符文铸造者画像:打新、投资、尝鲜,你是哪一类?

币界网Publicado a 2024-07-19Actualizado a 2024-07-19

币界网报道:

最近在和 Myra Wang 的电话交流中谈到了我对于符文铸造用户的一些看法。

在做用户分析的时候,我认为最重要的一个步骤是进行用户细分和用户画像。对于符文铸造的人群,我倾向于划分为三个类型,分别是:打新猎人、符文投资者、尝鲜小白。

下面对这三类人群的铸造行为特征、工具使用关注点进行描述。

符文铸造者画像:打新、投资、尝鲜,你是哪一类?

作者:Portal_Kay

X/推:@portal_kay

打新猎人

1、符文铸造行为

铸造次数:> 1000 次

铸造标的:“打新猎人”们参与铸造的符文基本涵盖了大部分有潜力的标的。通过 https://t.me/ybot_runes 等监测工具,他们能够第一时间了解到几乎所有热门符文的部署铸造情况。无论是新兴土狗还是符文蓝筹,铸造数量靠前的永远是这些地址。

2、工具使用关注点

使用成本:

“打新猎人”在挑选铸造工具时,最关注的是使用成本。由于铸造数量大,累计的服务费就会变成一笔不小的费用。此外,参与打新有很高的风险性,大多数标的并没有非常高的利润率。因此,大批量铸造的用户,基本同时伴随着高频挂单的“搬砖套利”行为——就是低成本打新之后,立马以低利润挂单卖掉。如果工具使用成本过高,这种“搬砖套利”的模式就无法维持。

工具使用成本除了明面上的“服务费”以外,还受到铸造订单的生成方式、UTXO 的使用逻辑、gas 设定的灵活度等因素影响。

操作效率:

“打新猎人”关注的第二点是操作效率。因为很多符文新标的出现,参与时间是非常紧迫的:有的标的数量少,几个区块内就会打完;有些标的,错过一个区块就会面临下个区块大幅提高的 gas,进而导致铸造成本拉高,无利可图。操作效率除了一键操作、无须钱包二次签名以外,另一个就是 BTC 交易的广播速度。

此外,这类用户对于工具使用的交互易用性倒不会特别在意,因为操作极其频繁,所以打新操作早就变成了肌肉记忆。

符文投资者

1、符文铸造行为

铸造次数:≥ 10 次,< 1000 次

铸造标的:“符文投资者”的铸造标的集中在一些共识度比较高的蓝筹项目,比如:#0 UNCOMMON,当时热度颇高的 COOK•THE•MEMPOOL。这类标的参与人数比较多,并且市场上一直有活跃的交易。

2 、工具使用关注点

“符文投资者”对工具服务费相对不敏感。由于铸造的以蓝筹标的为主,因此可以以更长期的视角看待自己持有的资产。即使当前 mint 的成本高于市场价格,但是长期来看可能在未来还是能够盈利。

对于操作效率的要求也并不高。共识度高的蓝筹项目,都给了用户充分的时间参与铸造。用户并不需要赶着在几个区块内完成操作。

对工具易用性的要求较高。由于这类用户参与打新的频率并没有那么高,因此操作也并不熟练,如果工具使用更简单易懂,他们就能够更快速上手,降低学习成本。

尝鲜小白

1、符文铸造行为

铸造次数:< 10 次

铸造标的:由于是抱着尝试的心态进行参与,“尝鲜小白”选择的标的可能有比较强的随机性。当然,大概率开启尝试的标的也是 0 号,因为找任何符文玩家都会给你推荐:你先打个 0 号练练手。

2、工具使用关注点

“尝鲜小白”最关注的是资产安全。因为对于比特币底层的逻辑了解不够,所以很担心自己的操作会不会造成资产的损失,会不会多付了不该付的钱、钱包会不会被盗?所以说,要吸引这类用户,可能降低使用顾虑是第一位的。

其次可能是交互体验的友好程度和产品易用性。因为链上的操作并不熟练,所以对比特币交易的很多基础概念并不理解,比如:单个 UTXO 的铸造数量、符文占用聪等。界面上如何用最简单易懂的方式表达出铸造相关的重要信息就会显得非常重要(当然,这并不容易)。

好了,以上就是我对符文铸造用户的一些理解。有这么多的的符文铸造工具供用户选择:Ybot.io、Luminex、MCT、NFTSniper、GeniiData、DotSwap、Ord.io、SatoSea ,如何建立自己的产品壁垒?找准核心用户应该是第一个需要深度思考的问题。有了对核心用户的深度认知,才能做出有差异化的产品。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Japanese Rates Return to 1996 Levels, Can Bitcoin Withstand the September Rate Hike?

Japanese borrowing costs have hit their highest levels since 1996, with yields on 30-year bonds reaching 4.185%. This marks a significant shift for a country long reliant on negative rates. Concurrently, Bitcoin surged 22% past $80,000, seemingly decoupled from the bond market turmoil. Historically, the massive yen carry trade has fueled global risk assets, predicated on near-zero Japanese rates. This assumption is now challenged. A potential rate hike by the Bank of Japan in September could strengthen the yen, forcing carry trade unwinds and potentially triggering a global deleveraging event, as seen in August 2024 when Bitcoin fell sharply. Conversely, if the yen weakens further, Bitcoin could attract Japanese investors as a hedge against currency depreciation and the country's massive debt burden. Institutional adoption in Japan is growing, with regulatory changes paving the way for potential crypto ETFs by 2027. The key variable is the BoJ's September policy signal. If it hints at a rapid tightening cycle to combat inflation and support the yen, risk assets like Bitcoin may face selling pressure from carry trade liquidation. However, if debt sustainability concerns limit its hawkishness, leading to a weaker yen, Bitcoin could benefit. Currently, the market is betting on a slow-motion debt crisis, not a sudden collapse. While Bitcoin shows resilience, its fate remains tied to the direction of the yen and the scale of any carry trade unwind.

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

Japanese Rates Return to 1996 Levels, Can Bitcoin Withstand the September Rate Hike?

marsbitHace 3 min(s)

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparison of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

"Bitcoin's Quantum Defense: A Comparison of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes" by the Blockstream Research Team explores how Bitcoin can transition to quantum-resistant digital signatures, as current schemes like Schnorr and ECDSA are vulnerable to quantum computers. The report evaluates three lattice-based signature candidates—Dilithium, Falcon, and Hawk—against criteria like on-chain cost (key/signature size), implementation complexity, deployment risks, and support for Bitcoin's key derivation standard (BIP-32). The analysis recommends a minimum Security Level 3 for Bitcoin due to its long-term security needs. Dilithium (ML-DSA) is praised for its simplicity and integer-only operations, making it easier to implement securely, but it has the largest signature size (~5.3 KB for Level 3). Falcon (FN-DSA) offers the most compact signatures (e.g., ~3.1 KB for Level 5) and the fastest verification, though its signing requires complex floating-point sampling—a solvable engineering challenge. Hawk, despite its small size, was withdrawn from NIST standardization after a security vulnerability was discovered, highlighting the importance of conservative security margins. Currently, neither Dilithium nor Falcon has a fully viable, production-ready BIP-32 key derivation method. The report concludes that if a lattice-based scheme had to be chosen now, Falcon-1024 would be the preferred option for its balance of size, speed, and mature security assumptions. However, the short-term recommendation remains hash-based signatures (like SPHINCS+) for their lower risk, with a potential future hybrid or full transition to Falcon once its standard (FN-DSA) is finalized and well-supported.

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

How Can Bitcoin Resist Quantum Computers? A Comparison of Three Lattice-Based Signature Schemes

marsbitHace 5 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片