超越市值:“解锁供应”提供更深入的见解

币界网Published on 2024-08-22Last updated on 2024-08-22

币界网报道:

流通供应是加密代币估值的常见指标,通常隐藏着关键细节。Token Unlocks通过引入解锁供应来解决这个问题,这是一种更准确的估计未来代币可用性的方法。

循环供应的问题在于它依赖于自我报告的数据和不频繁的更新。这可能会导致重大差异,使投资者难以真实了解代币的价值。

由于缺乏通用的报告标准,流通供应的准确性可能会有很大差异。此外,跟踪流通供应的方法,如钱包移动和估计,可能已经过时。有时它们只每月更新一次,导致报告的数字存在很大差异。

为了解决这些问题,Token Unlocks引入了一个新的指标:解锁供应。与可能落后的流通供应不同,解锁供应使用行权时间表来更准确地估计未来的代币供应。这让投资者对可能的市场变化有所了解,而且这种方法提供了一种更结构化、更准确的方法来估计未来的代币供应,为投资者提供了潜在市场变化的领先指标。

无锁定供应的主要好处之一是它能够作为预警系统。通过提供每日或每周更新的粒度数据,它允许用户预测尚未反映在流通供应指标中的代币发行。此外,将解锁供应与循环供应进行比较可以作为一种验证工具,有助于确保项目团队提供的数据的准确性。

然而,无锁供应并非没有挑战。该指标可能受到代币销毁、激励计划、DAO决策和生态系统赠款等动态因素的影响。这些元素通常在项目白皮书或代币生成事件(TGE)之后引入,可以改变预期的供应。

要真正理解一个项目的代币经济学,你需要同时考虑循环供应和解锁供应。它们共同提供了更清晰的供应动态图,帮助每个人在不断变化的加密世界中做出更明智的决策。

Related Reads

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit56m ago

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit56m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit1h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit1h ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片