流动性战争3.0:贿赂成为市场

marsbitPublicado a 2025-05-10Actualizado a 2025-05-11

市场

我相信我们将再次见证收益战争。如果你长期参与去中心化金融(DeFi),你会知道总锁仓价值(TVL)只是个表面指标,直到它真正重要起来。因为在一个高度竞争、模块化的自动做市商(AMM)、永续合约和借贷协议世界中,唯一真正重要的,是谁能控制流动性路由。不是谁拥有协议,甚至不是谁发放最多奖励,而是谁能说服流动性提供者(LP)存入资金,并确保TVL具有粘性。

这就是贿赂经济开始的地方。

过去非正式的投票购买(例如Curve战争、Convex等)如今已专业化为全面的流动性协调市场,配备了订单簿、仪表板、激励路由层,甚至在某些情况下还有游戏化参与机制。这正成为整个DeFi堆栈中最具战略重要性的层之一。

变化:从排放到元激励

在2021-2022年,协议通常通过传统方式引导流动性:

  • 部署一个资金池
  • 发行代币
  • 希望雇佣兵式的LP在收益下降后仍会留下来

但这种模式本质上是有缺陷的,它是被动的。每个新协议都在与一种无形的成本竞争:现有资本流动的机会成本。


I. 收益战争的起源:Curve与投票市场的兴起

收益战争的概念在2021年的Curve战争中开始变得具体。

Curve Finance的独特设计

Curve引入了投票锁仓(ve)代币经济学,用户可以将$CRV(Curve的原生代币)锁仓长达4年以换取veCRV,这带来了:

  • Curve资金池的增益奖励
  • 投票决定权重(哪些资金池获得排放)的治理权力

这创造了一个围绕排放的元游戏:

  • 协议希望在Curve上获得流动性。
  • 唯一的方法是吸引投票支持他们的资金池。
  • 于是,他们开始贿赂veCRV持有者以投票支持他们。

随后出现了Convex Finance

Convex抽象化了veCRV锁仓,并聚合同用户的投票权。它成为“Curve的幕后推手”,对$CRV排放的去向拥有巨大影响力。项目开始通过Votium等平台贿赂Convex/veCRV持有者。

经验教训1:谁控制权重,谁就控制流动性。


II. 元激励与贿赂市场

最初的贿赂经济

最初是为了影响排放的手动努力,演变成了一个成熟的市场,其中:

  • Votium成为$CRV排放的场外贿赂平台。
  • Redacted Cartel、Warden和Hidden Hand等平台将这一机制扩展到Balancer、Frax等其他协议。
  • 协议不再只是为排放付费,而是战略性地分配激励以优化资本效率。

扩展到Curve之外

  • Balancer通过$veBAL采用了投票锁仓机制。
  • Frax、@TokemakXYZ等也整合了类似系统。
  • Aura Finance和Llama Airforce等激励路由平台进一步增加了复杂性,将排放变成了一场资本协调游戏。

经验教训2:收益不再只关乎年化收益率(APY),而是可编程的元激励。


III. 收益战争如何展开

以下是协议在这一元游戏中竞争的方式:

  • 流动性聚合:通过类似Convex的包装器(例如@AuraFinance对Balancer)聚合影响力。
  • 贿赂活动:预算用于持续购买投票,以吸引所需的排放。
  • 博弈论与代币经济学:锁定代币以创造长期一致性(例如ve模型)。
  • 社区激励:通过NFT、抽奖或额外空投游戏化投票。

如今,@turtleclubhouse和@roycoprotocol等协议引导流动性:它们不是盲目排放,而是根据需求信号向LP拍卖激励。本质上:“你带来流动性,我们将激励引导到最重要的地方。”

这解锁了二级效应:协议不再需要强行吸引流动性,而是协调它。

Turtle Club

一个鲜为人知但极为有效的贿赂市场。他们的资金池常与合作伙伴嵌入,TVL超过5.8亿美元,采用双代币排放、加权贿赂和令人惊讶的粘性LP基础。他们的模型强调公平价值再分配,即排放由投票和实时资本速度指标引导。这是一个更智能的飞轮:LP根据其资本效率而非仅规模获得奖励。效率终于得到了激励。

Royco

在一个月内,其TVL激增至26亿美元,月环比增长惊人的267,000%。虽然部分是“积分驱动”的资本,但真正重要的是其背后的基础设施:

  • Royco是流动性偏好的订单簿。
  • 协议不能只是简单地发放奖励并寄希望于结果。他们发布请求,LP决定投入资本,协调成为一个市场。

这一叙事的意义超越了收益游戏:

  • 这些市场正成为DeFi的元治理层。
  • @HiddenHandFi已在@VelodromeFi和@Balancer等主要协议中累计引导了超过3500万美元的贿赂。
  • Royco和Turtle Club正在塑造排放的有效性。


流动性协调市场的机制

贿赂作为市场信号

像Turtle Club这样的项目允许LP看到激励流向何处,根据实时指标做出决策,并根据资本效率而非仅资本规模获得奖励。

流动性请求(RfL)作为订单簿

像Royco这样的项目允许协议像在市场上列出订单一样列出流动性需求,LP根据预期回报填充这些需求。这成为一个双向协调游戏,而非单向贿赂。

如果你决定流动性流向何处,你就影响了谁能在下一个市场周期中存活。

Lecturas Relacionadas

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

As Bitcoin falls below $60,000, the author reflects on the relationship between AI and Bitcoin, seeing them as two sides of the same coin. In the AI era, the cost of generating content has plummeted, making fake text, images, and videos increasingly easy and cheap to produce. This has led to a fundamental shift: while AI dramatically lowers the cost of information production, it also undermines trust and authenticity online. What becomes truly valuable is not more content, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This perspective offers a new lens for Bitcoin. Its massive energy consumption, often criticized as wasteful, is reinterpreted. While AI burns energy to enhance "capability" and efficiency, Bitcoin burns energy to produce "verifiability." Its purpose is not to be trusted but to enable a system where no trust in intermediaries—banks, platforms, or developers—is needed. Every transaction and the entire ledger's history is secured by cryptography and a decentralized network of nodes, making it independently verifiable. AI cannot forge a transaction on the Bitcoin network because the system is designed for proof, not generation. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance: the printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce. Today, AI is the new printing press, reducing content creation costs to near zero. Blockchain, and Bitcoin as its pioneer, may be the modern equivalent of double-entry bookkeeping—a foundational technology for verifying digital asset ownership and historical records without centralized authorities. Thus, AI and blockchain are not competitors. AI lowers the cost of creation; blockchain lowers the cost of verification. In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may lie not in more content, but in independently verifiable facts. Whether the market will reprice Bitcoin accordingly remains uncertain, but its core value proposition as a "machine for producing verifiability" becomes strikingly relevant.

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

In the AI Era, What's Left for Bitcoin?

marsbitHace 18 min(s)

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

Author: Sevclub, Seven Research Amid Bitcoin's recent drop below $60k, the author reflects on a growing sense that AI and Bitcoin are two sides of the same coin. Today, encountering any content triggers a new default question: "Was this made by AI?" The cost of generating convincing text, images, and video is now negligible. While the internet lowered information *distribution* costs, AI is crashing information *production* costs to near zero. The consequence is a flood of content where truth and falsehood are increasingly indistinguishable. In this environment, what becomes truly valuable is not more information, but the ability to verify what is real—"verifiability." This reframes the common criticism that Bitcoin "wastes electricity." AI consumes power to produce "capability" (e.g., more powerful models). Bitcoin consumes power to produce something else: "verifiability." Bitcoin's core purpose isn't about belief or trust in any institution, developer, or even its creator. It's about enabling independent verification. Every bitcoin's origin, every transaction, and the integrity of the entire ledger are secured by mathematics, cryptography, and a global network of nodes. AI can fabricate convincing media, but it cannot falsify a transaction on the Bitcoin network. The expended energy makes篡改历史 (tampering with history) prohibitively expensive, purchasing a globally verifiable ledger. The author draws a historical parallel to the Renaissance. The printing press drastically reduced the cost of copying knowledge, while double-entry bookkeeping reduced the cost of trust in commerce—one enabled creation, the other verification. Today, AI is the new printing press, driving content production costs toward zero. The question becomes: what is this era's "double-entry bookkeeping"? Blockchain appears to be the leading candidate. It doesn't verify which news is true or which image is real, but it provides a foundational layer for independently verifying asset ownership and historical records in the digital realm without centralized authorities. Therefore, AI and blockchain are not in competition. AI lowers the cost of *generation*. Blockchain (and Bitcoin as a prime example) lowers the cost of *verification*. One creates, the other proves. Whether Bitcoin ultimately succeeds remains uncertain, facing potential challenges from quantum computing, regulation, and technical evolution. However, the author now sees it less as a "machine for making bitcoin" and more as a "machine for making verifiability." In an age where AI can generate anything, true scarcity may no longer be "more content," but "more independently verifiable facts." Whether the market will price this accordingly is a separate question.

链捕手Hace 27 min(s)

In the Age of AI, What's Left for Bitcoin?

链捕手Hace 27 min(s)

Trading

Spot
活动图片