解析a16z的加密投资组合:前25个币种的回报究竟如何?

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2024-07-11Actualizado a 2024-07-11

Resumen

在这个快速变化的领域里,适时的买卖决策至关重要。

原文作者:Ren & Heinrich

Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) 是世界上最著名的风险投资公司之一。 他们的投资组合包含大约 50 种加密货币。在这个分析中,我想看看作为散户投资者,如果你进行跟单交易,即投资与a16z相同的币,并在大约 5 个月后将其出售,你是否可以在 2024 年获利。

先假设些条件

•  你作为个人投资者进行复制交易(即投资与a16z相同的币种,并在大约 5 个月后出售)。

•  在a16z投资组合中按市值排名前 25 位的每种币种投资 100 美元(总计 2500 美元)。

•  投资期限:从 2024 年 1 月 1 日到 2024 年 6 月 6 日(157 天)。

深入分析

有了这些条件,我们来看看从年初以来a16z的投资组合将表现如何。

X 轴显示时间走势,Y 轴显示收益或损失百分比。值为 200 意味着相应的加密货币根据原始价值增长了 100% 。

解析a16z的加密投资组合:前25个币种的回报究竟如何?

正如我们所见,情况复杂。

一方面,我们看到一些加密货币在过去几个月价格走势不错,比如:

•    Arweave(AR):+ 323% 

•    Goldfinch(GFI):+ 157% 

•    以太坊(ETH):+ 63% 

另一方面,也有许多价格在下跌,例如:

•    XRP(XRP):-17% 

•    Optimism(OP):-38% 

•    ApeCoin(APE):-22% 

总体而言,排名前 25 位的加密货币中有 11 种显示出净增长。如果减去其他币种价格下跌所导致的损失,总销售价格为 3158.82 美元。因此总利润(3158.82 美元 - 2500 美元)为 658.82 美元,投资回报率(ROI)为 26.35% ,效果还不错。

其实,同期仅仅投资比特币或以太坊的人会获得更大的利润。

显然,无条件复制安德森·霍洛维茨的投资组合不是最理想的选择。

那如何获取更多利润呢?

如果要增加通过复制a16z加密货币投资组合前 25 个币种获利的方法还有哪些呢?让我们更详细地看一下时间线。

当比特币在三月初开始上涨时,整个加密货币市场也出现了强劲的上涨趋势,但并非所有币种的涨幅都相同。

解析a16z的加密投资组合:前25个币种的回报究竟如何?

该图表比较了a16z投资组合中的表现强劲的和表现平平的(显示的是六月初涨幅为正或负的币种的平均增长)。

我们可以看到,表现强劲的币种在三月初(3 月 13 日,平均+ 104% )的涨幅显著高于表现平平的币种(3 月 13 日,平均+ 27% ),并且能够长期保持这种优势。

因此,涨幅的强度是未来几个月其表现是否良好的指标之一。

再次提醒,在加密货币投资中,时间是至关重要的。

正如安德森·霍洛维茨不会永远持有他们的币种一样,你在复制交易时应始终关注趋势,并抓住卖出机会,只保留你投资组合中最有前景的币

表现“强劲”表现“平平”是什么意思呢?

这张放大的图表将所有到六月初涨幅为正的币种显示为绿色,其他则显示为红色。

解析a16z的加密投资组合:前25个币种的回报究竟如何?

截至 3 月 13 日,我们可以看到这些表现强劲的币种其涨幅至少为 40% ,而表现平平者则几乎都低于此水平。

虽然并不能从中得出固定的规则。但它显示了,如果你在三月中旬左右出售了投资组合中表现较弱的一半加密货币,你在六月份将会获得大量盈利。

但是,这并不排除这些表现平平者在稍后会有更好的表现。

a16z的加密货币投资组合展示了市场多样性与挑战,投资者在复制其策略时应当谨慎,时刻注意市场趋势和个别币种的表现。

在这个快速变化的领域里,适时的买卖决策至关重要,才能在波动中把握机会,实现可持续的投资回报。

原文链接

Lecturas Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHace 8 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 8 min(s)

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.

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

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

marsbitHace 15 min(s)

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 NewsHace 16 min(s)

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

Foresight NewsHace 16 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片