To be honest, everyone is tired of the tactics used by public blockchains to create ecosystems: it's nothing more than throwing subsidies to buy data.
This approach is like a booster shot; once the subsidies are withdrawn, what remains is the awkwardness of interruptions.
For @Vanarchain , the key to achieving real long-term value is not about how many bonuses are given out, but whether developers can truly consider this place their 'home'.
We can follow this logic further:
First, we need to look at the dynamics of new contracts; a truly vibrant ecosystem should have deployments that are as natural and continuous as breathing, rather than relying on hackathons for 'surge' appearances.
More importantly, we need to see if there are any updates after the code goes live. If an application is deployed and never updated again, it likely just came to claim a spot; only those products that iterate repeatedly and constantly change their logic are the ones that genuinely take root here.
As for traffic, it can't deceive people either. If a screen full of transactions is crammed into the same reward contract to take advantage, then this kind of prosperity is just paper-thin. A real ecosystem should have traffic scattered across various imaginative application entrances; that is the real vibrancy.
Ultimately, EVM compatibility is just handing out a 'ticket to enter'; whether people can stay long-term fundamentally depends on infrastructure. If the documentation is obscure and difficult to understand, if there are pitfalls in example code, and if the interface is always failing, then why would anyone regard this as their main battlefield?
Developers are very realistic; only when the infrastructure is user-friendly will those names on the collaboration list not just be a string of cold characters.
