" and "princeling" projects in the ecosystem, and secondly, how do you ensure that "organic" projects that grow naturally can be cultivated?
Smokey the Bera:
I want to be honest and say that our foundation does have an incubation department, but the projects it involves are less than 5% to 10% of the total number of projects on Berachain. We prefer to work with teams that we think are very promising and want to work closely with, especially those first-time entrepreneurs who have good ideas but lack marketing resources. We will provide them with experience and guidance. I don't want to mislead people by saying that we don't do incubation, but our incubation method is different from other teams. We are not just incubating some general ecological foundation projects, but focusing on those novel and unprecedented things.
From our interactions with the community, there are a few things that are very important to us. The first is to show the world that you are excited about the product you are building. For the Berachain ecosystem, having a passionate community or a very active early group will make it easier for developers to notice you and think there is an opportunity here.
We also have community members who we've known for a long time, who have seen the project grow and at some point had the urge to build something themselves, so when you can have community leaders like that, it's very important to go from just posting and being a trader to being a builder.
Secondly, I think it is to have a culture of support, that is, the foundation or laboratory should personally help these projects.
I see a lot of ecosystems either taking a very hands-off approach, thinking that if you build the infrastructure, the applications will follow, or just throwing tons of money at people. I think both approaches are wrong. Throwing tons of money will only attract developers who can't find capital on their own in the short term, while being completely hands-off won't make any team working in your ecosystem feel supported.
I think the best thing a foundation can do is show that you're doing a lot of work and investing a lot of beneficial time into the ecosystem, and that includes working with these teams on either go-to-market strategy, token economics strategy, or anything else to ensure they have the best experience possible and truly become an extension of their team in an unofficial way.
The key here is to be their advisor and help solve problems, rather than do everything for them. Our role is to guide them to the right path. This is like the old Chinese saying "Teach a man to fish": teaching a man to fish is more valuable than giving him a fish. This is a simple and straightforward metaphor, but it can aptly explain our philosophy.
BlockBeats: In other words, Berachain is well prepared for developers in terms of liquidity, community, and project growth. Liquidity helps you with cold start, the community helps you find users, and the incubator serves as your mentor. In short, if you are a developer, you are the right person to come.
Smokey the Bera:
I couldn’t agree more. It’s all about showing that we exist and that we’re willing to invest our time and energy. In this scenario, the team is the customer and our job is to make sure they feel truly supported and included in a curated, non-toxic ecosystem. Not an environment filled with negativity and put-downs, but one that’s fun, friendly, and encouraging.
We have a developer chat group with about 400 members working on different products on the chain. Although there is a lot of copy-paste and jokes in the group chat, I actually like this atmosphere because it fits the image of our ecosystem very well. When new teams join, they announce their plans to build, ask about potential partners and what projects others are working on. This kind of interaction naturally leads to some very cool collaboration opportunities before the chain is launched.
BlockBeats: How to create a practical project? It seems that the projects with tokens do not have the ability to generate revenue, and the projects that can generate their own revenue do not consider issuing tokens.
Smokey the Bera:
It is true that many times issuing tokens becomes the "final act" of a project's life. I have always believed that the best projects are able to achieve widespread adoption without tokens, and then use tokens to further drive this adoption.
Of course, this is easier said than done. To get to this point, you need to offer a superior product, or a service that no one else offers. You will only see high levels of adoption if users don’t have the option you offer elsewhere, otherwise users will just try various methods to get more of your tokens.
As for how to build a good project, I think the key is innovation, not for its own sake, but also requires excellent communication, deep consideration of user experience and product thinking. A particularly bad tendency in the crypto industry is to build castles in the air around high-tech or jargon that people can't really understand, and ultimately these technologies don't have much practical use, even though they look cool in theory. If you look at the problem from a more product-centric perspective, you will go further.
Using Berachain as an example, the question I think about the most is: how do we make sure we effectively educate people on what Proof of Liquidity (POL) is and how it is different from the applications we have seen before. Of course, it is very powerful on a technical level, but we want the system to feel like a familiar tool to users while giving them some new features that they have never seen before. This is what many good projects do, they provide users with the opportunity to do new things that have obvious needs, but do it in a way that is not unfamiliar and not scary.
