The Predicament of Aptos: From Halo to Dilemma

"The chain is fast, the heart is painful, and the money is scarce." This sarcastic remark reflects the sentiments of many early supporters of Aptos. While Sui, another public chain using the Move language, is thriving, Aptos finds itself in a completely different situation. Although Aptos has made a strong entry into the market thanks to high TPS, the Move language, and strong capital support, the drive of capital alone is not enough to give a public chain true vitality.

What kind of difficulties has Aptos encountered? Let's take a closer look.

The halo fades, ecological growth stagnates

Aptos was launched in 2022, backed by the former Meta team, making a splash as the "next generation L1." With support from several well-known investment institutions, Aptos initially received a warm embrace from the capital market. However, as market enthusiasm has cooled, its once-proud technological advantages are gradually losing their appeal.

Data shows that the number of daily active addresses for Aptos has decreased to about 1 million, with daily transaction counts around 3 to 4 million. In contrast, Sui, which 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 False Prosperity of Resource Accumulation

Aptos's previous ecological expansion heavily relied on a "resource-driven" model rather than genuine market demand. Analysts point out that Aptos distributed a large number of tokens to partners, introduced well-known DeFi projects to enrich the infrastructure, and brought top institutions into ecological construction through OTC refinancing. However, this "quick fix approach" did not lead to real user migration, but rather resembled a "resource arbitrage game":

• After the leading DeFi projects landed on Aptos, the growth of real users was limited, and the tokens were quickly sold off after unlocking;
• TVL appears to be growing, but most of the funds may just be for earning subsidies through "showing off" and have not formed real 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 the LFM program aimed at helping ecological projects prepare for token issuance. However, the airdrop of the first LFM member, Amnis Finance, which received strong community support, has sparked controversy.

Community members pointed out that the airdrop distribution of Amnis Finance is highly concentrated: among 440,000 addresses, only 10,000 received the airdrop, resulting in many real users getting nothing. This "ecosystem support" airdrop farce instead exposes Aptos's shortcomings in project review and community governance.

Aptos's "ecological support" resembles more of a nominal collaboration rather than genuine ecological co-construction. Although Aptos provides Amnis with substantial resource support, including token rewards, the latter has also spent a year on marketing and lotteries. However, the entire process is more about form than substance, ultimately resulting in not ecological growth, but a failed public relations effort:

• There is no synergy with the core ecosystem.
• No reasonable suggestions or community guidance on the airdrop logic before distribution.

There are opinions that the airdrop controversy of Amnis Finance has stirred up, while Aptos has chosen to silently withdraw, repeating a series of past inactions.

Wave of Executive Departures

Over the past year, Aptos has experienced constant turmoil at the top level, with several core management personnel leaving one after another, raising concerns in the market about its internal governance chaos.

There are reports that Aptos conducted off-market trading of APT at a price far below the market rate last year. At that time, the market price of APT was in the range of $10-13, 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 venture capital backgrounds, gradually left the company.

There are analyses and speculations that the direct reason for the personnel changes may involve the transfer of benefits from over-the-counter trading, and the fundamental reason is that Aptos's overall performance after the coin issuance did not meet expectations.

Community Disappointment, What Lies Ahead for Aptos?

Aptos was once highly anticipated, but now it is deeply mired in community doubts and disappointments. "Lack of market sensitivity, unclear strategic direction, internal corruption..." Many community members feel "disappointed in the iron that cannot be made into steel," and the once bright expectations are being gradually worn away by reality.

Some community members pointed out that the core teams of Aptos and Sui both come from large companies, but their development trajectories are completely different. He criticized Aptos for not aligning with the Web3 path in terms of market sensitivity, strategic layout, user maintenance, and ecological co-construction. Instead, they are obsessed with boasting about their high TPS, and their style of operation increasingly resembles that of a rigid Web2 traditional enterprise. He further pointed out that the Aptos ecosystem is filled with parasitic projects that overly rely on financial lifeblood, leading to a lack of vitality and a stagnant system.

Another community member reviewed the changes over the past year, stating: "Last year, the Move duo was still at the same starting line, and at that time, the buzz around Aptos was even higher than Sui, with the entire community full of confidence to welcome the feast of the Aptos ecosystem. However, a year has passed, and things have changed; one of the Move duo has become a hero, while the other has become a loser. Sui's coin price has been rising steadily, while the Aptos team has been busy selling coins at low prices, dealing with internal corruption and利益输送, and ultimately left a mess after the CEO's departure."

Some community members pointed out that Aptos internal employees are bureaucratic and extremely inefficient. Some echoed that Aptos uses "compliance" as a shield, and processes can take as long as 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.

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