1MarketMakers为加密项目推出新的“启动工具包”服务

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

币界网报道:

[新闻稿-哈萨克斯坦阿斯塔纳,2024年8月22日]

1MarketMakers正在推出一项新服务——1MM Startup Kit,这将帮助初创公司进入市场。

该团队表示,为了在市场上保持竞争力,区块链初创公司现在必须遵守传统的商业原则。仅仅激活一个机器人来自动维护流动性是不够的。长期解决方案至关重要:社区支持、营销、健全的经济战略和吸引投资者的代币经济。

1MM启动工具包中包含的内容

任何加密货币项目的核心都是一个必须与未来社区和投资者相关并具有吸引力的想法。1做市商有助于有效地包装这一想法。

营销和社区:分析当前的营销策略,并协助增加项目的受众。1MarketMakers寻求与基金、博主和顾问建立潜在的合作伙伴关系,他们可以为该项目提供担保,并在加密货币领域代表团队。

代币组学:协助从头开始开发代币组学或改进现有代币组学,以潜在地吸引投资者。

上市和MM策略:制定支持项目发展的上市和做市策略。这一策略有助于团队为项目的潜在持续增长提供资金。该团队帮助选择适合该项目的交易所,并制定与项目长期目标相一致的做市策略。

1MarketMakers始终站在客户一边——团队从头开始提供支持以帮助避免在开发的各个阶段出现错误至关重要。他们的1MM Startup Kit服务包括营销、代币经济学、上市策略和其他成功启动所必需的细节,帮助项目实现其目标。

1MarketMakers团队的其他服务

每个项目都需要专家协助以确保成功启动。对于初创公司来说,在内部保留这些专家的成本太高,因此寻求商业伙伴的帮助更有利。

1MarketMaking在市场上已经存在了5年多,成功地帮助公司进入并留在市场上:

    在开始和所有融资轮中确定策略。制定白皮书,开发吸引投资者的强大代币经济学。制定并实施旨在建立和发展社区的营销策略,并支持代币交易的启动。制定并执行上市和做市策略:为项目的进一步发展保持交易量和代币价格。在CoinGecko和CoinMarketCap上提供上市支持,并致力于获得TOP CMC排名。在整个合作过程中,根据项目的代币经济学和开发计划,保持流动性和代币价格。

该团队为客户提供完全保密和诚实的服务。他们只追求我们完全有信心的目标。他们的专家分析市场,帮助迅速调整公司的发展战略,以应对任何市场波动,他们的客户是在顶级交易所交易的项目。

关于1营销

1MarketMaking拥有一个由不同领域的专家组成的庞大团队,旨在提供最佳解决方案。在这个不断变化的时代,他们更喜欢分布式团队形式,团队总部设在迪拜、努尔苏丹、特拉维夫和基辅。如果用户想亲自与他们会面,只需留下一个请求,他们就会讨论世界上最方便的会面地点。

联系团队进行免费咨询,并获得免费的项目启动策略:1MM.team。用户还可以关注LinkedIn和X。

要接收此优惠,用户可以在反馈表单的消息字段中输入促销代码1mmpr2024。

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.

marsbit37m ago

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

marsbit37m 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

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1h ago

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片