Multiple differentiated L1 solutions have emerged in the blockchain infrastructure track. Burnt stands out in its design philosophy by taking broad abstraction (GA) as its core technology, focusing on consumer-grade experience, and aiming to enable ordinary users to interact with Web3 applications seamlessly without perceptible awareness. This approach is more aligned with the practical needs of mass adoption. In contrast, Injective targets a completely different market niche—the finance and high-frequency trading sectors. It concentrates on building high-performance infrastructure, emphasizing ultra-low latency, cross-chain interoperability, and modular DeFi architecture, designed for professional trading scenarios that are sensitive to speed and efficiency. Each route has its own focus, reflecting the development trend of the L1 track from basic networks to application scenario deepening.

INJ0,5%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

7 Likes

Reward
7
7
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MEVSandwich

· 01-20 15:07

Hmm, the idea of Burnt is indeed appealing, making Web3 accessible to beginners without them feeling overwhelmed... Easier said than done, brother. --- I don't quite understand that part about Injective. Can high-frequency trading really make money? Feels like all just retail investors. --- So, which one will win in the end, or can everyone survive? --- Consumer-grade experience... I'm tired of hearing about it. When will it truly be implemented? --- Is GA just a hype? Feels like all projects are just hyping themselves. --- Professional trading scenarios, in simple terms, are just ways to cut retail investors. --- Are these two really on the same track? Feels like there's no real comparison. --- Wait, why is no one paying attention to other L1 players? --- Those who do well in abstraction layers should have already dominated the market, right? --- DeFi modularization... Is this term now the secret to traffic?

View OriginalReply0

MidnightTrader

· 01-20 10:28

Consumer-grade experience sounds good, but how many people will actually use it... Injective's approach is solid; professional trading scenarios are the real deal.

View OriginalReply0

BridgeJumper

· 01-18 06:19

These two ideas are indeed different. Burnt wants beginners to use Web3 seamlessly, while Injective focuses purely on trading speed... It still depends on who can truly implement it.

View OriginalReply0

DefiVeteran

· 01-17 18:10

The consumer experience is indeed a popular direction, but honestly, can Burnt really make ordinary people "unaware" when using Web3? I'm a bit skeptical... Injective, on the other hand, is reliable. High-frequency trading is a demand involving real money, and the approach of benchmarking traditional exchanges makes sense. It still depends on how the subsequent implementation turns out.

View OriginalReply0

MEVHunter

· 01-17 18:06

burnt's GA abstraction layer is basically just window dressing for the masses while injective's actually where the real alpha extraction happens... zero-latency mempool dominance ftw

Reply0

AirdropSweaterFan

· 01-17 17:58

Give me a comment: Burnt's approach is indeed clever, making ordinary users interact unconsciously... It sounds like it's hidden within overwhelming complexity, so small investors like us can't really notice the difference. Injective has a different approach; professional traders definitely need ultra-fast speeds. However, with how competitive L1 has become now, only a few can really survive.

View OriginalReply0