Can changing chains and starting a new business really "reverse fate"?

Author: momo, ChianCatcher

Recently, several projects have announced their migration to new public chain ecosystems. Unlike previous instances where projects simply switched chains for hype or security issues, this time, the project teams are also undergoing business transformations, essentially starting anew in a different place.

However, the response from the crypto community regarding project chain migrations and new beginnings seems less than optimistic. After Secret Network announced its plan to migrate to Arbitrum, the token plummeted over 30% within 24 hours.

Base and Arbitrum Become New Docks for Established Projects' "Reinvention"

In this wave of public chain migrations, Base and Arbitrum have become destinations for many established projects seeking new growth opportunities.

Sophon, once an L2 project in the ZKsync ecosystem, aimed to build consumer-grade blockchain infrastructure through zero-knowledge proofs. In June, Sophon announced the closure of its own chain and migration to Base, shifting its focus to consumer applications. The official reason given for launching applications like Pyre was straightforward: maintaining a single blockchain incurs annual costs exceeding $3 million, and migration could reduce operational costs by about $3 million annually.

Moonbeam is an early important EVM-compatible parachain in the Polkadot ecosystem, which was a crucial entry point for connecting Ethereum applications. In July, Moonbeam announced the migration of GLMR to Base and adjusted its development direction towards decentralized AI agent communication and settlement networks.

On the other hand, the star privacy project in the Cosmos ecosystem, Secret Network, announced plans to migrate to Arbitrum and convert SCRT to ERC-20, exploring the integration of privacy infrastructure with AI and other directions in the future. After the announcement of the migration, the token plummeted 30% within 24 hours, reflecting the crypto community's lack of optimism.

It is worth noting that these migrating projects share a commonality: they are all public chain networks, and after migration, they are seeking application scenarios and market narratives that combine with AI and real consumption.

The welcoming of Secret Network's migration by Arbitrum officials is also worth pondering. In a time when it is difficult for crypto to see the phenomenal innovative tracks and projects of past bull markets, attracting other mature projects from different chains may be a compromise.

It is noteworthy that Polkadot and Cosmos, once referred to as the "cross-chain duo," have become quiet areas for project migrations.

The crypto community jokes, "Seeing the word Polkadot really gives a feeling of being in a different era. The last time I heard of it was when Manta left; now I hear of it again, and it's another top ecosystem leaving." On the Cosmos side, projects like Noble, Nillion, and Akash have also adjusted their directions, with some migrating to Ethereum and others turning to Solana or independent EVM ecosystems.

Can Changing Chains Really Change Fate?

While changing chains is not a new phenomenon, for many projects, migrating to a more suitable public chain ecosystem that better meets technical development needs, has more traffic, or is more secure is a pragmatic choice, even if it comes at a cost.

However, changing chains often only adds a finishing touch; "changing fate" may be quite challenging. There are numerous cases where the response after a chain change was lukewarm, leading to repeated migrations or even a return to the original chain. The y00ts NFT announced its migration from Solana to Polygon at the end of 2022 and received several million dollars in grants, but just a few months later, y00ts regretted it and returned the grant, announcing a migration from Polygon to the Ethereum mainnet in mid-2023. Although the real reasons were not disclosed, it was clear that the effects of the chain change did not meet expectations. Synthetix previously deployed on multiple L2s but ultimately reverted to the mainnet, as the multi-chain strategy increased complexity without delivering the expected synergies.

Moreover, under the current crypto market environment, the difficulty of "changing fate" through chain changes may be even greater. In the early bull market, there were airdrops, narrative bonuses, and user enthusiasm, making it easier for projects to chase trends and receive subsidies. But now, as crypto increasingly integrates with traditional finance, many narratives have been preliminarily debunked, and users are becoming more rational.

Public chains themselves also face numerous challenges, with Ethereum undergoing significant layoffs and frequently being criticized. The prediction market project world recently migrated to Solana, but shortly after the launch of Roobinhood Chain, it abandoned Solana to join Roobinhood Chain, reflecting the broader challenges faced by traditional crypto public chains.

Compared to project teams attempting to change chains in search of rebirth, public chains also face difficulties in attracting external "outdated" projects for growth. Today's competition is no longer just about "who can take on more projects," but rather who can truly offer application scenarios and genuinely retain users.