Some thoughts on this from someone working on strategy/GTM at a new L1 (
@ritualfnd):
I mostly agree w/ Jason's take, but it doesn't take into importance a pretty big nuance:
Actively Seeding vs. "Build and they'll come"
The latter doesn't work, at least not if that's your initial expectation. One of the few ecosystems that executed this well recently was HyperEVM- but not even exactly that. HyperEVM works because of Hyper Core; in comparison we're now seeing a vast grave of L1s/L2s that operated on this paradigm from the onsent/thought that they could offset this but giving out grants and pushing pure mindshare.
That being said, building *anything* is hard. Building infra is hard. Building apps are hard. Especially in crypto, because building isn't just about deploying code- there's a ton of greasework/execution that goes into GTM, operations, legal, etc that generally goes underappreciated.
When you're building an L1 (if what you're building is truly novel architecture, and not forkware), its a gargantuan technical and GTM task alike. No one knows what the killer application is for sure going to be, so your job is to build the product + work with builders to enable has many high-quality applications to maximize that shot on goal for both the L1 the builders that trust you.
What this means for infra teams you either:
(1) hire more competent people to work on building everything in-house, including the top apps, which can work. But:
(a) good talent is hard to find
(b) in-housing good talent, means raising more capital from investors, which folks don't really like seeing these days. (I know Hyperliquid did it w/ 10 people, but most founders were not in the position Jeff was when he started building it. Still they are insnae))
(2) Run the grant + "build and they'll come" playbook. Doesn't work IMO
(3) What I think is the better approach, which is to actively seed your ecosystem. What I mean by this is having an aggressive approach to company building on your infrastructure by building prototypes/some light apps on your infrastructure yourself that you can work with other builders/partners to take all the way.
Builders want to see that you're putting in work and your time where your mouth is, and ultimately no one's going to understand what's truly possible on your own infra, at the beginning, better than the people who built it. This way you can (a) showcase compelling net-new applications, (b) showcase what can be built on your infra and (c) have some influence over the direction you want to see the eco involve beside giving out money.
Now (3) still requires in-house talent capable of building applications, but it becomes more of an active exercise around helping build real protocols from the ground up without large resource spend/detracting from improving core infra. Functionally, it's almost like platforming/incubating these companies.
Is this approach possible the harder, slower path? Yes. But I also think it's a more longer-term oriented approach for infrastructure projects that are still working on their core infra/early. It's certainly the approach that we're taking
@ritualnet, with the
@ritualfnd running programs like Ritual Shrine where we build applications that we'd want to see on Ritual + we think can be killer applications across crypto and AI.
But it's not just us-
@solana had a lot of active building going on in conjunction w/ FTX + Jump and a few other folks in the early days. Several new projects popular on CT like
@PlasmaFDN,
@megaeth,
@monad_xyz, etc have taken active approaches to creating a core set of protocols native to their ecosystems on top of existing protocols deploying. I expect this to become a dominant strategy (+ add to the difficulty of actually standing out as new infra on top of technical work)
In some world, I'd love if we built many of the Ritual Shrine prototypes fully as themselves. But I recognize that they deserve dedicated teams that can kill it both on product and execution of GTM. If we can work to build them alongside those teams while also giving strong economic upside to external builders, that's still a win. This let's us "own" it in a metaphorical sense, but also introduce new perspective and new talent.
tl;dr: yes, if you can own the top first party app on your new infra, that's great. But if you are resource constrained, then make a strong, aggressive effort to actually seed your ecosystem w/ prototypes/build alongside them vs getting lazy with it.