2025-12-27 22:20:48

If you think about it, proper L2 solutions should function like certain meme-focused platforms do on L1—efficient, purpose-built, and actually solving real problems. That's the key difference.

Here's what makes this interesting: not every token needs to follow the same tokenomics playbook. Different projects, different mechanics. That flexibility? It's honestly what keeps the ecosystem healthy and innovative. Cookie-cutter approaches rarely create genuine utility.

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

15 Likes

Reward
15
4
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

VibesOverCharts

· 2h ago

Hmm, interesting. The one-size-fits-all tokenomics is indeed poison. When it comes to L2, it still depends on what real users are actually using in different scenarios. Talking only about efficiency is meaningless. Differentiation among different chains is what allows them to survive longer. Is this understanding still held by only a few? Details determine success or failure. Many projects are just copy-pasting. I agree with the idea that flexibility beats rigid schemes. When the ecosystem is stagnant, this is how it should be thought about. Most people are still copy-pasting. Those who wake up should seize the opportunity to stand out.

View OriginalReply0

CryptoCrazyGF

· 2h ago

Oh no, L2 really needs to have its own character; copying and pasting everything is not the way to go. --- That's the truth: flexible tokenomics versus rigid templates, the difference is huge. --- Alright, that's it. A one-size-fits-all approach will never produce top-tier projects. --- So, the key is to adapt to local conditions; those who understand, understand. --- To put it simply, don't follow the trend blindly; finding a path that suits you is the way to survive. --- It's hilarious—those projects that copy and copy are long overdue for elimination. --- Finally, someone is speaking the truth: different tracks require different strategies.

View OriginalReply0

SilentAlpha

· 2h ago

Damn, someone finally said it. Repetitive sameness is really boring; everyone should do their own thing. For L2, it only works if people actually use it. Speed alone isn't enough; it has to truly solve problems. Tokenomics being the same? That's lazy. Differentiation is the future.

View OriginalReply0

MelonField

· 2h ago

Really, all L2 projects are competing on efficiency, but the result is that everyone's solutions are pretty similar. That's the biggest problem, right? Tokenomics must be carved out of a single mold? Clearly not feasible; it still depends on what the project itself needs. Everyone can copy uniform stuff, but only those who survive are truly skilled. L2 should either be genuinely solving problems or just another way to cut the leeks. Flexibility is easy to talk about, but truly capable ones are few and far between... Different chains have different needs, so why force standardization? It feels like too many projects are just copying the successful ones from before, and the more they copy, the less competitive they become. That's a good perspective; differentiation is indeed necessary, but in practice, most are just following the trend.

View OriginalReply0