Deep Dive into BRC20: The Possibility of Success and Failure for Bitcoin's Newborn Network
TechFlow Selected TechFlow Selected
Deep Dive into BRC20: The Possibility of Success and Failure for Bitcoin's Newborn Network
Chatting with renowned Chinese-speaking KOL dayu and Yilan from LD Capital US about BRC20, the "newborn" in the BTC ecosystem.
Navigating Web3 tides with focused insightsHost: Alex, Research Partner at Mint Ventures
Guests: Yilan from LD Capital US; well-known Chinese-speaking KOL: @BTCdayu
Hello everyone, welcome to WEB3 Mint To Be, a podcast initiated by Mint Ventures. Here, we continuously question and deeply reflect, striving to clarify facts, understand realities, and seek consensus within the Web3 world. I'm Alex, Research Partner at Mint Ventures. Today, we're honored to have with us the renowned Chinese-speaking KOL @BTCdayu and Yilan from LD Capital US to discuss BRC20, the "newborn" of the BTC ecosystem.
Disclaimer: The views discussed in this episode do not represent those of the institutions affiliated with the participants, and any mentioned projects should not be taken as investment advice.
Host:
Let's dive straight into today’s topic—BRC20, the newborn we just mentioned. It's called a “newborn” because many listeners may not yet be fully familiar with it. So our first segment will focus on explaining what BRC20 actually is. We aim to use plain language so that even those unfamiliar with technical details can grasp its basic logic through our discussion. We’ll also compare how BRC20 differs from conventional ERC20 token transactions. Thirdly, we'll touch on which current BRC20 projects are most representative, since dayu has been tracking BRC20 for quite some time and knows the space well. So let’s start with you, dayu—how would you explain BRC20 to a friend who asked, “Hey dayu, I want to learn about BRC20. Can you give me a quick intro?”
Explaining in Plain Language: What Exactly Is BRC20?
dayu:
OK, first of all, BRC20 refers to inscriptions written onto the smallest unit of Bitcoin—the "satoshi." Think of it like a ledger, or a small note, where you write down what kind of token you’re issuing, the total supply, and how much each person can mint fairly. This method is immutable because it's recorded directly on the Bitcoin blockchain, arguably the most decentralized form available today. However, the weakness lies in the fact that each little note records things like: "I issued a 'dayu coin,' total supply X, transferred to someone, Zhang San bought Y amount, then transferred Z amount, Li Si received W," etc. This requires a centralized bookkeeper to keep track of everything dynamically. So logically, compared to Ethereum smart contracts, which are controlled programmatically, BRC20 seems much more rudimentary. But I think this simplicity can be quickly overcome—and indeed, significant progress has already been made. Some technically-oriented people argue BRC20 has no future, but I believe such opinions stem largely from bias, driven by factors like misunderstanding NFTs and minting, or technological dogma. We won’t dig into that now—we can discuss later.
Host:
Got it. You mentioned that key information for BRC20 is recorded on Bitcoin’s ledger, specifically on individual satoshis, and that trading and display rely on centralized platforms—is Unisat, which we commonly use now, a typical example?
dayu:
Yes, Unisat was an early mover and also demonstrated great vision—they open-sourced their indexing logic and methodology early on for public use. OKEX (now OKX) also got involved early in shaping the standard. With hundreds of engineers behind the OK wallet team, they’ve thrown themselves fully into this effort. Once they release their APIs, the ledger becomes accessible to all, and every user effectively becomes a node.
Host:
I see. I’ve read articles describing platforms like Unisat using another term—"indexer." Can we understand that Unisat plays a role in transforming raw on-chain data (inscriptions, content, metadata) into readable, interactive formats for users?
dayu:
Exactly. Your understanding is spot-on. The data itself lives on-chain, inheriting Bitcoin’s decentralization, immutability, and security—all solid due to its tight coupling with the Bitcoin ecosystem. But to enable smooth trading or even simply view balances in your wallet, indexers must maintain a flawless, error-free ledger that updates dynamically. That’s no small task given the financial stakes involved.
