疯狂山寨季:日涨 40%,才刚开始?

Cointelegraph中文Published on 2025-05-12Last updated on 2025-05-12

Abstract

分析师预测山寨币将迎来重大突破,图表显示看涨信号,但也有人警告,本轮周期缺乏散户信心和持久动力。

山寨币市场正显示出突破的早期迹象,多位分析师预测未来数月可能出现大幅上涨。

加密货币评论员Mister Crypto预测,未来3到6个月可能是“改变人生的”,他表示日涨幅高达40%可能很快成为常态。

在5月11日发布于X平台的一篇帖子中,他引用了BlockchainCenter.net的一张图表,该图表显示加密货币市场是倾向于比特币(BTC)还是山寨币。

当指数低于25时,被认为是“比特币季节”,意味着比特币的表现优于大多数山寨币;当指数高于75时,则是“山寨币季节”,意味着山寨币的表现优于比特币。

目前,图表显示指数刚突破低于29的下降趋势,暗示可能正在摆脱比特币的主导地位。这一突破表明山寨币可能开始积聚动能,或将进入一个表现优于比特币的时期。

本轮山寨币季节可能有所不同

其他人也看到了上涨行情,但警告称这与之前的周期不同。分析师2Lambroz认同山寨币季节可能已经到来,但表示市场动态已发生变化。

他在X平台上写道:“人们想要出价,但缺乏对任何强大叙事的信心。”他指出,与2021年不同,目前没有散户投资者进入市场的迹象。交易者们更快地轮转资金,几乎没有长期持仓的动机。

技术交易员Moustache则提供了更为乐观的看法。他分享了一张图表,显示山寨币重复的积累阶段后是爆发式增长。他表示,当前结构与2016年和2020年相似。“2025年山寨币季节已正式开始,”他说。

然而,怀疑者依然存在。评论员Rekt Fencer指出,自12月以来,大多数山寨币已下跌90%。本周仅10%的温和反弹就引发了过度的乐观情绪,他因此嘲笑这场上涨。“这就是我们一直在等待的山寨币季节,”他开玩笑说。

加密货币市场因全球乐观情绪而上涨

加密货币市场在周末以强劲的看涨势头开局,受到投资者信心恢复的推动。比特币价格飙升至10.49万美元,仅比历史最高点低4%,这是在唐纳德·特朗普总统宣布中美贸易谈判取得积极进展之后。

上涨不仅限于比特币,以太坊(ETH)也在几周内实现了最佳单日表现之一。迷因币同样大幅反弹,显示出更广泛的山寨币市场重新燃起的风险偏好。

Kronos Research首席执行官Hank Huang对Cointelegraph表示:“加密货币在全球乐观情绪的浪潮中上涨。”他提到,印度和巴基斯坦的停火谈判缓解了地区紧张局势,而中美贸易关税的消息则显示出主要经济体之间重新合作的信号。

Hank补充说,以太坊的强劲上涨为山寨币全面上涨增添了动力。“随着投资者回归风险资产,比特币飙升至10.5万美元,清晰度取代了不确定性,”他指出。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

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.

marsbit23m ago

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit23m 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.

marsbit27m ago

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit27m 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

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