关于阿根廷总统发币,我在香港三问 Solana 官方社区

Foresight NewsPublished on 2025-02-19Last updated on 2025-02-19

Abstract

现在的 MEME 有点太过火,Libra 这个事件我觉得是对 meme 风险的一个出清。我觉得从长期来看(出清)是好的,因为它过火了,总归这个泡沫要爆的。

撰文:Pzai,Foresight News

近期,由阿根廷总统米莱所推广的 LIBRA 代币引发了市场狂热。然而在代币上线后数小时内,项目方即从流动性池撤出 8700 万美元的 USDC 和 SOL,导致价格暴跌 80% 以上。米莱随后删除推文并启动反腐败调查,但已造成投资者巨额损失。

而在这个关键节点上,meme 市场的叙事似乎也正日渐式微。Solana 作为一条历经沉浮的公链,其中的生态建设者会如何表达对这一事件的看法?Foresight News 在 Solana Hongkong Summit 上采访了多位优秀生态建设者,为这一事件的影响进行分析。

MEME 背后的价值

「LIBRA 事件是 MEME 流动性枯竭的一种反响,市场支撑不起这么高的价格」Sonic SVM 创始人 Chris Zhu 向 Foresight News 表示。自特朗普发币之后,市场的定价似乎直接产生了难以逾越的天花板,而团队的撤池操作则更是为 LIBRA 快速崩盘雪上加霜。

而 Solar 社区成员 Alex 也直言「现在的 MEME 有点太过火,Libra 这个事件我觉得是对 meme 风险的一个出清。我觉得从长期来看(出清)是好的,因为它过火了,总归这个泡沫要爆的。」

而作为链上经济的重要组成部分,另外一位 Solar 社区成员 Han 对 MEME 的作用予以积极肯定:「第一个就是对于 Meme 来说,作为一个流量的入口,其实可以吸引很多的增量用户,或者说投机的用户进来。比方说之前一些 AI 的 memecoin,其实大家是有一些热度和兴趣的,可以促进行业的发展。但是从 TRUMP 一直到 LIBRA,它已经出现了一种双刃剑的效应。」

而对于这个市场的现状,Solar 社区成员 Tron 表示「从 TRUMP 开始,整个市场里面资本逐利的速度是越来越快。直到后续一系列名人币其实已经出现大家玩不下去的情况。然后我觉得 LIBRA 其实也是一个很好的时间节点,让市场冷静一段时间,去真正的发现一些有价值的项目,去回归到那种我们一起去投资一些有价值的项目的状态。」

价值回归与再发展

「市场正在经历一种价值回归,而真正做应用的会逐步回到市场的聚焦下。」Chris Zhu 表示,「Sonic 未来将在 Solana 生态里充当分发的角色,帮助生态的建设者构建注意力体系。」

很明显,在近几个月来多个 Solana 项目的代币发行为社区的热情再添柴火,而 Solar 社区负责人 Vesper 也向 Foresight News 表示:「(LIBRA 事件)有好有坏。好处就是说明 Solana 在世界上是足够瞩目的,都可以吸引这些政客的注意。比如说像特朗普,还有阿根廷米莱之类的,说明 Solana 现在影响力已经是比较国际化的。第二就是说明它够大了之后,也会有很多这种正面或负面的东西都会涌来,而且也会更加的去中心化。因为像现在 Solana 也是在弱化基金会的概念,希望上面的 DApps 然后包括发的代币之类的,都是大家自己想发就可以发,然后尽可能做更少的干预。然后也是希望大家在冲土狗的时候可以更加辨别清楚,就是 DYOR。」

在未来可能的 「后 MEME 时代」,Vesper 也为 Foresight News 介绍了 Solana 未来战略布局的中心:「其实 Solana Foundation 他们的关注重心或者说战略布局跟 meme 都是比较没有关系的。我们更喜欢一些可以为索拉纳带来实际用处的项目,然后可以带来更多创新。比如 DeFi 类的我们很喜欢,DePIN 也是索拉纳稍微比较大的赛道。虽然现在发展的比较缓,但是有很多做的不错的项目。