For example, token launchpads often have, and Pump.fun adds the element of bonding curves, which is familiar and not intimidating. On the other hand, projects that have been gaining traction recently, such as Expomets on BeraChain, encourage users to make leveraged long and short trades on low-cap meme coins and altcoins.cryptocurrencyLeveraged trading of shitcoins is definitely one of the most obvious examples of product-market fit in the market. So, it is crucial to build a product that really fits the user base. There are a lot of people who just stay at the theoretical stage of building, without realizing that they may be building something that no one really needs.
BlockBeats: Based on this methodology, is creating an "on-chain casino" or "leveraged market" the best choice for entrepreneurs?
Smokey the Bera:
I don't think this is the best choice. To be more precise, it is a project that has achieved a certain balance between product and market demand. But the key lies in the distribution strategy, which is a challenge in the crypto field, and few teams can do excellent distribution.
When doing experiments, do them on a large scale
Compared with most new public chains, Berachain has really made a difference in the consensus mechanism. Berachain's POL liquidity proof uses three tokens, namely BERA, governance token BGT and stablecoin HONEY. BERA is used as a native token to pay for Gas and block rewards, BGT is a governance token that cannot be transferred, and holders can participate in the decision-making process of block reward distribution, while HONEY is a native stablecoin minted by users through mortgage.
After users deposit their assets into the ecosystem, they will receive BERA, and use HONEY to pledge with them to form an LP to provide initial liquidity for the protocol, thereby obtaining BGT emissions. In addition to obtaining BGT through LP pledge, projects that enter the ecosystem whitelist are also eligible to obtain BGT. Staking BGT can not only obtain network fee income distribution, but also have an impact on the amount and direction of BGT emissions, such as giving more to project A and less to project B.
In order to obtain more BGT, the project has to bribe BGT stakers in various ways. When participants change from a liquidity pool to a project, the bribery methods naturally increase. In other words, Berachain has turned itself into a large Curve.
BlockBeats: So for Berachain, its biggest advantage is that it has a large amount of funds from the beginning to provide startup liquidity for the entire ecosystem. The key is to have a gamification mechanism to encourage these funds to flow and circulate among various projects and user groups.
Smokey the Bera:
Yes, many of the best ecosystems build a kind of walled garden. That is, you want to have an ecosystem where people can maximize their capital without having to leave to get specific services elsewhere.
For Berachain, this will be the first chain that can "have the best of both worlds". You can participate in LP and Xiaobai NavigationYou can conduct social and governance activities in multiple different applications such as DeFi, NFT, GameFi, etc., and then have specific projects selected as part of POL (Proof of Liquidity) by obtaining whitelists or voting, making them eligible to obtain native income from the chain. This means that you can obtain project governance tokens while also obtaining additional native staking income on Berachain, and your influence on the allocation of network incentives is also doubled.
So we want to be able to minimize people's opportunity costs and have an ecosystem that can effectively attract external funds but also be self-contained to a certain extent, so that there won't be large-scale capital outflows that would lead to a lack of stability in the ecosystem and the ability to build more complex products.
BlockBeats: Blast may have encountered such a situation. Most users chose to withdraw their funds immediately after the airdrop was distributed.
Smokey the Bera:
That's right. I think the role of incentives is very important in the entire ecosystem, as well as the stability of the community. If a community is too utilitarian or too elaborately designed, it will be difficult to achieve lasting results, which to some extent reflects the current situation.
On the other hand, if you look at the ecosystems that have stood the test of time, most of them have very meaningful interaction mechanisms with the community, bringing the community together through their own unique culture or way. For example, Solana has done a great job in this regard. Another more unique case is the Tron ecosystem. No one talks about or thinks about Tron, but there is a lot of capital there, there is USDT issuance, and once people get in, they don't leave. I think this is also an interesting thinking model.
