BAGS单日交易量突破1.1亿美元，平台闹剧却引发争议

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2025-08-11Actualizado a 2025-08-11

原创｜Odaily 星球日报（@OdailyChina）

作者｜Wenser（@wenser 2010）

8月9日，当下最为火热的新兴发币平台 BAGS 官方发文庆祝平台交易量突破1.1亿美元，其市场份额也增长至 23.5%，首次超越 LetsBonk.fun 跃居第二，仅次于老牌Meme发币平台 Pump.fun。而在 Nyan Cat 创作者、Chillguy 创作者等艺术家的接连发声后，BAGS 也以“名人+慈善”概念成为了Meme市场为数不多的注意力焦点。

关于 BAGS 平台的详细介绍，可参考Odaily星球日报南枳的《BAGS 收入跃居 Solana 第二，一文速览必备基础工具》一文，而在本文，我们要聊的，则是 BAGS 平台背后的两则稍显另类的“闹剧”。

“闹剧”一：创始人明牌站队BTH代币，花别人的钱买帽子，版税揣自己兜里？

正如加密人群所熟知的那样，对于一键发币平台而言，流动性和注意力是唯二重要的事情，而注意力往往能够吸引流动性的不断涌入。

正因如此，BAGS 平台创始人 FINN 选择参与 WIF HAT 原型帽子的拍卖，但令人非议的是，其并未使用自己的资金参与竞拍，而是选择了使用BTH手续费参与竞拍。

据 X 平台用户伊藤开司（@kaisi 420）发文爆料，如同曾经加密人群众筹集资参与美国宪法拍卖发起 Constitution DAO 一样，原本有个借助加密社区“集资买帽子”概念的 Meme 币 BWH（简称 OG 币）率先突围，收获了大量注意力及流动性，市场表现有破圈潜力。但 BAGS 平台创始人 @finnbags 并不甘心错失这一波渔翁之利。

其反其道而行之，选择买入另一个名为 BTH 的Meme 币，借此，发币及交易等相关手续费成为他的囊中之物，之后，其再度打着“由我来拍卖 WIF 原型帽子”的名号堂而皇之地收割市场、消费名声。

这一行为使得原本的 OG币市值一度下跌至 10万美元级别，在社区众人的努力下才慢慢稳住了局面，市值迎来逐步修复。而 FINN 的行为自然也引发了社区的极度不满，不少人纷纷声讨其流氓行径，而前者的回应则是——对 OG 币 BWH 的存在并不知情。随后，其还发起了“假意”尊重社区呼声的“投票”，让社区二选一：

A 将 BTH 的手续费拿去买 OG 币 BWH；

B 由 BTH 产生的手续费去买 WIF 原型帽子。

FINN 的假意声明

而尽管投票结果显示，A 选项的票数更多（即支持OG币 BWH），但 FINN 仍然一意孤行，选择执行 B 选项，耗资。与此同时，FINN 则以 BTH 获得了 BAGS 平台发起的“25万美元挑战赛”（即首个在 BAGS 平台市值突破1000万美元并保持 24小时）的理由，将该代币的 30万美元的版税收入囊中，来了一出“狸猫换太子”。

图片来源：Memeshot.com

毫无疑问，在装傻充愣、混淆视听这方面，FINN 绝对是个中好手，其将 OG币 BWH 与自己坐拥版税的 BTH 混为一谈的同时，还以 WIF 原型帽子拍卖事件为炒作机会，让加密市场以及诸多艺术家、创作者快速地加入了 BAGS 的平台阵营，而 BAGS 的近7日平台收入也不孚众望地超越了 letsBONK.fun，仅次于 Pump.fun。

但这出“帽子币闹剧”，却很难不让人对其人品打上一个大大的问号。

闹剧二：未经验证的平台 BUG——X平台 ID 决定代币版税领取权

与上面的“创始人人品闹剧”相比，这个闹剧暂时并未得到官方验证，但也从侧面为 BAGS 平台及用户提了个醒。

据 X 平台用户 @Researchcai 发文提醒，BAGS 平台疑似存在 BUG，即“一个币的手续费归属权是只看推特的用户名的，SPARK 的推特用户名改掉了，然后被人抢注了，抢注的那个人领取了 BAGS 里面的 6 万 U 手续费，这个币以后的手续费都归抢注的这个人了”。

截止目前，该 BUG（或功能）暂未得到 BAGS 平台层面的回应，对于 X 平台 ID（即Twitter Handle）的权属与代币版税之间的从属关系也并未得到明确说明，Odaily星球日报也将继续跟进相关动态。

Lecturas Relacionadas

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbitHace 2 hora(s)

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手Hace 5 hora(s)

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手Hace 5 hora(s)

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbitHace 6 hora(s)

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbitHace 8 hora(s)

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbitHace 8 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片