Host:
Understood. So currently, platforms like Unisat and OKEX are still heavily focused on foundational work—setting standards and implementing solutions around indexing.
Earlier, dayu explained what BRC20 is, its implementation logic, and the crucial role of indexers—who also act as trading platforms. Now let’s hear from Yilan. When you first encountered BRC20, how did you understand it? If someone close to you showed interest, what interesting points would you highlight?
Yilan:
The concept itself feels very simple, but actually grasping or clearly articulating it is surprisingly difficult. I thought dayu explained it very accessibly just now.
Technically, its foundation lies in Ordinals—the first NFT protocol on Bitcoin. BRC20 uses this NFT protocol to define token rules. It's quite straightforward: a few lines of code specifying whether it’s a deploy, mint, or transfer operation. Then there’s the ticker symbol—which must be four characters under BRC20 rules. Other parameters include Max (maximum supply), Limit (per-mint cap), etc. These rules are defined via JSON data input. However, the community widely criticizes using JSON as inefficient for standard-setting. Still, BRC20 is essentially the first token standard deployed on Bitcoin’s NFT protocol—an experimental pioneer. DoMo, the creator of Ordinals inscriptions and the proposer of the JSON format, likely intended for others to gradually improve upon it and evolve more interesting projects.
Host:
We've mentioned both Ordinals and BRC20 were born recently. Let me check—BRC20 was formally proposed around March 8th or 9th by a community member, meaning it's only existed for about two months. Yet the BRC20 market is already booming—with explosive growth in variety, user base, and trading volume. As a new phenomenon, it faces significant controversy and challenges. Among numerous projects, which BRC20 tokens are currently the hottest—or most representative—that might interest our listeners?
Currently Popular Representative BRC20 Projects
dayu:
Due to BRC20’s design, anyone can issue a token. So if you go to the Unisat website and enter any four-character string—even special symbols—as long as it hasn't been claimed, you can deploy it. Currently, over 4,200 projects have been deployed and fully minted, while over 20,000 have been deployed but not yet minted.
Because BRC20 lacks complex functionality—it has no smart contracts, staking, or advanced features—it’s essentially just a meme coin capable of transfers and trades. Under these conditions, most such coins hold little value. In any ecosystem, only a few meme coins truly take off, because capital and attention are finite. Among current projects, $ORDI stands out as most noteworthy—it was the first token deployed after the BRC20 standard emerged, making its status analogous to Bitcoin’s position in crypto. After Bitcoin, we saw Litecoin (optimized speed), various improved protocols, forks like Bitcoin Gold, Bitcoin Diamond, Bitcoin God, Lightning Bitcoin—all failed. Even heavily-backed projects like Bitcoin Cash and Craig Wright’s BSV eventually faded. From this perspective, the genesis BRC20 coin—$ORDI—has strong staying power as long as the BRC20 protocol, Ordinals, and Bitcoin’s ecosystem continue evolving. That’s why I recommend $ORDI as the one to watch.
Host:
One quick follow-up: Is the creator or maintainer of the Ordinals project public or anonymous?
dayu:
I don’t recall exactly, but I believe DoMo himself launched it. He created the protocol and deployed it, but notably, he didn’t mint much himself—his holdings appear minimal. This reflects a high degree of decentralization.
Host:
Understood. Through our discussion so far, I believe most listeners now have a clear, comprehensive understanding of BRC20. Next, we’ll explore deeper topics. First: Since the rise of BRC20, many have begun re-evaluating it from multiple angles. A common question arises: “ERC20 tokens are already widely adopted and function smoothly on Ethereum—why build fungible tokens on Bitcoin? What is the necessity of BRC20’s existence?”
The Necessity of BRC20 Tokens
Yilan:
I see three reasons for BRC20’s necessity. First, it satisfies the desire for experimentation and innovation within the Bitcoin ecosystem—it serves as an experimental field. Anyone can participate. Why wouldn’t you do it here? Why elsewhere? That’s the core question.
