DuckChain被反撸，消费链是行业变革还是换壳Be Played for Suckers？

In recent years, the blockchain industry has seen a large number of projects with the core concept of 'consumer chain', aiming to attract more Web2 users into the Web3 world by reducing user barriers and simplifying operation processes. As the first consumer Layer project in the TON ecosystem, DuckChain has quickly attracted millions of users with its innovative EVM compatibility and Telegram Startokenization function.

However, as the project progresses, the feedback from users and the market has presented a polarized trend: on the one hand, DuckChain's technological innovation and user growth are impressive; on the other hand, some users have questioned its business model due to being 'anti-brushed' during participation in activities. Starting from the case of DuckChain, we will explore the essence of consumer chains: are they the pioneers of industry revolution, or tools for shell-changing and profit-taking?

I. Innovation and Achievements of DuckChain

• Technological breakthrough: EVM compatibility and integration with the Telegram ecosystem

The biggest highlight of DuckChain is its EVM compatibility, which allows developers to build applications in the TON ecosystem using the familiar Solidity language, greatly reducing the development threshold. At the same time, DuckChain simplifies the process for Web2 users to enter Web3 by using the Telegram Startokenization function to convert their points into on-chain assets. This technology integration not only brings new liquidity to the TON ecosystem, but also provides a seamless on-chain experience for Telegram's billions of users.

• User growth and ecosystem expansion

Since the launch of the testnet, DuckChain has attracted over 5.3 million users' attention, with over 1 million paying users in the testnet activities and over 29 million on-chain transactions. After the mainnet launch, DuckChain's active wallet count quickly exceeded 1 million, with over 5 million on-chain transactions, demonstrating strong user growth momentum. In addition, DuckChain has also partnered with well-known projects such as Arbitrum, OKX, Camelot, etc., further expanding its ecosystem.

• Token Economy and Incentive Mechanism

The total supply of DUCK tokens on DuckChain is 10 billion, of which 77% is allocated to the community and ecosystem development, including 50% for airdrops and 20% for supporting ecosystem development, etc. This incentive mechanism aims to attract user participation through airdrops and staking activities, while providing financial support to ecosystem projects.

Two, Behind the 'Anti-Luban': Hidden Worries of the Consumption Chain

• The rules of the activity are complex and the user participation cost is high.

Although DuckChain has attracted a large number of users through airdrops and staking activities, some users have complained that the rules of the activities are complex and the participation costs are high. For example, users need to stake a certain amount of assets to receive airdrop rewards. However, in the case of significant market fluctuations, the value of the staked assets may greatly decrease, resulting in lower actual returns for users than expected. This design has been questioned by some users as 'indirectly cutting leeks'.

• Limitations of Telegram Startokenization

Although the Telegram Startokenization feature of DuckChain has dropped the barrier for users to enter Web3, its actual application scenarios are limited. Currently, Telegram Star is mainly used to pay gas fees and participate in on-chain activities, and has not yet formed a wide range of consumer scenarios. This limitation may cause users to doubt the long-term value of the project.

• Insufficient ecological liquidity

While DuckChain is committed to integrating the liquidity of TON, EVM, and BTC ecosystems, the DeFi protocols and applications within its ecosystem are still in the early stages, with relatively insufficient liquidity. This fragmentation of liquidity may limit users' actual experience and thus affect the long-term development of the project.

III. The Essence of the Consumption Chain: Industry Revolution or Shell Replacement to Cut Leeks?

The potential of industry transformation:

The core goal of the consumption chain is to drop user barriers through technological innovation and promote the migration of Web2 users to Web3. The EVM compatibility of DuckChain and the Telegram Startokenization feature are the embodiment of this concept. This compatibility not only allows for a smooth transition of existing Web2 applications to the Web3 ecosystem, but also provides developers with more powerful tool support, enhancing user experience and application popularity. If it can effectively solve the problems of insufficient liquidity and limited application scenarios, the consumption chain is expected to become a catalyst for the large-scale application of Block chain industry, promoting the comprehensive development of decentralized economy.

Risks of cutting leeks:

However, the incentive mechanism and business model behind the consumption chain are also prone to abuse. Some projects may attract user funds through complex participation rules and high participation costs, but ultimately cause investors to suffer losses. This phenomenon of using high returns as bait and user funds as the cost, known as "shearing leeks," is not new in the field of Blockchain, especially in the absence of effective supervision, which may exacerbate irrational speculative behavior in the market and harm the interests of the general users. Therefore, ensuring the transparency, sustainability, and protection of user rights of the consumption chain mechanism, building user trust, and ensuring the healthy development of the market have become key challenges for its future development.

