Lately, I wonder whether the project is really doing things seriously. Instead of focusing on how grand the milestones they shout about sound, I look first at how the treasury funds are used: are they continuously sending money to “the people/tools that can deliver,” or do they intermittently smash it into marketing and subsidies to boost the data? To put it plainly, the spending rhythm is like a person’s schedule—if it stays steady, it means they’re working; if it fluctuates wildly and they keep changing their tune, chances are their mindset isn’t stable either.

These past two days, Layer 2 has been arguing again about TPS, fees, and ecosystem subsidies. To me, it really looks like they’re “spending money to buy excitement.” It’s not that subsidies are necessarily bad, but if there aren’t follow-up small fixes—like patch-like updates such as documentation, audits, and developer support—then once the excitement has burned through, there’s nothing left but emptiness. Anyway, I judge it by this: can they keep patching continuously, can they fill the gaps and cover the holes? More than slogans, that’s what looks like long-termism.