Second, BRC20 represents an overflow of BTC’s influence, user base, and emotional capital. These assets could become initial liquidity for BTC Layer2 ecosystems—not necessarily the entire DeFi landscape, but certainly part of it. For instance, Stacks, currently the most vibrant ecosystem, has seen ALEX Lab list several BRC20 assets—these serve as foundational liquidity.
Third, simpler things tend to gain wider adoption. The name BRC20 naturally evokes ERC20, making it easier to attract attention. Bitcoin already boasts a massive, robust community, providing fertile ground for consensus formation. Combined with fair distribution mechanisms, BRC20 may represent only a small step for BTC’s NFT ecosystem, but a giant leap for Bitcoin overall—it draws broader attention, sparks debate, and propels the BTC ecosystem into a new developmental phase.
Host:
I see. Yilan’s points are quite insightful. Bitcoin, as the world’s largest cryptocurrency with a vast holder base, naturally sees demand for novel, fun innovations. Its consensus foundation is massive, offering huge traffic and influence. Meanwhile, Bitcoin’s own Layer2 projects—like Stacks—face shortages of native Bitcoin-ecosystem assets. While BRC20 isn’t smart contract-enabled, it could theoretically migrate to Layer2, supplying vital initial liquidity. Additionally, Bitcoin maximalists crave fresh gameplay and imaginative new projects within the ecosystem. These factors collectively explain BRC20’s current momentum. Any additional thoughts, dayu?
dayu:
Answering this involves discussing memes and how they differ—so I’d like to structure my response systematically. Two aspects: What is a meme? And how does a BRC20-based meme differ? Why does it have legitimacy?
My personal view on memes has evolved significantly. Back in 2020, I wrote articles criticizing such tokens. I believed blockchain was a revolutionary technology—focused on value, innovation, elegant projects that change the world and elevate Web3’s reputation. At the time, I dismissed memes as mere pump-and-dump schemes devoid of value. But like most people, my perspective shifted dramatically. Looking back at projects like EOS in 2017—almost every crypto investor held it—or the “Four Heavenly Kings” of 2021 ($FIL, $ICP, $DOT, $ALGO)—all carried immense hype and technical promise, claiming to solve major problems. Yet in hindsight, their narratives were grand, but often concentrated among insiders, leaving retail investors holding the bag. Prices declined relentlessly. Most retail investors enter crypto primarily to make money. If the majority—the consensus builders—lose money across flagship projects, that’s deeply discouraging.
Fast forward to 2023: Top-tier projects like OP and Aave host real-world use cases, serving institutions, developers, and retail users. Yet even these exhibit a pattern: institutions and teams hold low-cost positions, giving them inherent advantages. Retail participants remain structurally disadvantaged, often paying for grand narratives. Contrast this with newer meme darlings like $PEPE—zero intrinsic value, zero promises, solely focused on price appreciation. Retail buys in, waits for pumps. On surface, it looks like a simplistic, foolish Ponzi scheme. But in reality, it meets critical demands within crypto today. Still, $PEPE has issues—backed by deep-pocketed players, professional operators spending millions just on pumping. Meme coins need whales to launch, but whales ultimately dump. This raises a desire: Is there a fairer alternative?
Here, BRC20 answers perfectly. On BRC20, anyone can issue a token publicly. Even with $ORDI, the founder deployed it but minted almost nothing—no hidden whale manipulating supply. Without whale manipulation, thousands of Ethereum-based meme coins would collapse instantly. Yet $ORDI is different. It embodies a narrative tied to Bitcoin’s entire ecosystem—some call BTC “big pie,” $ORDI “small pie.” There’s a shared belief—a collective expectation in Bitcoin’s ecosystem, recognition of its chain’s strength. Thus, $ORDI represents a new kind of meme—one not controlled by whales, but sustained by broad consensus, much like Bitcoin itself among retail investors.
