Axie Infinity Token Price Spikes by 48% in Last Two Days, Here Are Potential Reasons

u.todayPublicado a 2022-03-25Actualizado a 2022-04-07

Resumen

The GameFi and Metaverse industries were slowly losing traction as time has gone by, but as the market faced a sudden recovery.

Contents

Axie presents community treasury and "progressive decentralization"

Interest in decentralized project returns
The GameFi and Metaverse industries were slowly losing traction as time has gone by, but as the market faced a sudden recovery, Axie Infinity (AXS) faced a sudden spike in price after presenting a few new features in addition to the recovering market.
Axie presents community treasury and "progressive decentralization"
One of the fundamental reasons behind the intensified growth could be tied to the presentation of the way of governing the Axie Community Treasury. Previously, the project reported that it grew to $1 billion in value thanks to the growth of both the project and the GameFi industry in general.

In the future, token holders will govern the usage of resources and change the long-term supply of AXS, replenish resources, invest in various activities and create resource groups for realizing important projects.
The concept of progressive decentralization is the next waypoint for the project, according to the most recent article on substack. The idea of progressive decentralization is based on offering greater ownership to community members by rewarding any type of participation and contribution to the Axie ecosystem.
Interest in decentralized project returns
Despite fundamental changes and updates, increased interest in Axie can be explained with a general increase of inflows into the DeFi industry and projects related to it. GameFi lost a large portion of its popularity and TVL since the beginning of 2022.
The majority of projects that utilize smart-contract technologies like Solana, Cardano and Ethereum are facing massive funds inflows and gaining at least 10% to their value in the last few days. At press time, AXS gained 44% to its value in the last three days and reached the resistance line of the 200-day moving average.

Lecturas Relacionadas

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbitHace 7 min(s)

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbitHace 19 min(s)

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片