BlockBeats: Let’s go back to Berachain’s POL consensus mechanism. To some extent, it reproduces the concept of “protocol owns liquidity” proposed by OHM, that is, the protocol or ecosystem has the autonomy to allocate liquidity. At the same time, it also uses a “vote bribery” mechanism similar to Curve in its specific implementation, giving the outside world a sense of gamification. In this cycle, everyone is generally not optimistic about or no longer pays attention to the “DeFi experiment”, especially after the founder liquidation incident of Curve some time ago. But you chose to further amplify this experiment and raise it to the level of a public chain. Why?
Smokey the Bera:
I think there are a few different nuances here. On one hand, you can think of it as the DeFi ecosystem, and on the other hand, you can simply think of it as a liquidity mechanism. I think all projects in the crypto space will rely on liquidity to some extent, whether it is providing liquidity pools for their tokens in DEXs or launching the use of the protocol itself, all projects will eventually operate on the support of some kind of DeFi related technology.
Many GameFi projects will basically have a fee and reward accumulation mechanism. Projects like Fantasy Top and Pump.fun will have a bonding curve behind them that is completely driven by DeFi.cryptocurrencyThe area that generates the most usage and revenue in the space is still DeFi projects, even if it's not very obvious now, people just don't discuss it as openly as before, but if you look at Ethena, Jito, Pendle and Pump.fund, they are all DeFi projects.
I think that while DeFi is an obvious, very clear first choice in proving liquidity, it can actually be expanded to any other area. It can be used to support gaming projects and social projects, it can be used to do anything that involves value exchange and liquidity. So it's actually a very flexible tool for the future. DeFi has a very clear initial use case, but we're seeing more and more more "exotic" things starting to be driven through it.
In fact, Berachain's mechanism is not close to the model of protocol-owned liquidity. It does help to start the liquidity of the protocol, but it is more like liquidity directly guided by the validator or LP. Because ultimately the way it works is that each validator has a series of threshold settings (Gauge), and users choose to delegate to the validator based on their ideas of distributing block rewards.
So users are essentially incentivized to work with a few validators who, every time they win a block, distribute those block rewards to their own pools that provide liquidity, thereby increasing their own rewards. There are also certain "bribe incentives" in these pools that users hope to win through validators.
But I think Curve is very successful in many ways, so if you really want to understand the basics, you can think of Berachain as "chain-level Curveization" because you can actually directly and quickly distribute incentives not just to a certain DEX pool, but to any protocol on the chain.
BlockBeats: If Berachain is regarded as a "public chain extension" of the Curve experiment, what are the differences between it and Curve at the mechanism level?
Smokey the Bera:
The biggest difference lies in the logic of the validator protocol. In Curve, you can earn CRV emissions through Farming and LP mining, and then generally need to choose to lock it for a period of time to obtain veCRV, and the length and amount of lock-up will affect the mining yield of CRV.
But Berachain does not have such a mechanism. Each validator has its own threshold settings (Gauge) for the generation of your rewards or income. Every time a validator wins a block, he can choose the emission of Berachain's native token BGT, such as sending 50% of rewards to pool A, 25% to application B, and 25% to application C. The APY and incentive weights in the entire system are generated by the weighted average of the BGT token delegation weights of the validators. If one validator is delegated 1,000 BGTs and the other validator is only delegated 100 BGTs, even if the reward distribution settings for both are 50% to pool A and 50% to pool B, the former will still receive more rewards from the two pools because it has a higher weight.
Another interesting aspect is that we do have some overlap with projects like Convex, etc. Protocols can work directly with validators to cold-start their own liquidity, which is a bit like the Curve War in the past, but the rewards come from the emission of an L1 public chain, and unlike veTokens that are only locked and held, BGT is a token that can earn fees from the operation of the public chain network and generate destruction pressure.
So on one hand, you actually hold an asset that can accumulate value over time and are incentivized to hold it. Validators can choose to work directly with the protocol, for example, a validator can go to the project team and say, "Hey, you give me your X tokens, and in exchange, I will allocate my Y emissions directly to your pool or protocol." This is a great way to diversify the income channels for validators, and the process is similar to trying to invest in an early stage protocol, but the process is almost cost-free for the validator.
