The Dilemma of Aptos: A Difficult Transition from Halo to Reality

"The chain is fast, the heart is painful, and the money is scarce." This sarcastic remark reflects the helpless feelings of many early supporters of Aptos.

While another Move public chain project is thriving, Aptos finds itself in a completely different situation. From its inception, Aptos entered the market with high TPS, the Move language, and strong capital support. However, while capital can give rise to a public chain, it cannot endow it with lasting vitality.

What kind of predicament has Aptos encountered? Let us delve deeper.

The halo fades, ecological growth encounters bottlenecks

Aptos emerged in 2022, backed by the former Meta team, and attracted attention as the "next generation L1." With support from several well-known investment institutions, Aptos initially enjoyed a warm reception in the capital markets. However, as market sentiment cooled, its once-proud technological advantages are gradually losing their 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, while another public chain that also uses the Move language has surpassed 10 million daily transactions, with DEX trading volume and application revenue far exceeding that of Aptos.

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

The superficial prosperity created by resource accumulation

Aptos's previous ecological expansion heavily relied on a "resource-driven" model rather than genuine market demand. Analysis indicates that Aptos distributed a large number of tokens to partners, introduced well-known DeFi projects to enrich infrastructure, and brought several major exchanges into ecological construction through over-the-counter refinancing. However, this "crash course" strategy did not lead to real user migration, but rather resembled a "resource arbitrage game":

• After the leading DeFi project landed on Aptos, the growth of real users was limited, and the tokens were quickly sold off after being unlocked;
• Although the total locked value has increased, most of the funds may only be "staged" to earn subsidies, and have not formed true liquidity;
• Ecological resources are tilted towards airdrop projects rather than supporting native developers, resulting in limited development of Aptos native projects and making it difficult for the ecosystem to form self-sustaining capabilities.

Aptos's "Ecological Support": Form Over Substance

In mid-March, Aptos launched a plan aimed at helping ecological projects prepare for token issuance. However, the first batch of member projects, which garnered significant community attention, sparked controversy due to improper airdrop distribution.

Community members pointed out that the airdrop allocation of this project is highly concentrated: out of 440,000 addresses, only 10,000 people received the airdrop, leaving many genuine users empty-handed. This "ecological support" airdrop farce has instead exposed Aptos's shortcomings in project review and community governance.

Aptos's "ecological support" is more like a superficial collaboration rather than true ecological co-construction. Although it has provided substantial resource support to the project, including token rewards, the latter also spent a year on marketing and lotteries. However, the entire process is more about form than substance, ultimately resulting not in ecological growth but in a failed public relations effort:

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

There are views that the airdrop controversy of this project is rife, while Aptos still chooses to silently withdraw, repeating a series of past inactions.

Frequent Changes in Management

Over the past year, Aptos has experienced continuous turmoil at the senior management level, with several key executives leaving one after another, raising concerns in the market about its internal governance chaos.

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

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

Disappointment Spreads in the Community

Aptos was once highly anticipated, but is now deeply mired in community doubts and disappointment. "Lack of market sensitivity, unclear strategic direction, internal management issues..." Many community members feel "frustrated" as the once bright expectations are gradually worn down by reality.

A community member bluntly stated that Aptos and another Move public chain have core teams that come from big companies, but their development trajectories are completely different. He criticized Aptos for not aligning with the Web3 development path in terms of market awareness, strategic layout, user retention, and ecosystem co-construction. Instead, it seems to be obsessed with boasting about its high TPS, and its way of doing things increasingly resembles that of a rigid Web2 traditional enterprise. He further pointed out that the Aptos ecosystem is filled with parasitic projects, overly dependent on financial support, and the entire system lacks vitality, feeling lifeless.

Another community member reviewed the changes of the past year, stating: "Last year, the two Move public chains were still at the same starting line, and at that time, Aptos had even higher expectations, with the entire community full of confidence ready to embrace the feast of the Aptos ecosystem. However, a year has passed, and things have changed; one has become a hero, while the other has become a bear. The price of the other chain's token has risen steadily, while the Aptos team has been busy selling tokens at low prices, with frequent internal issues, ultimately leaving behind a mess accompanied by the CEO's departure."

Some community members pointed out that Aptos internal staff are rigid and extremely inefficient. Some echoed that Aptos uses "compliance" as a shield, and the processes can be delayed for three months.

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

The competition in the L1 track remains fierce, and whether Aptos can break through will only be answered by time.