Title: RUNES Threatens to Dethrone BRC 20 as the Top Bitcoin Gambling Protocol
Introduction:
When it comes to famous casinos around the world, most people immediately think of “Las Vegas” or “Macau.” However, the once-booming gambling city of “Atlantic City,” located in southeastern New Jersey, has been forgotten despite its history as the first gambling city in the United States. Despite its previous annual net profit of $3 billion, Atlantic City has fallen into decline. RUNES, on the other hand, aims to become the “Las Vegas” of the Bitcoin network, while BRC 20 does not want to be another “Atlantic City.”
In a recent speech at the Ordinals Asia event in Hong Kong two weeks ago, Casey Rodarmor, the founder of Ordinals and the RUNES protocol, openly stated that if Ordinals and RUNES can create a more transparent, decentralized, and less house-biased gambling platform than Las Vegas, it would be great for all the degens (gamblers) who can have fun here.
RUNES Ecosystem’s Success:
After being online for over a month, the RUNES ecosystem has not only achieved Casey’s initial target market cap of $1 billion but has also experienced a recent surge in overall asset value. On May 29th, DOG•GO•TO•THE•MOON saw a 24-hour increase of 38.83%, reaching a historic high. RSIC•GENESIS•RUNE experienced a 24-hour increase of 14.15%, PUPS•WORLD•PEACE saw a 24-hour increase of 31%, and CATS•IN•THE•SATS saw a 24-hour increase of 56%.
Casey’s Honest Approach:
Casey openly admits that RUNES is a gambling platform and wants users to have the best experience here. He believes in being honest and practical about building social, gambling, and entertainment products on Ordinals, Inscriptions, and RUNES. There is no need to hide anything and the goal is to provide users with the most fair and enjoyable products.
User Experience Comparison: RUNES vs. BRC 20
In terms of user experience, the biggest difference and advantage of RUNES over BRC 20 is the improved transaction experience on the gambling platform. BRC 20 requires two transactions, inscription and transfer, to complete a transfer, whereas RUNES only requires one transaction, eliminating the need for inscription.
A user named 0x Sea explains that with BRC 20, the selling process requires the inscription of a transfer, followed by confirmation on the blockchain, and then transferring the inscription. This process requires two gas fees and two waiting times, resulting in high costs in terms of time and money. Additionally, it leads to the occupation of many 546 sats in the wallet, which creates unnecessary clutter. In contrast, the transaction fees for RUNES are significantly lower, making it more efficient.
0x Sea further comments that from a cost perspective, the RUNES protocol can reduce the total cost of minting transactions by up to 60%. This improvement is particularly visible when dealing with UTXO inflation, as BRC 20 requires additional inscribe operations, whereas RUNES does not, thanks to its UTXO mechanism. This difference highlights the advantage of RUNES over BRC 20.
Threat to BRC 20:
Even before the official launch of RUNES, many community members already sensed a competitive relationship between RUNES and BRC 20. They jokingly referred to Ordinals as a “never-ending argument” ecosystem, and with the upcoming launch of RUNES, this concept clash is expected to turn into a real war between a new gambling platform and an old one.
RUNES’ Threat to BRC 20:
RUNES poses a significant threat to BRC 20 on multiple levels. For established BRC 20 tokens like Ordi and Sats, the impact may not be significant. However, for new BRC 20 tokens, especially those with market caps of only a few million dollars, RUNES’ impact will be substantial. This observation is supported by data, as Ordi has seen a 36% increase in price from its bottom of around $36 to $49, and Sats has increased by 14% this week.
The threat to BRC 20 is further highlighted by the difference in trading volume. On Binance, the trading volume of the Ordi/USDT pair in the past 24 hours reached $208 million, while the Sats/USDT pair had a trading volume of $97.97 million. However, on-chain trading volumes were only $130,000 and $38,000, respectively. This shows that the majority of trading volume for Ordi and Sats occurs on centralized exchanges.
0x Sea explains that if a project planned to launch on BRC 20 or if a project wanted to issue a new token, they might choose RUNES in the current situation. This is because RUNES has gained more support in terms of on-chain infrastructure, such as wallets and minting platforms, in a short period of time. In the short term, RUNES has far more exposure and traffic than BRC 20.
BRC 20’s Defense Strategy:
Similar to how Atlantic City responded to the rise of Las Vegas by transitioning to a tourism-oriented city, BRC 20 is also undergoing an “industrial upgrade and migration” as a defense against RUNES’ direct attack and other Bitcoin FT protocols. BRC 20 is shifting from being a “Bitcoin casino” to focusing on DeFi infrastructure.
The recent updates to BRC 20, such as supporting 5-character tickers and introducing the “self-minting” mechanism, have facilitated centralized issuance for project owners and stimulated market performance through deflationary measures. These updates represent an industry upgrade for BRC 20 and indicate that there will be fierce competition between the two protocols.
The Future of BRC 20:
In the long run, BRC 20 faces several threats. Although RUNES is based on the Ordinals protocol, it does not rely on it for implementation. Similarly to Taproot Assets and RGB, RUNES is independent. On the other hand, BRC 20’s implementation depends on the Ordinals protocol, which puts it in a passive position in terms of long-term development.
Furthermore, there will be more interaction between RUNES and the Ordinals protocol. For example, the BLOB team, one of the developers of the Ordinals protocol, is currently working on the “recursive inscription” feature that connects RUNES and Ordinals. This synergy between RUNES and the Ordinals protocol will create a significant impact and challenge for developers and projects.
Conclusion:
While BRC 20 is making efforts to defend its position and transition to DeFi infrastructure, RUNES poses a significant threat. With its improved user experience and growing ecosystem, RUNES has the potential to replace BRC 20 as the top Bitcoin gambling protocol. BRC 20’s recent upgrades and migration to DeFi are seen as a response to this threat, but the long-term competitiveness and advantage of BRC 20 remain uncertain. Ultimately, BRC 20 must provide its own answer to survive in this critical year.
