解析灰度发起GBTC要约收购背后的二三事

Odaily星球日报Publicado a 2022-12-19Actualizado a 2022-12-19

Resumen

DCG投资GBTC血亏8.71亿美元,如何解套?

今天晚间,华尔街日报(WSJ)报道称,灰度首席执行官 Michael Sonnenshein 在一封致投资者的信中表示,若最终无法将灰度比特币信托(GBTC)转换为比特币 ETF,将考虑对已发行的流通股进行要约收购。届时,投资者可以特定时间以特定价格出售其 GBTC 股份。

Sonnenshein 表示,对于何时进行回购目前没有具体的时间表,但已为所有情况做好准备;关于具体回购规模,初步预计是 20% 的流通股。当然,最终的回购条款取决于美国证券交易委员会和股东的批准。灰度公司补充说,如果第一次尝试成功,它可能会考虑进行额外的要约收购。

为什么要对 GBTC 进行回购?主要是为了降低 GBTC 折价率。

首先介绍一下 GBTC 的运转流程。合格的投资者向灰度缴纳一定的投资款,灰度在加密市场上买入 BTC(交由 Coinbase 托管),而后向投资者发行等量 GBTC,并每年收取 2% 的管理费;投资者获得 GBTC 并且持有六个月,才能在二级市场出售,套现离场。

(GBTC 市价与真实价值)

在 2021 年 3 月之前,GBTC 正溢价情况突出,每股 GBTC 的二级市场交易价格远远高于实际价值,此时投资者出售 GBTC 可以获得较高的溢价。但随着加密市场转熊,GBTC 正溢价情况消失,并逐渐出现折价——最新的数据是,GBTC 每股实际价值 15.42 美元,二级市场交易价格只有 7.91 美元,折价率 48.7% 。

由于目前 GBTC 无法赎回,对于持有者来说,要么折价出售,要么只有等待 GBTC 转变为比特币现货 ETF 时按照真实价值出售,这也是灰度过去一年一直发力的方向——向 SEC 提交现货比特币 ETF 申请。“将 GBTC 转换为 ETF 将有助于使其股价与其潜在价值保持一致。市场参与者将能够创建和赎回 GBTC 的股份,以确保它们反映其持有的比特币的潜在价值。 ”

但事与愿违,SEC 最终拒绝了灰度的申请,灰度也对 SEC 提起诉讼,目前该案仍在进行中。在这样一个时间窗口,灰度如此「热心」提出新方案对 GBTC 进行回购,其核心目的在于拯救母公司 DCG(Digital Currency Group) ,为其解决流动性危机。

根据媒体此前报道,DCG 欠 Genesis 公司 17 亿美元贷款,随着 Genesis 债权人清算 DCG 面临还款压力;此外加密交易所 Bitvavo 在 DCG 内存有 2.8 亿欧元,也因流动性问题暂时无法取出。上周,多个与 DCG 相关的加密货币(FIL、ZEN、ETC、NEAR 等等)均遭到大规模抛售,疑似 DCG 清算相关资产。

与此同时,DCG、Genesis、Coindesk 以及一众附属公司持有大量的 GBTC 资产。根据灰度官方文件,截至 2022 年 9 月 30 日,上述机构共计持有 66972899 股 GBTC,约占流通股的 10% 。(注:灰度表示,DCG 和 Genesis 不是 GBTC 或任何灰度其他产品的交易对手或服务提供商。)

(灰度公司三季度公告)

根据灰度 CEO Michael Sonnenshein 的说法,受限于《 1933 年证券交易法》第 144 条,上述机构每三个月只允许向公开市场出售总流通股的 1% 。换句话说,DCG 等公司要想将手上的 GBTC 通过二级市场变现,需要等待两年以上。为了一解燃眉之急,让 DCG 尽快回笼资金,这才有了今晚的回购预案。

需要注意的是,迄今为止,DCG 投资 GBTC 一直处于亏损状态。

根据统计,从 2021 年一季度开始,DCG 共计花费 13.05 亿美元购入 54823667 股 GBTC,平均每股单价 23.8 美元。而按照最新的市场价格(7.92 美元)估算,DCG 亏损 8.71 亿美元;但是,如果未来能按照真实价值(15.42 美元)回购,DCG 依然亏损 4.6 亿美元。

