Let’s take this from first principles. The current chain game is too dogmatic about how chains differentiate and how they serve users. In practice, chains only really differentiate on two things: their token and their ecosystem. Most tokens are a weak value proposition. They ask users to underwrite a new ecosystem before any real utility exists, and in many cases have been down only. Most ecosystems are also derivatives of each other. At the application layer, only a small number of teams are trusted with meaningful capital. But on the other hand, novelty does not create trust, and unproven teams rarely earn it, so capital never accumulates. The result is predictable: shallow liquidity or copy-paste ecosystems. The common response is specialization. Pick a use case. Be the best chain for X. That still misses the core problem. Even if you execute well, use cases fall in and out of favor. User needs change. Markets rotate. More importantly, no ecosystem is ready to serve users in a material way on Day 1. Or Day 30. Or Day 90. Often not even in the first year. Trust, liquidity, and product maturity take time. If you lock yourself into a narrow definition early, you limit your ability to serve users as their needs evolve, and you compress the time your ecosystem has to mature. If you take this to its logical conclusion, there is really only one solution. A chain has to earn differentiated distribution and relentlessly support user needs, even if that means routing users outside of its own ecosystem. This is the part most chains are unwilling to accept. ...