On the other hand, this mechanism can also be used as an incentive distribution tool for ecological protocols, because users generally delegate to specific validators that support the protocol based on the protocol they like or want to be incentivized. You can say "Hey, I want to delegate my BGT to this validator because he has incentives on protocol X and just wants to get investment exposure to protocol X." I think this level of choice or gaming is a little higher than what I've seen in the Curve ecosystem, and it's also controlled by different trading pairs, and validators can set rule weights, which actually greatly increases the complexity of different levels of this equation.
BlockBeats: In past DeFi experiments, everyone had to deal with the problem of token selling pressure, and veToken models such as ve(3,3) were born. How will BeraChain solve the BGT emission problem?
Smokey the Bera:
I think the most important thing is that we don't actually try to rely on lock-ups to solve this problem. I understand the value of lock-ups, I understand the rationale for it, it does make sense logically, but I also think that in many cases it just leads to more unhealthy pent-up demand for the token and makes these selling events more dramatic than they would otherwise be.
So, we actually try to avoid the veToken model. On Berachain, you can unbond or undelegate from a validator very easily, and we don’t have a 21-day exit period like Cosmos, but a queue like ETH. If you want to have a good token, you have to build a good project. This is not a particularly novel insight, but a lot of people try to get around building a good project by making their token more scarce, which is not really the answer.
I think you have to find a good use case or way to make your token useful and effectively build an ecosystem around it. In the case of Berachain, we did just that.
Users obtain BGT from the native emission on the chain, and BGT issoul binding, non-transferable, and cannot be sold on the open market. At this point, you have two choices. One is to entrust these BGT to a validator and use it to help you achieve compound interest, including obtaining incentives from new protocols, obtaining network fees, and effectively playing a certain role in on-chain incentive allocation and governance. The other is that you can choose to burn it and obtain BERA tokens, and use the liquidity and ecological value of BERA tokens for speculation.
Berachain embeds the user's token usage option into the underlying layer of the L1 chain. You can choose long-termism and accumulate a large amount of BGT so that you can get a lot of incentives and become a group that influences the direction of incentive distribution in the ecosystem. Or you can choose to get a lot of liquidity immediately and use it to form LPs and place them elsewhere on the chain. This freedom of choice is actually very healthy for people to explore the ecosystem in their own way.
Many people currently ignore the design of token requirements when designing projects, and our goal is to ensure that the existence of tokens has practical uses. In most cases, attempts to delay and evade token selling pressure through complex lock-up mechanisms or other means often lead people to find other ways to circumvent these restrictions, such as through strange over-the-counter OTC markets or derivatives markets, which often do not have good results.
Ask at the end
On June 13, the Berachain testnet V2 was launched, introducing BeaconKit and increasing the number of validators to more than 200. This upgrade also made Bearchain the first L1 project to achieve "EVM Identical". In fact, the Berachain team is not without technical strength, but they found that in the cryptocurrency circle, selling by promoting the superiority of technology to C-end users has almost never been successful.
BlockBeats: Let's talk a little bit about the technical aspects. Berachain V2 introduces the new concept of "EVM Identical". How is it different from "EVM compatible"? On the terminal, who will clearly feel the difference between them?
Smokey the Bera:
The main difference is in the developer experience. Although many chains claim to be EVM-compatible, they are often not completely consistent, which may cause developers to encounter obstacles when migrating applications from the mainnet to other ecosystems. Usually, they need to maintain a Geth or similar libraries and tune them for specific consensus mechanisms.
As far as we know, Berachain is the first L1 chain to build a fully EVM-consistent environment. This means that you can run execution clients such as Reth, Nethermind, Aragon, Geth, etc. without any problems because they provide the exact same execution environment as Ethereum. This allows any new EIPs to be easily integrated and the extension compatibility is exactly the same. If developers want to build L2 on their chain, they can do it in exactly the same way as on Ethereum, which is often difficult to achieve in other L1 ecosystems.