Host:
OK, dayu raised a point I hadn’t fully considered earlier. Even disregarding whale manipulation, Ethereum hosts countless meme projects without whales that fail anyway—many die before gaining traction, despite fair distributions. Yet $ORDI succeeds. The difference? If we assume BRC20 represents a significant direction, $ORDI is the first project on that path. Like how Bitcoin was the first blockchain application to achieve mainstream adoption, establishing legitimacy and high consensus value. Could we interpret $ORDI’s advantage not from being on Bitcoin per se, nor fundamental differences from other memes, but simply from being the pioneer in a potentially important movement?
dayu:
Yes. My view is most BRC20 tokens are worthless—only top-tier ones hold value. So I focus on $ORDI. From retail, investor, and market-consensus perspectives, $ORDI differs significantly. First, it resides on a different chain. Chain choice determines consensus level and valuation ceiling. For example, Ethereum’s top meme $SHIB peaked at a $30 billion market cap. On weaker chains with smaller communities and poorer consensus, meme valuations are proportionally lower. So a second meme project emerging on Bitcoin’s chain is inherently powerful.
Bitcoin itself is number one. Second, distribution differs sharply from Ethereum. Many Ethereum memes reserve 10% for the team, 5% for listings. Some claim “no reserve,” but still buy large amounts pre-launch. True fairness—like $ORDI, where even the deployer minted minimally—is rare.
Third, expectations vary greatly. People buy memes hoping for gains. On Ethereum, top memecoins might reach $100M–$200M caps; exceptional ones hit $1B; leaders like $SHIB soar to tens or hundreds of billions. $PEPE, a recent sensation, peaked around $2B. By contrast, $ORDI—Bitcoin’s leading meme—currently trades around $15 with a 21 million supply, giving it a ~$300M market cap. Given Bitcoin’s stature, many—including retail and stakeholders—see strong upside potential. Consensus builds slowly, but longevity strengthens it via the Lindy effect, potentially launching a new narrative era.
Host:
Understood. So fundamentally, dayu believes $ORDI—the “first child of the republic”—derives unique value from its fair distribution and historical contingency. Regarding other BRC20 secondary projects, dayu mentioned $ORDI. Yilan, do you see meaningful differences between these and traditional memes like $SHIB or $PEPE?
Yilan:
I share dayu’s view. Currently, $ORDI appears to be the only BRC20 token with achieved consensus and tangible value. All others, in the short term, behave like pure memecoins—fundamental analysis is useless; only sentiment and capital flows matter. Long-term, mature projects must demonstrate moats: innovation, pioneering status, strength of consensus, and technical trajectory. While these don’t apply to most memecoins, $ORDI possesses genuine pioneering qualities—its scarcity and first-mover advantage confer real value.
Host:
We’ve discussed how BRC20 memes differ from Ethereum counterparts, especially $ORDI’s uniqueness stemming from exclusive consensus—being the first BRC20 project, sharing parallels with Bitcoin as the first blockchain. But even the best project, strongest consensus, or finest tech/business model needs industry support to scale and gain influence. Regarding BRC20 as a whole—not just $ORDI—who benefits from its growth? Who are its potential supporters, in your views?
Which Forces Benefit from BRC20? Who Are the Potential Supporters?
dayu:
BRC20’s explosive growth exceeded everyone’s expectations. The reason? This concept gained multi-party endorsement. I previously described BRC20’s rise as a convergence of timing, geography, and human synergy.
From a timing perspective: Bitcoin halving reduces block rewards. Historically, post-halving periods saw price increases due to reduced supply. But today, daily issuance is only 900 BTC—will drop to 450 after next year’s halving. Compared to current daily trading volumes of hundreds of thousands of BTC, this is negligible. Markets crave new narratives—especially one embraced universally. Large BTC holders want prices up; even non-holders hope BTC rises, since when the “elder brother” rallies, others follow. Thus, consensus holds: it’s time for Bitcoin to tell a new story. Timing is ripe.
Geographically: Ethereum dominated recent years—NFTs, apps, everything priced in ETH. This cemented ETH as hard currency, highly beneficial for Ethereum. Bitcoin, however, rarely sees active usage—few transact or even hold it, especially newcomers. But with Ordinals and BRC20 narratives, on-chain activity visibly increased. Data shows congestion spiked once BRC20 took off. Behind this lie visions of a future: Bitcoin denominated in satoshis, everyday wallets using “sats” for payments. Imagine a world where everyone uses sats—this era may have arrived. Such developments benefit Bitcoin holistically. Geography thus complements timing.
