Are the competitive barriers of public chains really only 3 points? What does this intense industry debate reveal

Recently, the cryptocurrency industry has once again sparked a fierce debate of opinions. Alliance DAO founder qw’s view that “public chain competitive barriers are only 3/10” caused a huge stir in the community, followed by Dragonfly partner Haseeb’s frank criticism that pushed the discussion to a climax. This is not just a numbers debate but also a deeper reflection of the entire crypto industry’s confusion and introspection about its own value positioning.

Fundamental Disagreements Triggered by the Competition Barrier Scoring System

When qw proposed using a scoring system to measure the competitive barriers of different enterprises, he gave traditional giants like Microsoft, Apple, and Visa high scores of 9-10, but only awarded 3 points to public chains. This comparison immediately angered industry insiders.

Haseeb responded with sharp rebuttals. He pointed out that Ethereum has maintained its industry position despite facing over 100 billion USD in funding from hundreds of competitors over the past ten years, which itself is the strongest proof of competitive barriers. If this doesn’t count as a barrier, then what does? This argument hit the core issue of qw’s scoring system — he completely overlooked the unique network effects and long-term competitiveness of crypto assets.

What Truly Constitutes a Competitive Barrier

This debate exposes an important cognitive difference: the traditional business view of competitive barriers (revenue, profit, market share) versus the actual barriers in the crypto industry (network effects, community consensus, technological innovation) — which are fundamentally different.

A deeper analysis of public chain competitive barriers includes at least seven dimensions:

First is technological vision. Bitcoin’s decentralization ideal, Ethereum’s programmability, Solana’s high performance — these technological promises are core to attracting developers. As long as humans remain wary of centralized power and pursue personal sovereignty, this demand will persist.

Second is founder charisma. Satoshi Nakamoto left the scene after creating Bitcoin, yet the network has been self-operating for over a decade; Vitalik’s transformation from gamer to blockchain idealist; Solana founder Toly’s shift from tech elite to builder of on-chain capital internet — these stories themselves are moats. Many projects gain capital and community support essentially by betting on their founders.

Third is developer and user networks. Metcalfe’s Law and the Lindy Effect tell us that the larger and longer a network exists, the higher its survival probability. Developers are the earliest believers, and their ongoing participation determines the vitality of the ecosystem.

Fourth is application ecosystem. A tree without branches and leaves cannot survive, and the same applies to public chains. Ethereum and Solana have endured multiple winters precisely because new applications continue to be built, forming a self-reinforcing value cycle.

Fifth is token market cap. If the previous factors are intrinsic, market cap is an external manifestation. “Looking expensive” can lead people to believe “it really has value,” which is crucial for project fundraising and participation.

Sixth is openness to external connections. The ability to interconnect with traditional finance, capital flows, and various industries determines the practical value of public chains. The success of Ethereum and Solana partly stems from their links to the traditional financial world.

Finally is long-term roadmap. True competitive barriers require short-term achievements while maintaining innovation momentum in the long run. Ethereum’s evolution from 1.0 to 2.0 itself constitutes a strong attraction and development driver.

The Real Issue in the Crypto Industry

Rather than obsessing over whether the competition barrier score is 3 or 8, it’s more important to face the real difficulties of the crypto industry.

In comparison, Moar Threads listed in Hong Kong saw its market cap soar from 300 billion RMB to 400 billion RMB in just a few days, while Ethereum took ten years to reach a market cap of only 30 billion USD. Even compared to US trillion-dollar tech giants, the entire crypto industry remains insignificant.

What does this tell us? We are not even at the stage of competing over “barrier scores.” The most urgent problems in crypto are: insufficient user base, lack of capital attraction, and narrow coverage of fields.

Instead of worrying whether the barrier score is 3 or 8, it’s better to think about how to meet more users’ real needs faster, at lower cost, and more conveniently. Only when crypto technology truly solves the problems of large-scale user groups will competitive barriers naturally form.

Only then will discussions become truly meaningful.