rant time. there's only one analogy that makes sense for blockchains. not tcp/ip. not banks. not nasdaq. but video game consoles. like video game consoles, blockchains: > let anyone to launch apps for users to play > require users to pay significant onboarding costs first in order to play (buying a console/moving funds and wallets) > deliberately make it hard for apps to move cross-platform > only see a few winners this last point is the key one, the product of the other points. neither video game consoles nor blockchains are winner-takes-all, exactly, but they accrue powerful network effects all the same: people want to participate in 2-3 ecosystems where all the other apps are. you can see this in nintendo and sony, and you can see it in solana and base. they're *winners-take-all* with maybe half-a-dozen vibrant ecosystem tops. when you understand this analogy, you can also understand why nearly every chain today will fail. part of it is simple math: as apps build where the other apps are, only a few players will win. but the bigger issue is that just about 0 chains are following the video game console playbook that let nintendo/sony/xbox all win early. *they created their own killer apps to bootstrap their ecosystem* instead, chains are counting on tech and brand to draw app builders, but that's not the top thing that app builders need. the top thing that app builders need is *users* with *liquidity*, which means they have every incentive to deploy on chains like solana and base that... wait for it... have users and liquidity. and this is the point of the analogy. every other chain is going to need to fight a mean fight to acquire, incubate, and personally scale killer apps if they want to win.