以太坊的 TVL 飙升至 53% 以上:这是 ETH 大幅上涨的迹象吗?

ambcryptoPublished on 2025-05-11Last updated on 2025-05-11

Abstract

以太坊的突破和鲸鱼活动表明,在深度低估的情况下,以太坊可能出现反弹。

  • 随着巨鲸积累以太坊,交易所储备下降。
  • 短期持有者活动的下降和深度负的 MVRV 标志着长期积累阶段的到来。
  • 以太坊 [ETH]正在强势回归,其总锁定价值 (TVL) 占比飙升至 53% 以上,达到 3 月份以来的最高水平。

这种重新占据主导地位的情况与鲸鱼的重大流动相一致,其中包括 23,844 ETH转移到 Coinbase Institutional 以及 58,430 ETH 在未知钱包之间转移。

这些大额交易表明机构投资者的兴趣和增持正在上升。截至发稿时,ETH 交易价格为 2,362.31 美元,24 小时内上涨 2.62%。

供应压力终于缓解了吗?

以太坊交易所储备在过去 24 小时内下降 1.1%,至 1925 万 ETH,而净流量则暴跌 8.26%,出现负流动 213,232 ETH。

这些资金流出表明,越来越多的货币被转移到自我托管中,从而减轻了中心化交易所的直接抛售压力。

事实上,这意味着投资者正在将 ETH 转入自主托管。当代币退出交易所时,抛售压力通常会减轻,从而为价格稳定甚至上涨创造空间。

MVRV 多头/空头差值

以太坊的MVRV多空差值跌至-40.91%,为近几个月来的最低水平之一。从历史上看,如此深的负值通常出现在吸筹阶段或复苏周期的早期。

因此,这或许预示着新资本进入市场的战略机遇。然而,持续的复苏可能取决于投资者的信心能否在更高的价格水平上保持下去。

新持仓活动急剧下降

0天至1天持币波动率下降至0.114,表明短期投机活动有所减少。新入场币种的减少表明,当前参与者是坚定的投资者,而非波段交易者。

尽管这会降低短期波动性,但也可能会限制即时的购买势头,除非更广泛的兴趣重新燃起。

过去七天,仅销毁了 ETH 总费用的 42.75%,低于之前 90 天的平均值 35.03%。

这种燃烧率的下降表明链上交易需求较弱,这暂时缓和了以太坊的通货紧缩态势。

尽管较低的消耗率降低了稀缺性效应,但持续的网络使用仍然支持以太坊更广泛的实用性。

即将到来的 DeFi 活动是否会在未来几周重新点燃烧钱率还有待观察。

ETH 是否已经扭转了其看跌结构?

以太坊最近突破了持续数月的下降趋势线,证实了强劲的趋势逆转。

突破之后,价格大幅上涨至 2,365 美元。RSI 读数为 81.90,表明该资产短期内处于超买状态。

不过,上涨势头依然强劲。如果价格维持在 1,761.30 美元上方,则有望突破 2,526.54 美元。

结论

以太坊的 TVL 主导地位不断上升、交易所储备不断下降以及确认的突破结构都表明市场势头正在发生转变。

尽管费用消耗有所减弱且短期活动减少,但其他链上指标表明机构兴趣日益浓厚且强势积累。

基于这些因素,以太坊似乎正进入大幅上涨的早期阶段,这可能是由战略重新定位和新的资本流入推动的。

Trending Cryptos

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.

marsbit1h ago

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

marsbit1h 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.

marsbit2h ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit2h 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 ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片