简析以太坊合并会面临哪些威胁?

Foresight ResearchPublished on 2022-08-09Last updated on 2022-08-09

Abstract

合并即将发生,以太坊将按预期转移到 PoS,可能会出现短暂的混乱,一切都会好起来的。

合并即将发生,以太坊将按预期转移到 PoS,可能会出现短暂的混乱,一切都会好起来的。

以太坊合并即将到来,可能会带来经济混乱。随着我们越来越接近合并,以太坊工作量证明(我们称之为 ETH POW)硬分叉的传言正在浮出水面。

这有很多原因,以太坊挖矿是一个价值数十亿美元的行业,每月为硬件矿工创造数亿美元的收入(有时数十亿美元)。对他们来说,不幸的是,一旦合并完成,矿工就会变得无用。他们将为维持业务而奋斗,将分叉以太坊并推动 PoW 替代方案。事实上,这已经在发生了,已经有一个以太坊 PoW 阵营在 Twitter 上出现并发声。

我们看到 Bitmex 在 ETHPOW 上推出了期货合约,让投资者可以推测这些代币的未来价格。以太坊 PoW 是否有价值是一个问题,但这个硬分叉确实为以太坊生态系统呈现了一种非常独特(并且可能是混乱)的动态。

为每个人免费赚钱

早在 2017 年,比特币出现了继比特币现金之后的无数硬分叉,其中相当一部分比特币社区不同意增加网络区块空间的 SegWit 提案。结果,比特币区块链被分叉,比特币持有者以 1:1 的比例收到每条新链的代币。

尽管这些链中的大多数已经变得无关紧要,但它们确实为比特币持有者创造了数十亿美元的财富。人们收到了这些具有市场价值的新代币,要么选择抛售他们新铸造的代币以换取更多 BTC,要么决定根据愿景继续持有它们。

因此,以太坊也会发生同样的事情,对吗?

合并后,每个 ETH 持有者将按合并时持有的每个 ETH 1:1 获得 ETHPOW 代币。

不过,以太坊和比特币之间有一个关键的区别。硬分叉比特币很简单,它只是存在于网络上的本地代币。

相比之下,以太坊有一个完整的经济基础。网络上有数千种资产和数百种协议。如果它是硬分叉的,那么从技术上讲,所有这些相同的代币和协议现在也存在于新的 PoW 链上,而不需要得到在其上构建的实体 / 社区的直接支持。

如果发生这种情况,可能会导致合并前后市场的大幅波动。

经济混乱

如前所述,当以太坊硬分叉时,网络上的所有内容都会被复制。

问题是,并非所有资产、协议或基础设施都将得到构建它的每家公司的支持。当然,你可以复制链上的代币和合约,但你不能复制支持它们的链下事物(人类、基础设施等)。

这里有两个主要的例子:

法币稳定币(USDC、USDT 等)

像 USDC 和 USDT 这样的法定稳定币将被一对一复制,就像其他所有代币一样。问题是,USDT 和 USDC 银行账户中的现金并没有翻倍,两家发行商都不会兑现 PoW 链上的任何稳定币。也许他们将来会,但会在 PoW 链上重新发行稳定币。

旧的稳定币代币将被扔进垃圾桶。你在以太坊 PoW 钱包中收到的所有 USDC 和 USDT 实际上都是毫无价值的。

鉴于 USDC 变得一文不值,DAI——一种由 40% USDC 支持的去中心化稳定币——也失去了大量支持它的抵押品。

流动质押代币(stETH、rETH 等)

另一个主要影响是流动性质押代币(Lido 的 stETH 和 Rocketpool 的 rETH)。

鉴于这条新的以太坊链打算永久运行在 PoW 上,ETH 质押将永远不会发生。

这将使以太坊 PoW 上数十亿美元的流动质押代币归零,因为它们实际上永远无法兑换任何东西。

这只是两个关键的例子,还有很多其他可能发生的事情。

那 DeFi 协议呢?哪些将支持 PoW 版本,哪些将继续与以太坊 PoS 保持完全一致?

您可以假设已经具有强大的多链协议将支持新的 PoW 链。但即使他们愿意,事情也会变得复杂,因为还有另一种代币(即 AAVE 和 AAVE-POW),其中 POW 代币实际上拥有网络协议的权利——无论是治理、经济还是两者兼而有之。

一个具体的例子是 Sushiswap。如果 Sushiswap-PoW 的交易量很大,那么 SUSHI-POW 持有者会从质押中获得收入,而不是 PoS 持有者。

鉴于 Sushiswap 的多链方法,这里存在一些冲突。根据 Sushiswap 的记录,他们肯定会支持 PoW 链并将所有收入分配给 xSUSHI 持有者。

相反,如果 Sushi 社区决定采用这个版本,现在必须有治理流程来解决这个问题。

多米诺骨牌开始倒下

这里出现的一个大问题是合并前后的 5-10 个区块。当数千亿美元的资本应该在一条链上归零,而不是在另一条链上时,矿商可提取价值 (MEV) 的数量是未知的。

将会出现混乱。

MakerDAO 依靠 USDC 来维持 DAI 的挂钩。

Aave 有数十亿美元的 stETH 被用作贷款的抵押品。

鉴于以太坊的可组合性水平,很容易想象会有大量的清算、波动和因此而发生的事情。

市场机遇

您可能想知道的问题是:「我怎样才能从混乱中获利?」

从表面上看,你可能正在考虑做空 USDC 或 stETH 或任何会失去价值的代币。

做空 stETH 或 USDC 并将您的任何抵押品置于风险之中可能是不值得的。未知数太多,您很可能会输给机器人。

为了利用潜在的分叉,最简单的方法就是在合并之前堆叠尽可能多的 ETH( 请以安全的方式 )。

这是因为虽然不清楚每个单独的代币在 PoW 链上的表现如何,但合法版本的 ETHPOW 可能会保留一些价值——至少在中短期内是这样。

很多人想摆脱以太坊 PoW 链。

如果有一个分叉成功地成为所有矿工的聚焦点,那么 Ethereum-PoW 网络将变得非常去中心化和安全,为用户提供高结算保证。

事实上,以太坊 PoW 链实际上将成为仅次于比特币和 Ethereum-PoS 的第三大安全区块链。这并没有使链本身具有价值,但它确实为它提供了重要的基础,特别是当它已经经过实战考验时。

以太坊工作量证明有着悠久的成功历史。在过去的 7 年里,它一直支持着数万亿美元的经济活动。我们知道以太坊 PoW 有效——这是有证据的。

因此,如果合并确实因任何原因失败,以太坊 PoW 将继续前进,不会失败。如果您有任何疑虑,几乎可以将 ETHPOW 视为对合并的对冲。

这是加密行业中前所未有的独特事件,有很多变量需要考虑。

合并即将发生,以太坊将按预期转移到 PoS,一切都会好起来的。可能会出现短暂的混乱。

Trending Cryptos

Related Reads

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit8m ago

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit8m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit15m ago

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit15m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News16m ago

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News16m 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