非常好用的4款专业级加密货币分析平台

币界网Publicado a 2024-08-03Actualizado a 2024-08-03

币界网报道:

Dune Analytics

Dune Analytics 是一个适合任何经验水平用户的平台。它允许访问大量区块链数据。 

Dune Analytics 可用于多种用途,包括跟踪加密货币价格、交易量和其他市场指标、分析智能合约的活动以及观察分散应用程序活动。

它还允许用户设置预定义小部件来可视化区块链数据。这些小部件可用于创建图表、图形和其他可视化数据表示。

该平台最吸引人的功能是用户可以创建的仪表板。任何交易者都可以通过标签或关键字搜索仪表板。

Dune 与其他平台不同,它并不力求成为一项无所不知的服务。相反,该平台会奖励用户创建和改进仪表板。

eoqw2O6DsR5qc2eAaRtNLMbD62PGydSFaUMzDmnf.png

特别有价值的是用于追踪前 1,000 个以太币( ETH )钱包的工具,它为各个领域的投资者和专家提供了重要信息。

Dune 的基本功能是免费的,因此每个人都可以使用这项服务。对于需要更多高级功能的用户,Dune Plus 每月收费 349 美元,与其他分析平台相比,价格很有竞争力。

Arkham

Arkham 是一个密码分析平台,致力于对区块链上的交易进行去匿名化和分析,系统地将其与真实的组织和个人联系起来。该项目由两个主要部分组成:情报平台和 Arkham Intel Exchange。

该智能平台利用人工智能来扩展其数据分析。

阿卡姆情报交易所采用奖励和拍卖系统,可以使用阿卡姆的本土货币阿卡姆 ( ARKM ) 来交易地址和交易。

用户可以通过两种方式获得 Arkham 代币:完成对 Arkham 社区有用的任务,如果他们使用 ARKM 存储或付款,他们可以享受 Arkham 系统内付款高达 20% 的折扣。

该平台还具有 Arkham Visualizer,这是一种提供交易图形表示的分析工具。

此功能适合那些想要摆脱列表视图并更喜欢以更直观的方式了解资产动态的人。它还可以可视化特定代币的交易网络。

cGdwPoR5wjydsFRoBwHAYTchdyqYqwkoI3v4LLnD.png

Glassnode

Glassnode 于 2018 年发布,是另一款针对加密货币市场的分析工具。除了价格图表和交易量外,该平台还提供大量以太币和比特币的期货图表。

Glassnode 开放了杠杆参数、多头仓位和空头仓位数量以及交易的支付百分比等数据。

LSGtBzmtPdfjLWR4PcUX0WlIJm5aBewEcnpawQZm.png

该平台还有许多其他用于市场研究的图表,例如网络活动、地址数量和投资者情绪。 

Glassnode 发布详细的加密货币报告,并每周发布自己的区块链网络分析来评估市场情况。

另一个功能是为想要了解市场变化的用户提供通知系统。

Glassnode 有两种费率:免费套餐适合需要基本加密货币图表的初学者;专业套餐,每月 833.33 美元。

Nansen

Nansen 将链上数据与数百万个钱包的大型数据库相结合。

用户可以对特定的代币进行深入分析,包括去中心化交易所的每周交易、DEX 的近期交易以及最大交易的分析。

Nansen 分析了超过 7000 万个代币化钱包,提供了代币流动的完整图景。

gR1GlzUldri0JKODBvOzFy3iuGloE9BIgAN1ko4U.png

Nansen 因能够将复杂的区块链数据转化为可理解的分析见解而脱颖而出。 

该平台允许用户监控钱包并分析交易模式以找到有利可图的交易。最近,Nansen 通过添加一个包含详细市场研究的“研究”门户来扩展其功能。

Nansen 平台的主要缺点是其复杂性,这可能会让新手感到不快,尽管它试图在每次更新中简化用户体验。

另一个缺点是,使用 Nansen 的高级功能可能会很昂贵(每月 999 美元),这使得许多新手投资者或寻求更经济实惠选择的人无法承受。

对于那些希望深入分析项目和区块链活动的人来说,Dune 似乎是无与伦比的选择,因为它具有强大的分析能力。Arkham 因其检测欺诈计划的能力而脱颖而出,而 Nansen 则擅长分析大型投资者行为和市场趋势。Glassnode 提供广泛的分析和社交互动功能。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Why Are Crypto Cards Struggling to Replace Visa?

Encrypted bank cards struggle to replace Visa due to fundamental differences in payment economics. Analysis reveals Visa’s fee is only about 7-9% of the total merchant discount rate (MDR), with the largest share (70-80%) going to issuing banks as interchange fees. Most crypto debit cards, operating on prepaid stablecoins like USDC, lack the credit-based revenue model of traditional reward credit cards. This results in significantly lower interchange income. Even with higher exempt rates for small banks, the total fee pool for a $100 stablecoin debit transaction is only about $0.62, leaving minimal room for profit sharing after covering network, processor, and bank costs. Stablecoins primarily innovate in the back-end settlement layer, enabling near real-time T+0 settlements on networks like Visa and Mastercard instead of the traditional T+2 cycle. This optimizes working capital for issuers but doesn't lower costs for merchants or improve the consumer checkout experience. Card networks are actively integrating stablecoins for settlement, seeing them as a system enhancement, not a threat. While stablecoins can reduce costs in cross-border payments by eliminating intermediaries and forex layers, this logic doesn't translate to domestic card payments where the cost structure is dominated by interchange fees. The core promise of bypassing card networks to save merchants money is flawed, as removing Visa only cuts the smallest fee component.