Chapter IV, Insights from the Case of DuckChain: Dilemma and Way Out of Consumer Chain

• The double-edged sword of token economy design

DuckChain's token economic model is at the heart of its controversy. Despite allocating 77% of tokens to the community (including 50% airdrops, 20% for ecological development, etc.), it attempts to attract users through high incentives. However, according to historical airdrop data, over 88% of tokens experienced significant devaluation within three months after the airdrop due to massive selling pressure. Although this model can quickly accumulate users in the short term, without the support of actual application scenarios, the token value is difficult to maintain, ultimately causing users to suffer from asset depreciation. For example, although users in the DuckChain test network event recharged 9.3 million Telegram Stars, the tokenization scenario was limited to paying gas fees and pledging, failing to form a consumption loop.

• Distinguishing between the integration of virtual and real technology

The technological innovations of DuckChain, such as EVM compatibility, Telegram Startokenization, and cross-chain liquidity integration, are packaged as "industry revolution", but the actual landing effect still needs to be verified. For example, the claimed "integration of EVM, TON, and BTC ecosystem liquidity" relies on cross-chain bridges and incentive mechanisms, but the TVL of the TON ecosystem is only $700 million (90% TON and USDC), and the underlying support for liquidity integration is weak. In addition, although the development threshold has been lowered through the Arbitrum Orbit architecture, DApps in the TON ecosystem are still mainly focused on Meme and simple GameFi, lacking complex applications.

• Community-driven sustainability challenges

The 'fun community culture' of DuckChain is a highlight of its user growth, for example, attracting millions of users through game-like interactions designed by DuckChainBot. However, this model heavily relies on short-term incentives, and user retention is questionable. Data shows that although there were 230,000 users recharging Telegram Star during its testnet phase, the growth rate of on-chain transactions slowed down after the mainnet went live, indicating that user activity may decline after the airdrop ends. In contrast, mature consumer chains need to build long-term value capture mechanisms, such as converting user behavior into on-chain productivity through DeFi protocols, rather than relying solely on the 'traffic-airdrop' cycle.

Five, the future of the consumption chain: from 'traffic game' to 'value network'

• Return to the essence of user needs

The core proposition of DuckChain should be to lower the barrier of entry for using Web3 and create real demand. DuckChain's attempt to enable users to "go on-chain" with Telegram Stars through tokenization is important, but if it only stays at the level of paying gas fees, it is no different from a Web2 points system. In the future, application scenarios need to be expanded, such as using Stars for social tipping, content subscription, and other high-frequency consumer behaviors, forming a closed loop of "points-consumption-revenue".

• Technological Deepening of Liquidity Integration

The current cross-chain liquidity integration relies heavily on bridging protocols, but there are prominent security and efficiency issues. In order for DuckChain to truly break the isolation of the TON ecosystem, it needs to explore more underlying solutions, such as using ZK technology to achieve lightweight cross-chain verification or aggregating multi-chain assets through a unified liquidity pool. At the same time, introducing real income protocols (such as lending and derivatives) can improve capital utilization and avoid liquidity 'false prosperity'.

• Construction of Regulatory and Compliance Framework

The vision of the 'mass adoption' of the Consumer Chain needs to face regulatory challenges. For example, Telegram Stars, as a fiat currency gateway, may involve KYC/AML issues, and the financial attributes of tokenization points may also be included in the scope of securities regulation. DuckChain needs to cooperate with regulatory institutions to explore the integration of on-chain identity and compliant payment channels, rather than relying solely on 'regulatory arbitrage'.

Six, Conclusion

The case of DuckChain reflects the typical contradiction of the consumer chain track: on the one hand, there is the innovative potential of technical integration and user growth, and on the other hand, there is the token economic bubble and short-term profit risk. Its future success will depend on whether the application scenarios can expand from simple memes and games to high-frequency demands such as social and financial, whether the so-called liquidity and cross-chain integration can truly improve capital efficiency, rather than just staying on the surface of account data, and whether its community governance can change from the short-term interest-driven 'hair-pulling party' to active ecological co-builders, participating in long-term value distribution.

If the Consumer Chain project is only using the 'drop threshold' as a means of 'harvesting traffic', it will inevitably become a tool for 'shell swapping and cutting leeks'; only by deeply integrating technological innovation with user value can it occupy a place in the industry revolution.