亏损如此巨大,一是在于 DCG 误判形势,于熊市持续加仓。特别是今年二季度,DCG 豪掷 5.5 亿美元买入 3674 万股 GBTC,随着市场下跌资产已经腰斩;二是由于 GBTC 折价率不断上升,从年初的 20% 左右不断扩大到目前的 48% 。

目前,灰度仍在努力,致力于将 GBTC 转换为 ETF。该公司表示,即便最终无法如愿成功回购,仍将继续运营 GBTC,直到成功将其转换为现货比特币 ETF。

Lecturas Relacionadas

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

The article argues that blockchain's fundamental limitation is not the scalability trilemma (decentralization, scalability, security), which has been largely solved, but the lack of **privacy** and, until recently, clear **legitimacy**. Blockchain is described as a slow, expensive, globally shared computer whose core value is censorship resistance and verifiability. While ideal for native digital assets like money (e.g., stablecoins), its default transparency acts as a **tax**, exposing all transactions and enabling MEV extraction, which deters serious institutional capital. Simultaneously, its permissionless nature created regulatory ambiguity. The piece contends that **privacy** is the missing critical feature. It rejects the false choice between total transparency and complete anonymity. Modern cryptography (like zero-knowledge proofs) enables **compliant privacy**: users can prove facts (solvency, KYC status, compliance) without revealing the underlying sensitive data (specific holdings, identities). This preserves auditability for regulators and eliminates the leak of financial information. With recent regulatory progress (e.g., the GENIUS Act) addressing legitimacy, adding default, provably compliant privacy becomes a pure upgrade. It transforms blockchain from a costly, public ledger into a confidential settlement layer, finally bridging the gap to mainstream institutional and individual adoption of on-chain finance.

链捕手Hace 9 hora(s)

The "Impossible Triad" Is Fundamentally a Pseudo-Problem

链捕手Hace 9 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

The global optical chip industry is experiencing a massive wave of expansion driven by surging AI data center demand. Major players across the US, Japan, Europe, and China are aggressively investing to ramp up production capacity. In the US, Coherent is expanding its 6-inch Indium Phosphide (InP) semiconductor fab in Texas, supported by CHIPS Act funding and a $2 billion strategic investment from NVIDIA. Lumentum is building a new factory for InP optical devices, and Nokia is scaling its advanced photonic chip packaging and testing capabilities. NVIDIA's investments aim to secure future supply of critical lasers and optical interconnect products for AI infrastructure. Japan's JX Advanced Metals, a leading InP substrate supplier, plans a multi-billion yen investment to increase its capacity 7-10 times, strengthening its grip on the crucial upstream materials market. In Europe, IQE and Tower Semiconductor settled a patent dispute and signed a multi-year InP epitaxial wafer supply agreement, highlighting that next-generation silicon photonics platforms will integrate high-performance InP components. STMicroelectronics and Sivers Semiconductors are also expanding silicon photonics production and partnerships. China is rapidly building out its domestic supply chain. Dongshan Precision's subsidiary, Source Photonics, announced a $12 billion project to expand optical chip and module production. Companies like Sanan Optoelectronics and Yunnan Germanium are scaling up InP chip manufacturing and substrate production, moving towards vertical integration from materials to modules. While debate continues around the exact future architecture—whether CPO (Co-Packaged Optics), NPO, or pluggables will dominate—analysts like Morgan Stanley argue the underlying driver is unchangeable: the explosive growth in bandwidth demand. This will inevitably increase the volume of optical engines, lasers, and related content per GPU, regardless of the final technical path. The competition for "more light" in the AI era has intensified into a global, full-chain capacity race.

