The Dilemma of Aptos: From Star Project to Ecological Stagnation

"The speed of the chain is fast, but the mood is melancholic, and funds are scarce." This saying reflects the sentiments of many early supporters of Aptos. While another Move public chain thrives, this "Move twin star" finds itself in a completely different situation. At its inception, Aptos entered the market with high TPS, the Move language, and strong capital support, but while capital can accelerate the maturation of a public chain, it cannot endow it with true vitality.

What kind of predicament has Aptos fallen into? Let's take a closer look.

The halo fades, ecological growth stagnates

Aptos was launched in 2022, backed by a team from leading tech giants, emerging as the "next generation L1". With support from several well-known investment institutions, Aptos initially enjoyed a frenzied embrace from the capital market. However, as market sentiment cooled, its once-proud technological narrative is gradually losing its appeal.

Data shows that the number of daily active addresses on Aptos has dropped to about 1 million, with daily transaction counts ranging from 3 to 4 million. In contrast, another public chain based on the Move language has surpassed 10 million daily transactions, and the trading volume and application revenue of decentralized exchanges far exceed that of Aptos.

So, what exactly went wrong with the ecological growth of Aptos?

The false prosperity created by resource accumulation

Aptos's previous ecological expansion heavily relied on a "resource-driven" model rather than true market demand. Analysis indicates that Aptos distributed a large amount of tokens to partners, introduced well-known DeFi projects to enrich the infrastructure, and attracted institutions such as top exchanges into ecological construction through OTC refinancing. However, this "quick-fix approach" did not bring about real user migration, but rather resembled a "resource arbitrage game":

• After the leading DeFi projects landed on Aptos, the real user growth was limited, and tokens were quickly sold off after being unlocked;
• The total locked value seems to be increasing, but most of the funds may just be for earning subsidies through "manipulation" and have not formed real liquidity;
• Ecological resources are tilted towards "airdrop" projects rather than supporting native developers, which limits the development of Aptos native projects and makes it difficult for the ecosystem to achieve self-sustainability.

Aptos's "ecological support": more about form than substance

In mid-March, Aptos launched the LFM program aimed at helping ecological projects prepare for token generation events. However, the first batch of LFM members, which received strong community support, sparked controversy due to the airdrop "failure."

Community members pointed out that the airdrop allocation of a certain project is highly concentrated: out of 440,000 addresses, only 10,000 received the airdrop, leaving many real users with nothing. This "ecological support" airdrop farce exposes Aptos's shortcomings in project review and community governance.

Aptos's "ecological support" is more like a nominal partnership rather than genuine ecological co-construction. Although substantial resource support has been provided, including token rewards, the entire process is more about form than substance, ultimately resulting in not ecological growth, but a failed public relations effort:

• There is no synergistic effect with the core ecosystem.
• No reasonable suggestions or community guidance on airdrop logic before distribution.

Frequent Departure of Core Executives

In the past year, Aptos has experienced constant turmoil at the executive level, with several high-ranking officials, including the CEO, resigning one after another, raising concerns in the market about its internal governance chaos.

There are reports that Aptos conducted over-the-counter token trading at a price significantly lower than the market value last year. At that time, the market price of the tokens was in the range of $10-13, but some investors were able to participate in the trading at about 40% of that price. Coincidentally, shortly after this incident was exposed, the co-founder and CEO, along with several employees with venture capital backgrounds, left one after another.

Some speculate that the direct reason for the personnel changes may involve the transfer of benefits, and the fundamental reason is that Aptos's overall performance after the token issuance has not met expectations.

Disappointment Spreads in the Community

Aptos was once highly anticipated, but now it is deeply mired in community doubts and disappointments. "Lack of market sensitivity, unclear strategic direction, internal corruption..." Many community members feel "frustrated" with it, as the once high expectations are being gradually worn down by reality.

A community member bluntly stated that Aptos and the core team of another Move public chain both come from large companies, but their development trajectories are completely different. He criticized Aptos for not aligning with the Web3 path in terms of market perception, strategic layout, user maintenance, and ecological co-construction. Instead, it is obsessed with boasting about its high TPS, and its style of operation increasingly resembles a rigid Web2 traditional enterprise. He further pointed out that the Aptos ecosystem is filled with parasitic projects, overly reliant on financial blood transfusions, and the entire system lacks vitality, feeling stagnant.

Another community member reflected on the changes over the past year, stating: "Last year, the Move twins were still at the same starting line, and at that time, Aptos had even higher expectations. However, a year has passed, and things have changed; one has become a hero, while the other has become a loser. One coin's price has soared, while the Aptos team has been busy selling coins at low prices, dealing with internal corruption and利益输送, and ultimately left a mess after the CEO's departure."

Some people also pointed out that the internal employees of Aptos are bureaucratic and extremely inefficient. Others echoed that Aptos uses "compliance" as a shield, causing processes to be delayed for three months.

The halo of capital may bring temporary prosperity, but what truly determines whether a public chain can stand the test of time is always the accumulation of users and the sustainable development of the ecosystem.

The competition in the L1 track is still fierce. Whether Aptos can break through, only time will tell.