Human synergy: Miners are natural beneficiaries. They fear declining revenues—mining 900 BTC daily split among global miners, with rising network hash rate driving competition on electricity costs. If prices drop below $16K, many small miners shut down. Widespread shutdowns harm network security. But with Ordinals and BRC20, miners earn fees—sometimes monthly revenue equals annual earnings. They’re thrilled. Yet top miners like Bitmain stay silent—wisely so. Speaking out might spark conflict with core developers. Peaceful coexistence benefits all.
Next, Tier-1 investors. The past two years have been tough—many early-stage projects carry high valuations, locked tokens, and unclear fundamentals. Meanwhile, meme and BRC20 returns shockingly outperform. I’ve noticed Tier-1 VCs showing emotional reactions.
For retail investors: New stories, new capital, new rags-to-riches tales attract more participants. Crypto history repeats: each bull run brings new blood, mirroring Wall Street—speculation breeds bubbles, draws crowds, leaves lasting value behind.
Host:
On this same theme—forces benefiting from BRC20’s growth—dayu highlighted retail investors, clearly including holders of BRC20 tokens, BTC itself, and satoshis. They naturally want a thriving Bitcoin ecosystem boosting BTC’s value and demand.
He also cited mining ecosystem players—miners, hardware makers—and Tier-1 investors seeking new opportunities fueled by BRC20-driven market sentiment. Beyond these, Yilan, from your VC lens: LD Capital actively evaluates and invests across tiers. Who else might benefit from BRC20? Any additional angles?
Yilan:
Miners are the most direct beneficiaries. Data: Last year, miners earned only 5,400 BTC in transaction fees total. Now, BRC20 alone has generated over 1,100 BTC in fees on Dune Analytics—a 20% increase. Projecting forward… My belief that BTC Layer2 or broader BTC ecosystem growth is inevitable long-term stems from Bitcoin’s security budget challenge. Sole reliance on block rewards won’t sustain network security decades from now, regardless of price. Hence, I see BRC20 as merely a trigger—the real story is BTC DeFi. Everyone knows Bitcoin’s security is its core value; no one wants miners starving in the future. Yet currently, transaction fees contribute only a few percent to miner income.
Host:
Right—1–2% under normal conditions.
Yilan:
Exactly. Long-term, this is unsustainable. How can Bitcoin achieve Ethereum-like sustainable fee income? Whether from miners’ perspectives or all BTC ecosystem participants and stakeholders, BRC20 is a catalyst. Its supporters encompass everyone benefiting from a thriving BTC ecosystem. Sure, “Bitcoin Maximalists” argue unlimited blockspace usage is wasteful—prioritizing pure transactions. Legitimate users needing transfers may face unaffordable fees. But these are solvable issues. Long-term, a vibrant BTC ecosystem benefits all participants.
Host:
Let me add a data point. We discussed miners’ security budget—essentially how much reward the BTC network provides to keep miners securing the network via hash power. Currently, most rewards come from block subsidies—new BTC per block. How low are fees? Historically, transaction fees typically account for 1–2% of miner rewards, occasionally rising to 3–4%. But during peak periods—driven by BRC20 and inscription frenzy—on May 8th, fees hit a record 42% of total miner rewards. That’s roughly 20–40 times the normal ratio. The last time this occurred was back in December 2017—at the height of the previous bull run, when BTC transfers surged briefly. Although BRC20 trading heat has cooled slightly, as of yesterday, fees still hover around 10%—about 5–10 times the usual rate. This gives a sense of current industry dynamics.
We’ve covered many forces supporting BRC20. Another potential supporter is exchanges. We’re arguably in a bear market—or perhaps early spring of a bull cycle, depending on interpretation. Regardless, the broader market narrative remains thin—few compelling assets to trade. BRC20 offers a hot topic. Exchanges, akin to casinos, thrive on trader activity. BRC20 generates intense debate—where there’s disagreement, volume follows. So exchanges likely welcome BRC20’s growth. OKX and others already list BRC20 tokens—exchanges may be silent but influential backers.