Objectively, this also relieves us of a lot of workload, in terms of maintaining a large research team or research engineering team, and when it comes to the comparison between the actual fork and this environment, we think that any contribution to the ETH mainnet benefits us in some way. From a developer tooling perspective, this is a huge benefit for building broad infrastructure, L2, and expansion. Overall, I think this is a very solid tool that provides us with strong support.
BlockBeats: Many ZK Rollups that were highly anticipated last year seem to be facing some difficulties now? Has Berachain learned any lessons from these projects?
Smokey the Bera:
No, we don't really see the value in it. Although they are seen as a cool attempt in the geek circle, in actual communication, we found that developers, especially, encountered more problems than solutions in the process of developing products. As a developer, the resistance is huge because there are always many voices vying for your attention, asking you to choose chain A or chain B for development. If you encounter many obstacles when exploring a new chain ecosystem, it is often easier to give up and say "I don't want to develop here" than to solve these problems. Therefore, our goal is to minimize the obstacles that developers may encounter and ensure that they can smoothly enter and use our ecosystem.
BlockBeats: If Berachain becomes a huge success in the future, other established or new players may imitate your mechanism. What will Berachain do then?
Smokey the Bera:
I don't think technology itself is a competitive advantage for a project. We do support the idea of open source software, although every code base may hide some unknown details. But in the final analysis, technology is not the core factor that determines the success of a project. It is a basic threshold. If the technical performance is not up to standard, users will naturally not adopt it. What really matters is the combination of technical performance and distribution strategy, which helps build a community and ecosystem.
I’m sure there’s nothing wrong with someone claiming their project is “an enhanced version of Berachain” or forking and copying Berachain. In fact, I think such competition and imitation is healthy. Just like Uniswap and Velodrome are also in differentBlockchainJust as forks have been forked before, these forks often add value to their original projects. I expect Berachain to have a similar positive impact, and we are optimistic that it will happen even if multiple forks occur.
I believe that simple technology replication cannot replicate the soul of an ecosystem, including its community culture and values. Although this may sound a bit idealistic, I think it has a real basis.
BlockBeats: One last question. If Berachain becomes bigger in enterprise applications in the future, will you consider changing the name and logo of the current “grassroots brand”?
Smokey the Bera:
We recognize that different people have different use case needs. As I said, we have been building and scaling the company, and many of our members have extensive professional backgrounds working in traditional fields, so we are very comfortable in a professional business environment. Many of our team members are publicly identified, such as Adam, who is in charge of corporate development. He has worked on popular startup projects at Amazon Web Services, handled thousands of top accounts, and later led business development at Third Web. This background allows us to showcase our past achievements and professional image while working on Berachain.
Our backers include traditional institutions and individuals such as GoldenTree and Stephen Tannenbaum, as well as co-lead investors such as Rrevan Howard Digital, who come from more traditional fields. Although the project may remain anonymous, there is strong corporate support behind it. In the future, we plan to further develop this direction, although we cannot reveal too much at the moment.
Brands are fickle, but companies are more concerned about our performance—whether we are good enough to build things from scratch. As projects enter the late execution phase, people pay less attention to the brand and more attention to the actual results we can provide.
我们还看到 BeraChain 品牌在不同情境下的调整。例如，一个在 BeraChain 上构建的 L2 最近完成了一轮重要融资，该团队在游戏领域有着丰富的经验，将帮助数千万用户进入生态系统。我们可以通过这样的分支，根据不同的用例需求，如消费者、游戏等，向人们展示 Berachain 的不同面貌。我们致力于保持品牌忠于其根源，同时随着项目的推进，我们将努力使更多的内容和信息对普通用户更加可接近，无论他们是否熟悉加密货币或Blockchaintechnology.
The article comes from the Internet:Exclusive interview with Berachain Lianchuang: The last interesting public chain in the cryptocurrency circle, we must carry out the grassroots movement to the end
If people are worried about a deeper economic slowdown in China, rate cuts could be bad for the market. Source: Coinbase Compiled by: BitpushNews Mary Liu Summary: According to Arkham data, the German government's Federal Criminal Investigation Bureau (BKA) may have completed its sell-off, with its holdings rising from about 50,000 in mid-June...
相关文章