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Optical Chips: Collective Capacity Expansion

marsbitHace 11 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

Stablecoin Real Yield Found: A Deep Dive into On-Chain Reinsurance with Re's Karan Saroya As stablecoin supply exceeds $170 billion, the search for sustainable, non-speculative yield intensifies. Re, an on-chain reinsurance platform, provides an answer: connecting stablecoin capital to the trillion-dollar traditional reinsurance market. Re operates as a regulated reinsurer, accepting stablecoin deposits as collateral to back US insurance companies. These insurers pay premiums, generating yield that flows back to on-chain depositors. Currently supporting 35 insurers and underwriting $500 million, Re projects scaling to over $1 billion soon. Key insights from a Bankless podcast with founder Karan Saroya and investor Avichal of Electric Capital: 1. **Uncorrelated, Real-World Yield:** Re offers stablecoin holders access to reinsurance returns (targeting 12-14%+), an asset class entirely separate from crypto or equity markets. 2. **Operational Efficiency via Smart Contracts:** Re replaces traditional, labor-intensive capital fundraising with smart contracts, allowing a ~12-person team to compete with industry giants. 3. **Regulatory Leverage:** For every $1 of collateral, regulations allow backing $5-7 in written premiums. This leverage amplifies returns from the underlying risk-free rate. 4. **DeFi Integration:** Depositors receive receipt tokens, which can be used in protocols like Morpho for "looping," potentially pushing yields to 18-20%+. 5. **The "DeFi Mullet" Model:** A compliant front-end (regulated reinsurer) paired with a decentralized back-end (smart contracts, DeFi capital markets). 6. **RE Governance Token:** Modeled on Lloyd's of London, the token governs the central capital pool's allocation, counterparty acceptance, and parameters. 7. **Real Economic Impact:** Capital funds real-world productivity (factories, clinics, businesses) via insurance, moving beyond crypto's internal loops. The discussion highlights a pivotal moment: DeFi's supply-side infrastructure is now met by real demand for productive yield, potentially kickstarting a flywheel where vast on-chain stablecoin capital seeks these real-world returns.

链捕手Hace 13 hora(s)

Stablecoins Finally Find Real Yield: An In-Depth Look at On-Chain Reinsurance Re | A Conversation with Re Founder Karan Saroya

链捕手Hace 13 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

"1996 or 1999? Wall's First Big Test Is 'How to View AI'" Federal Reserve Chairman Wall's initial challenge is not whether to raise or cut rates, but a more fundamental judgment: what kind of boom is the current AI boom? This will determine the Fed's policy path and define his legacy. Economics is split between two opposing views, according to reporter Nick Timiraos. One sees imminent productivity gains that will increase supply and cool inflation, allowing the Fed to hold steady. The other argues that while productivity benefits are distant, demand shocks are here now, and waiting for data confirmation risks missing the intervention window, forcing sharper rate hikes later. Wall has signaled a leaning toward the first view, echoing 1996-era Alan Greenspan, who embraced strong, productivity-driven growth without fear of inflation. However, Wall faces a different macro environment than Greenspan did, with tariff pressures, expanding fiscal deficits, and diminishing globalization benefits, which could force more significant inflation pressures even if AI benefits materialize. Wall's logic, expressed before taking office, is that AI-driven productivity gains won't show in official data for years. If the Fed waits for confirmation, it might mistakenly tighten policy and choke off the very growth that could suppress inflation. This argues for using forward-looking narratives over lagging data. Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee presents a key counter-argument. He distinguishes between expected and unexpected productivity booms. A widely anticipated boom, like the current AI wave, can cause people to spend future wealth gains in advance, overheating the economy before productivity actually rises, thus requiring preemptive rate hikes. He cites rising costs for AI data centers as evidence of such overheating. Fed Governor Christopher Waller offers a rebuttal to Goolsbee, noting the "expected spending" mechanism only works if people can borrow against future income, which many households cannot do due to borrowing constraints. Wall also faces a paradox related to his desire to reduce the Fed's use of "forward guidance" (pre-announcing policy moves). This practice was established in 1999 when Greenspan began signaling hikes to avoid market shocks. If the economy follows a less optimistic path, Wall may be forced to choose between using the guidance he wants to abolish or risking market volatility by staying silent. The ultimate question defining Wall's first major test remains: Is this 1996 or 1999?

marsbitHace 14 hora(s)

1996 or 1999? Walsh's First Test is 'How to View AI'

marsbitHace 14 hora(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片