So far, we’ve explored BRC20’s origins, benefits, and unique consensus foundations. Now let’s flip the script and examine controversies. Yilan mentioned Bitcoin maximalists and developer community dissenters. They argue Bitcoin was designed as digital gold—a peer-to-peer cash system. BRC20 memes or Ordinals NFTs consume blockspace meant for core BTC transfers, raising transaction costs exponentially and undermining Bitcoin’s value as a store-of-value network. Many oppose BRC20’s existence. In your views, is BRC20’s long-term impact on BTC development harmful or beneficial? What are the arguments on each side?
Is BRC20 Harmful or Beneficial to BTC Development?
dayu:
There’s definitely controversy. Most importantly, we care about Bitcoin core developers’ stance. I visited their forum and read all discussions on BRC20 and block congestion. Opposition falls into categories: some believe Bitcoin should remain pure, free of complexity. Others cite slower transfers due to congestion. Some advocate non-intervention in ecosystem evolution. Both sides debate vigorously, but critics rarely propose viable solutions to future challenges—like declining transaction volume or how miners will secure the network without sufficient fees. Therefore, I believe BRC20’s long-term impact is positive.
New developments like BRC20 and Ordinals NFTs tell fresh stories for Bitcoin. BTC NFTs are gaining traction—many top Ethereum NFT collectors now feel uneasy hearing “Bitcoin NFTs.” Why? Because Bitcoin NFTs via Ordinals are permanently etched on-chain, stored more trustworthily than Ethereum’s index-based approach. This offers excellent growth potential.
Same with BRC20. Tokens mostly migrate to centralized exchanges for smoother trading. NFTs likely stay on-chain, but their lower liquidity means less strain. Their presence boosts chain activity without impairing utility. As Yilan noted, BTC-Fi narratives add vitality. Recall Satoshi’s 2010 reply to a miner: “I’m sure within 20 years, Bitcoin transaction volume will either be huge or zero.” For years, we interpreted this as “just keep growing price—1% fee revenue suffices if BTC rises enough.” But re-reading, he clearly emphasized transaction volume. Without BRC20 or Ordinals, Bitcoin’s transaction volume is tiny and shrinking. Thus, I conclude this trend benefits all stakeholders long-term.
Host:
OK, dayu shared his multifaceted take on BRC20’s long-term impact on Bitcoin. Now, Yilan—your thoughts?
Yilan:
Simply put: Long-term, stable fee income beyond block rewards is essential. But blockspace usage may not be dominated by BRC20. Whether BRC20 or BTC NFTs, they could become native production assets on Bitcoin’s chain. Ultimately, a thriving BTC DeFi or derivative ecosystem will utilize ledger space more effectively.
Host:
Recently, I’ve reviewed both sides. Core disagreement boils down to one point: How should Bitcoin—the global, permissionless, distributed ledger—use its blockspace? Opponents argue it should exclusively handle BTC transfers and value storage transmissions. Any deviation damages Bitcoin’s network value. That’s their central thesis.
Supporters—or at least non-opposers—believe Bitcoin, as a censorship-resistant network, should allow phenomena like BRC20 if driven by user demand. People have the right to build and use it. Network vitality often emerges unpredictably—such organic energy might point to its future direction.
Others, whether motivated by self-interest or deeper industry reflection, echo dayu and Yilan: Bitcoin needs more use cases beyond value transfer. This justifies support—or at least neutrality.
We’ve discussed extensively: Bitcoin’s mainnet handles only ~7 TPS—limited capacity. High-frequency, high-volume transactions will likely shift to Layer2—Stacks, Lightning Network, etc. In your views, will BRC20 tokens and Ordinals NFTs migrate to Layer2? Earlier, dayu noted BRC20 tokens often trade on exchanges—similar to a Bitcoin Layer2 like Lightning. Does migrating BRC20 tokens and Ordinals NFTs to Layer2 enhance or diminish their value? What’s the logic?
