如何预测“收税代币”走势?交易所溢价给出答案

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2023-11-01Actualizado a 2023-11-01

Resumen

CEX的长期溢价区间与价格走势强关联,正溢价下跌而负溢价上涨。

原创 | Odaily星球日报

作者 | 南枳

如何预测“收税代币”走势?交易所溢价给出答案

收税代币,指在去中心化交易所(DEX)交易时,用户不会全额获取的代币,部分代币被销毁或分红。例如假设 UNIBOT(买卖收税 5% )价格 100 USDT,用户花费 100 USDT 进行购买时,只能收到 0.95 枚,同样地出售一枚时只能收到 95 USDT。

而中心化交易所(CEX)中,不具备收税的功能和机制,对于无税代币,若出现价差自然会有套利者搬平。但对于收税代币,理论上价差会处于正溢价和负溢价的叠加态,仍以 UNIBOT 在 100 USDT 价位举例:

  • 对于出售者,交易所负溢价只要在-5% 内都是可以接受的,例如-4% 的溢价下,转至 CEX 仍能卖出 96 USDT,相较链上的 95 USDT 仍存在利润;

  • 对于买入者,则可以接受 5% 以内正溢价,即 105 USDT 以下的 CEX 成交价相比链上都是划算的。

因此,CEX 的正溢价或负溢价,可能是受以上两者力量的博弈,最终达到一种均衡。Odaily星球日报据此先做出一个假设,并将在下文验证:

  • 若交易者对后市看跌,卖出力量更强,交易所将呈现持续的负溢价状态,币价将下跌;

  • 若交易者对后市看涨,买入力量更强,交易所将呈现持续的正溢价状态,币价将上升;

UNIBOT 数据分析

基本规则

分析标的:以 UNIBOT 作为第一个分析对象,该代币买卖收取 5% 税,分别分配给 LP、持币者和团队;

时间维度:以 1 小时作为分析维度;

时间跨度:近 1600 个小时,约为 8/23 ~ 10/27 ;

价格取值:DEX 中以一小时内所有成交价取均值(来自 Dune 的 dex.prices),CEX 取 Bitget 数据,一小时的开盘、收盘、最高、最低价取均值;

溢价计算:溢价率=(CEX-DEX)/DEX。

计算结果

1600 个小时中,有 790 个小时溢价超出了﹢ 5% 或﹣ 5% ,占比接近 50% 。说明市场力量过强(超买超卖),要么市场力量过弱被交易所或做市商主导

为探究正负溢价与走势的关系,Odaily星球日报将﹢3% 以上溢价记为正溢价(下图橙色),﹣3% 以下记为负溢价(下图紫色)。

如何预测“收税代币”走势?交易所溢价给出答案

在一段行情中,会出现持续的单边溢价情况,而没有另一方溢价的存在,将主要正溢价的区间标为蓝色底纹,将主要为负溢价的区间标为黄色底纹

从图中可以看出,正负溢价区间与价格走势有着明显关系,得到结论①,但与本文开头所推测的规律完全相反:

①正溢价时,价格倾向于下跌;负溢价时,价格倾向于上涨。

此外从图中还有另外几个衍生结论,本文的溢价区间选取较大,在大的溢价区间中还有小的反向的溢价区间,如 9/17 ~ 9/22 区间,以正溢价为主的区间中出现了几次小的负溢价区间,而在这个区间内价格走势发生反弹,但整体走势没有反转。

而 9/22 ~ 9/27 之间长期溢价转变,走势发生了反转。然后在 10/2 再次溢价&走势同时反转。

故而有结论如下:

②走势与长期的溢价情况相关,短期的溢价意味着反向的发展,但不改变整体方向

③长期溢价转换后,整体走势反转。

那么,正负溢价是价格走势的充分条件或者必要条件吗?答案是两者都不是:

  • 8/23 ~ 8/28 整体趋势向上,涨幅超 30% ,但没有正负溢价区间,否定了必要条件;

  • 10/4、 10/24 附近出现了小的溢价区间,但价格横盘,否定了充分条件;

故有结论正负溢价与走势强相关,但不是充分条件也不是必要条件。

进一步数据验证

AIMBOT

使用自动打土狗机器人 Aimbot 的代币 AIMBOT 作为研究对象,该代币同样买卖收取 5% 税,但具备另一个特性:转账也收税 5% ,这一特性阻止了套利者的搬砖行为,也将遏制交易者的链上链下互转。链上和链下的交易将成为“单机”状态。

如何预测“收税代币”走势?交易所溢价给出答案

从上图可以看出,AIMBOT 不再存在有明显的正负溢价区间,“单机”状态使得正负溢价变得十分随机,但在区间形成时,价格走势规律仍符合前文所述,新增结论如下:

⑤链上链下的转账通道是 CEX 持续溢价的必要条件。

BANANA

使用 Telegram 交易 Bot BananaGun 的代币 BANANA 作为研究对象,该代币买卖收税 4% ,本处将正负溢价的界限修改为± 2% ,其他条件与 UNIBOT 一致。

如何预测“收税代币”走势?交易所溢价给出答案

可以看出,正负溢价区间与价格走势的关联性依旧存在,但价格波动不是特别明显,或与 BANANA 是热门新币种有关。

相比 AIMBOT,BANANA 不收取转账费用,故溢价区间也再次变宽且更为显著,印证了结论⑤。

结论

综上,长期的溢价区间与价格走势存在明显关联,正溢价下跌而负溢价上涨,溢价的反转也是走势反转的信号之一,但还需结合代币本身的特性和交易所的情况进行甄别判断。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbitHace 36 min(s)

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbitHace 36 min(s)

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbitHace 46 min(s)

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbitHace 46 min(s)

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片