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

Why Are Crypto Cards Struggling to Replace Visa?

marsbitHace 13 min(s)

In the Era of MiCA, Why is the EU CASP License Becoming Increasingly Important?

In the MiCA era, the EU's Crypto-Asset Service Provider (CASP) license is becoming increasingly crucial, especially after the transitional period ends on July 1, 2026. Post-deadline, crypto service providers operating under old national frameworks must either secure MiCA authorization or exit the EU market, rendering the previous model of using a single member state's VASP registration for pan-European operations obsolete. The CASP license fundamentally changes the regulatory landscape by shifting from a fragmented, nation-by-nation registration system to a unified "passporting" regime. Authorized in one member state, a CASP can provide its licensed services across the EU, offering greater legal clarity and operational efficiency compared to the past. MiCA defines CASP authorization based on specific service types, such as custody, trading platform operation, exchange, and transfer of crypto-assets. The scope of authorization is determined by actual business functions, not self-selection, with corresponding prudential requirements like capital adequacy. Banks and institutional clients increasingly value CASP status as it provides a verifiable, standardized framework for due diligence, accessible through ESMA's public registers. The regulation significantly limits the "reverse solicitation" exception for non-EU firms. Active marketing or outreach to EU clients generally necessitates a CASP license, moving away from reliance on offshore entities. It's important to note that a CASP license is not a universal permit; it covers crypto-asset services but does not automatically authorize traditional financial activities like payment services (governed by PSD2) or dealing in financial instruments (governed by MiFID II). A complete crypto-fiat payment solution often requires both a CASP and a licensed payment institution. Priority candidates for pursuing a CASP license include: 1) Platforms with the EU as a primary long-term market; 2) Projects seeking partnerships with EU banks or large institutions; and 3) Groups aiming to consolidate cross-border operations under one regulated entity. In contrast, early-stage projects without concrete EU plans may find the process premature. Ultimately, the growing importance of the CASP stems from the end of regulatory ambiguity in Europe. It has evolved from a consideration to a fundamental requirement for market access, client trust, and sustainable operations within the EU's now-harmonized crypto regulatory framework.

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

In the Era of MiCA, Why is the EU CASP License Becoming Increasingly Important?

marsbitHace 16 min(s)

Bernstein Research Report Analysis: Global Semiconductor Equipment WFE Grows 75% in Two Years, DRAM and Logic Chips Are the Biggest Drivers

Bernstein significantly raises its global Wafer Front-End (WFE) equipment spending forecast: $148B in 2026 (from $141B), $204B in 2027 (from $175B), and $259B in 2028 (from $198B). This represents a cumulative 75% growth over two years, confirming a strong equipment upcycle. Memory, especially DRAM, is the primary driver, with DRAM WFE expected to surge 53% in 2027 and 37% in 2028. Logic/Foundry follows, driven by advanced node investments. The forecast upgrades are broad-based, but the largest incremental contribution comes from memory spending outside China and logic/foundry expansion within China. Bernstein expects China's WFE demand to be resilient, jumping to $101B in 2028 from $573B in 2027 due to comprehensive expansion across memory, advanced logic, and mature nodes. A key factor is the DUV lithography shortage, which is expected to ease in H2 2026, allowing imports to recover. Top equipment picks include ASML (preferred in Europe) for its exposure to DRAM and advanced logic, and Applied Materials (top US pick) for its broad exposure and attractive valuation. In China, NAURA is favored due to its comprehensive product portfolio and significant advanced logic exposure. Bernstein views the recent sector pullback as an attractive entry point, arguing that market expectations for 2027/2028 demand strength remain too low and that supplier guidance is conservative.

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

Bernstein Research Report Analysis: Global Semiconductor Equipment WFE Grows 75% in Two Years, DRAM and Logic Chips Are the Biggest Drivers

marsbitHace 17 min(s)

The True Cost of Strategy Being Forced to 'Hoard' U.S. Dollars

The article analyzes MicroStrategy's (now Strategy) shift towards holding substantial US dollar reserves (currently $4.65 billion) while selling Bitcoin, contrasting this with its core identity as a Bitcoin-focused company. It argues this move is a strategic necessity specific to Strategy, driven by its unique business model of issuing "digital credit" (preferred securities) with fixed USD dividend obligations. To secure favorable credit ratings (e.g., S&P's B- rating, which penalizes Bitcoin-heavy balance sheets) and sustain this credit issuance, Strategy must demonstrate significant dollar liquidity. However, this cash hoarding imposes a heavy "invisible tax" or opportunity cost: capital allocated to low-yielding cash reserves cannot be deployed into Bitcoin, artificially raising the required return threshold on its actual Bitcoin investments to cover fixed dividend costs. The author concludes that Strategy is an extreme case, and most other Bitcoin-related companies should not blindly emulate this strategy. For them, dollar reserves should be dictated strictly by operational needs and prudent buffers, not arbitrary targets. Holding excess cash typically means forfeiting potential Bitcoin returns for uncertain benefits, making it economically unsound unless a company shares Strategy's specific credit-dependent capital structure. The decision ultimately hinges on a firm's unique business model and genuine cash flow requirements.

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

The True Cost of Strategy Being Forced to 'Hoard' U.S. Dollars

marsbitHace 20 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片