Does Moving BRC20 Token Trading to Layer2 Enhance or Diminish Value?
Yilan:
My view: Lower gas fees on Layer2 reduce costs, easing congestion on Bitcoin’s base layer. From a scarcity perspective, this might dilute value. But lowering barriers expands accessibility, enabling more participants—including speculators. Overall, I believe this benefits blue-chip assets. Especially considering my prior BTC DeFi framing: with Layer2, all Ethereum L2 functionalities become possible in theory. Migration to Layer2 would therefore benefit blue-chip tokens and NFTs.
Host:
Understood. Yilan’s core argument: Layer2 migration lowers friction, attracts more users, increases turnover. With DeFi infrastructure, these NFTs and blue-chip BRC20 tokens gain new utility scenarios, creating fresh demand and potentially increasing intrinsic value.
dayu:
I approach this with a framework. For BRC20 tokens like $ORDI, the value they carry is essentially meme-driven. Memes grow by attracting new users into the ecosystem. If they succeed in user acquisition, their mission is accomplished. Once new users arrive, beyond trading $ORDI on exchanges, they’ll naturally explore Layer2 developments. As Yilan mentioned, possibilities abound—BTC-Fi, etc. As more users adopt Bitcoin wallets, whether spending sats on pizza offline or engaging in DeFi-like applications, a virtuous cycle forms: users attract developers, who enrich the ecosystem, fueling further growth.
As for whether moving BRC20 and inscriptions (including NFTs) to Layer2 enhances or diminishes value—I don’t think it’s strongly correlated. Take $ORDI: whether it trades faster on Layer2 or gains more users via exchanges, generally, easier access drives higher prices. Currently, Layer2 trading for $ORDI isn’t as smooth as exchanges, so impact is limited.
For NFTs, the impact is larger. On Bitcoin’s main chain, NFTs serve little purpose beyond meme status. Plus, high gas fees make them expensive. A project launching a quality Bitcoin-native NFT will want broader engagement—more operations, creative use cases. Migration to Layer2 makes this feasible. Ultimately, it’s a holistic loop: BRC20 and NFTs bring new users; users fuel Layer2 growth; a richer Layer2 ecosystem enables innovative uses for BRC20 tokens like $ORDI. Imagine installing a Bitcoin wallet with $ORDI—since it’s cheaper than BTC, you could use $ORDI for everyday purchases or services.
Host:
Today’s discussion has gone quite deep—covering BRC20’s origins, underlying demand, stakeholder interests, its relationship with Bitcoin (benign or harmful), and implications of Layer2 migration. Now we’ll tackle what I consider the two most critical questions. I’d like each of you to answer separately.
First: If BRC20 aims to advance beyond its current influence and prosperity—to reach exponential growth—does it have room for a larger narrative? If so, where might it come from? Second: If such a narrative emerges, what key milestones might mark its path?
Envisioning BRC20’s Broader Narrative Potential
dayu:
I see several dimensions. First, wealth effect—the eternal theme in crypto. If top tokens like $ORDI don’t rise, the story stalls. Currently, $ORDI ranks among the top meme coins by trading volume (based on exchange backend data). $ORDI lacks a whale manipulator. But consider this: Suppose you manage a fund with $500M or $200M to allocate in crypto. Beyond macro bets on BTC/ETH, options include early participation in blue-chip projects like Aave—but institutional access is limited. Investing in uncertain new ventures carries high risk/reward volatility. After reviewing dozens of early-stage projects, sometimes none stand out—yet valuations aren’t low.
Now imagine: As a fund manager, allocating 10% of capital—say $20M—to buy $ORDI at current prices. That’s a manageable exposure. With such a position, you could significantly influence $ORDI’s price. Similar to an operator: more chips mean greater control over price movements.
It’s complex, but plausible. Doing
Join TechFlow official community to stay tuned
Telegram:https://t.me/TechFlowDaily
X (Twitter):https://x.com/TechFlowPost
X (Twitter) EN:https://x.com/BlockFlow_News
Mint Ventures