然后像 Rome 等 eSIM 项目可以大家出国旅游就可以使用他们的流量。另外 AI 也是 Solana 最近比较关注的一个赛道,为此还专门举办了 AI 黑客松,也是跑出来很多的项目。实际上我们希望能通过 AI 赋予这种实际的消费者类的 DApp 更多可以落地的实际用途,大家玩起来可以更加的方便,也让 Solana 生态可以更加的强大。」

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

Joe Lonsdale, co-founder of Palantir and a member of the "PayPal Mafia," shared his experiences working alongside Elon Musk and Peter Thiel. He described both as highly opinionated, ambitious, and intolerant of broken systems, demanding immediate fixes and rapid execution. Thiel is characterized as a strategic philosopher, while Musk is a hands-on engineer deeply involved in technical details. Musk is noted as one of the hardest workers Lonsdale has ever seen, a trait common in PayPal's early, passionate culture that later spawned numerous billion-dollar companies. Lonsdale recounted Palantir's origin story. While working at Thiel's hedge fund, he and Thiel discussed how Silicon Valley's technology far outpaced the government's, especially after 9/11. They saw an opportunity to build a platform to help stop terrorist attacks while protecting civil liberties. Their initial venture capital pitches were met with rejection and ridicule. However, Thiel viewed this as motivation. Critical funding eventually came from the CIA's venture arm and Thiel himself. Reflecting on Palantir's impact, Lonsdale believes their work helped neutralize thousands of terrorists and ensured government oversight, though he acknowledges the potential dangers if such powerful technology is misused. His key takeaway echoes Thiel's early advice: being rejected and laughed at can fuel the determination to prove the doubters wrong.

marsbit31m ago

What's It Like Working with Two "Madmen": Peter Thiel and Elon Musk? Palantir Co-founder Shares His Experience

marsbit31m ago

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

"15 Reasoning Models Collectively Fail: Revealing Hidden Risks in Chain-of-Thought Outputs" A systematic study led by researchers from Harvard, USC, Brown, and MIT warns that evaluating only the final output of large reasoning models (LRMs) is insufficient for safety. The research highlights that the intermediate reasoning chains (CoT) these models expose can contain dangerous content—like bomb-making instructions or poisoning recipes—even when the final answer appears safe. The core methodology involves separately assessing the reasoning chain and the final answer against 20 safety principles, each scored 1-5 for risk. This identifies three key failure modes: 'Unsafe' (both stages unsafe), 'Leak' (unsafe reasoning but safe answer), and 'Escape' (safe reasoning but unsafe answer). The team evaluated 15 reasoning models on a combined in-distribution dataset of 41K prompts from seven public harmful/jailbreak datasets. A universal finding across all 15 models was that reasoning chains are consistently riskier than final answers. Risk is concentrated in categories like misinformation, illegal activity, bias, and physical/psychological harm, with illegal compliance showing the starkest divergence. Case studies reveal instances where harmful operational details are 'leaked' in reasoning or a seemingly harmless chain 'escapes' into a dangerous final answer. To mitigate this, the researchers propose 'Adaptive Multi-Principle Steering,' a white-box, test-time intervention method. It identifies unsafe principles being activated during reasoning and gently steers the model's internal representations towards safer directions. Validated on open-source models, this approach reduced unsafe outputs by up to 40.8% while preserving 97.7% of benchmark performance. The work underscores the critical need to monitor and secure the entire reasoning process, not just the final output.

marsbit36m ago

15 Reasoning Models Flip Collectively: Unpacking the Latent Risks Hidden in the Chain of Thought Behind Their Outputs

marsbit36m ago

Trading

Spot

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of SOL (SOL) are presented below.

活动图片