I've been pondering a question lately:
Is Zerobase truly "infrastructure," or just a premature, over-hyped vision?
Its core narrative is:
Off-chain computation + on-chain proof = future architecture.
It sounds reasonable.
But I can't help but ask further—
Are there really enough complex off-chain computations currently requiring an independent proof network?
Currently, mainstream applications are still:
DEX, lending, liquidity staking. These protocols aren't complex, and many don't even require private computation.
If the demand isn't high-frequency,
where will the call volume for the proof network come from?
From another perspective:
If Layer 1 natively integrates a more efficient ZK module in the future,
will developers still need to connect to an independent network like Zerobase?
Historically, the space for middleware protocols has often been compressed by the main chain.
Another unavoidable question:
Is ZBT's value truly strongly tied to network usage?
If early usage relies on incentives,
can real demand sustain it when subsidies end?
I'm not saying Zerobase has no value.
I just suspect—is it betting on a structural upgrade three years from now, but the market is already pricing it in based on tomorrow's scale?
The biggest fear for infrastructure isn't a wrong direction,
but a mismatch in timing.
@ZEROBASE $ZBT #Zerobase




