为何稳定币 Summer 难燃 Crypto 热情?

链捕手Publicado a 2025-06-23Actualizado a 2025-06-23

作者:Haotian

 

Arthur这篇长文把稳定币前世今生梳理得很清楚——亚马逊、沃尔玛探索发稳定币,Visa股价应声下跌,整个稳定币赛道火得不行。但让我意外的是,明明有稳定币Summer的火爆迹象,整个Crypto圈内却反应很冷淡,甚至有资金流出去美股炒概念股。Why?

——Crypto Native叙事为何对稳定币热潮“无感”?

1)这就很有意思了。回想当初川普发币,大家还在兴奋地预期总统币的溢出效应,为啥真正有Mass Adoption潜力的稳定币抓手来了,Crypto圈反倒“迷茫”了?

实际上,这个问题Arthur给出了答案:“没有发行渠道,就没有稳定币生意”。稳定币生意模式的内核是发行渠道,而Arthur总结的三种可行渠道——加密交易所、Web2巨头、传统银行。这貌似和大部分Crypto行业build方向都关联不大?

你看,Tether的成功不是因为技术多牛逼,而是抓住了刚需+渠道。Circle即使技术更规范,还得把50%利息收益分给Coinbase换取发行渠道。这么来看,没有硬核发行渠道,那些试图靠“更好技术”挑战USDT的项目,基本都是在做白日梦。

对散户而言更好理解了,稳定币太“boring”了,没有10倍100倍的暴富想象空间,Crypto圈自然无感。

——Web2巨头才是真正的“搅局者”

2)Arthur对传统银行的判断很犀利——“基本没救”。7x24无国界的美元系统 vs 冗余人员、官僚流程的银行系统,这根本不是一个量级的竞争。银行的衰落反倒给了稳定币巨大的生存空间。

而真正有颠覆潜力的是Meta、X、Google这些Web2巨头,因为他们自带用户基础和支付场景。当亚马逊、沃尔玛开始探索稳定币,这可不是简单的业务拓展,而是在把几十亿主流用户直接“投喂”给Crypto基础设施。

在我看来,这才是稳定币Summer的真正价值——不是给Crypto圈带来短期暴富机会,而是让Crypto基础设施悄无声息地渗透到主流世界。

当几十亿web2用户开始日常使用稳定币时,DeFi、DeAI、GameFi等各个赛道的infra需求会相应增强,这是短期感知不到但不能忽视的长期增长Buff。

——IPO潮背后的“润物细无声”

3)当然,所谓Summer即使冷清也一定会有炒作。Arthur提醒得很到位:Circle IPO只是第一枪,后面会有一堆"模仿者"冲进来。这些项目大多没有真实分发能力,但在稳定币叙事加持下,市梦率会很夸张。

但回到Arthur那个核心判断——没有发行渠道的项目基本没戏,关键是,这部分Summer预期可能和大部分散户都没关系,围观看戏就好。

不过从另一个角度看,这波IPO潮本质上是在向华尔街“科普”crypto价值。当传统投资者开始认真研究稳定币商业模式时,这种“润物细无声”的影响才是最值得思考的。

在我看来,稳定币Summer就是Crypto从“边缘创新试验田”变成“主流商业备选方案”的转折点。

当下,Crypto圈感受不到热度很正常,因为游戏规则变了,主角也不再是他们。但长期看,当crypto基础设施承载更多真实世界的需求时,每一个crypto原住民都会是这波基础设施升级的受益者。
 

Lecturas Relacionadas

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbitHace 27 min(s)

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbitHace 27 min(s)

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight NewsHace 34 min(s)

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight NewsHace 34 min(s)

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbitHace 49 min(s)

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHace 56 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片