The Dilemma of the Aptos Ecosystem: From Capital Darling to Development Bottleneck

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

As another Move public chain project is thriving, Aptos finds itself in a completely different situation. Aptos has entered the market strongly with high TPS, the Move language, and strong capital support, but while capital can expedite the maturity of a public chain, it is difficult to endow it with lasting vitality.

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

The halo fades, and ecological growth comes to a standstill

As an emerging public chain that garnered attention in 2022, Aptos is backed by the former Meta team and has emerged with the aura of "next-generation L1." With the support of several well-known investment institutions, Aptos initially enjoyed a fervent pursuit in the capital market. 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 between 3 to 4 million. In contrast, another public chain also based on the Move language has surpassed 10 million daily transactions, with DEX trading volume and application revenue far exceeding that of Aptos.

So, what problems has Aptos's ecosystem development encountered?

The false prosperity created by resource accumulation

Aptos's previous ecological expansion heavily relied on a "resource-driven" model rather than genuine market demand. Industry insiders point out that Aptos distributed large amounts of tokens to partners, introduced well-known DeFi projects to enrich infrastructure, and pulled several leading exchanges into ecological construction through OTC refinancing. However, this "quick-fix approach" has not resulted in real user migration, and instead resembles a "resource arbitrage game":

• After the leading DeFi project landed on Aptos, the growth of real users was limited, and after the unlocking of chips, they were quickly sold off.
• TVL appears to be growing, but most of the funds may just be "placed" to earn subsidies, without forming real liquidity;
• Ecological resources are tilted towards "airdrop" projects rather than supporting native developers, resulting in limited development for Aptos native projects and making it difficult for the ecosystem to form self-sustaining capabilities.

"Ecological Support" plan is 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 member projects, which received significant community attention, sparked controversy due to improper airdrop distribution.

Community members pointed out that the airdrop distribution of this project is highly concentrated: out of 440,000 addresses, only 10,000 received the airdrop, resulting in many genuine users getting nothing. This "ecological support" airdrop farce has instead exposed Aptos's shortcomings in project review and community governance.

Aptos's "ecological support" seems more like a superficial effort rather than a genuine ecological co-construction:

• No synergy with the core ecosystem
• Failed to provide reasonable suggestions for airdrop logic or community guidance before distribution.

There is an opinion that in this controversial airdrop event, Aptos chose to silently withdraw, repeating a series of inactions from the past.

Heightened Turmoil at the Top Raises Market Concerns

In the past year, there have been frequent changes in Aptos's upper management, with the CEO, head of product design, and head of product all leaving one after another, raising concerns in the market about its internal governance chaos.

It has been reported that last year Aptos conducted over-the-counter trading of tokens at a price far below the market price. At that time, the market price of tokens was in the range of $10 to $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 investment backgrounds, gradually resigned.

There is analysis and speculation that the direct reason for the personnel changes may involve the transfer of benefits, and the underlying reason is that Aptos's overall performance after the token issuance did not meet 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, chaotic internal management..." Many community members feel "disappointed by the lack of progress," as the once bright expectations are being gradually eroded by reality.

Some community members have pointed out that Aptos and the core team of another Move public chain both come from large companies, but their development trajectories are entirely different. He criticized Aptos for not aligning with the Web3 development path in terms of market sensitivity, strategic layout, user maintenance, and ecological co-construction. Instead, it is obsessed with boasting about its high TPS, and its style of operation is increasingly resembling that of a rigid traditional enterprise. He further pointed out that the Aptos ecosystem is filled with parasitic projects that overly rely on financial blood transfusion, resulting in a lack of vitality in the entire system.

A community member reviewed the changes over the past year: "Last year, the two major 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 preparing to welcome the feast of the Aptos ecosystem. However, a year has passed, and things have changed; one public chain has become a hero, while the other has become a failure. One public chain's price has soared, while the Aptos team has been busy selling coins at low prices, facing internal chaos, and ultimately leaving a mess behind with the departure of the CEO."

Some community members also pointed out that the internal staff efficiency at Aptos is extremely low. Some agreed, saying that Aptos uses "compliance" as a shield, delaying even simple processes 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.

As the competition in the L1 track remains fierce, only time will tell if Aptos can break through.