谈判再次破裂、原油跳涨提前定价,周末链上期货市场观察

marsbitPubblicato 2026-04-27Pubblicato ultima volta 2026-04-27

上周末市场收盘后,市场带着对僵局延续的预期。伊朗拒绝第二轮谈判,原油跳空高开、标普指数跌破前低。

进入本周中段,巴基斯坦的斡旋开始出现进展。周五晚间,伊朗外长阿拉格齐率代表团抵达伊斯兰堡;白宫随即宣布,特使维克托夫与库什纳将于周六前往巴基斯坦推进第二轮谈判。受此影响,原油 24 日盘后一度跳水超 3%,「最坏情况已经过去」的叙事再次回归。

然而这种乐观维持不到 36 小时。

周六 22:34,巴基斯坦消息源向 Al-Arabiya 透露:伊朗外长虽计划周日返回伊斯兰堡,但「伊朗未做任何让步,立场与伊斯兰堡谈判开始前完全一致」。CBS 紧随其后报道,阿拉格齐已离开巴基斯坦。伊朗外交部发言人 Esmaeil Baqaei 同步在 X 上确认:「伊朗与美国之间没有计划中的会议」。

23:41,特朗普亲自叫停了维克托夫与库什纳的巴基斯坦之行。

23:52,特朗普向 Fox News 解释了这一决定:「我刚才告诉我的人,他们正准备出发,我说,『不行,你们不会为了这事去飞那 18 个小时。我们手里握着所有的牌。他们想跟我们谈随时可以打电话过来。』」

交易员迅速在 TradeXYZ 上做出反应,原油合约暴涨 2%,标普合约跌幅达到 0.55%。

这还没完,特朗普在随后接受记者采访时透露:「有意思的是,我刚取消行程,不到 10 分钟,我们就收到了一份新的文件,比之前那份好得多。」他补充称,伊朗「给得不少,但还不够」。

周日 23:26 至 23:27,伊朗官媒法斯通讯社相继发布两条快讯——伊朗已通过巴基斯坦向美方递交书面信息,内容涉及核问题与霍尔木兹海峡两大议题,并强调「这是伊朗主动发起的沟通」。

这是从开战以来,伊朗官方首次公开承认自己是发起书面沟通的一方。

油价从此前的 +1.3% 一线快速回吐,这是周末市场的第一次"乐观重定价"。

周一凌晨 Axios 报导,伊朗向美方提出的,是一份「分阶段方案」:先解决霍尔木兹海峡封锁问题、延长停火至彻底结束战争,核谈判推迟至海峡重新通行、封锁解除之后再启动。这份提案已通过巴基斯坦递至白宫,但美方是否愿意基于此推进尚不明确。

值得注意的是,这份方案绕过了眼下最棘手的核议题,也是特朗普政府开战以来的两个核心目标之一(暂停浓缩活动、移走库存高浓缩铀)。Axios 援引消息人士称,伊朗高层对在核问题上做出何种让步「内部并无共识」,因此选择先用「解海峡之围」换「美方在冻结资产问题上的灵活性」。

特朗普方面尚未公开回应这份方案的细节,但据三位美国官员透露,他将于周一在白宫战情室召集国家安全与外交团队就伊朗局势举行会议,讨论谈判僵局以及下一步选项。

可以说,特朗普的强硬姿态,在这个周末确实换来了一份让步幅度更大的方案,但他仍公开评论称「不够」。换言之,市场目前定价的是「谈判可能性回升」,而非「协议即将达成」。

Letture associate

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbit53 min fa

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbit53 min fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbit1 h fa

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbit1 h fa

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbit1 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

This article explains the three primary methods for Codex to interact with a computer, each with distinct use cases, permission boundaries, and trust levels. **1. Computer Use:** This offers the broadest access, allowing Codex to visually control and interact with the graphical user interface of authorized macOS/Windows apps, system settings, and even iOS simulators. It's ideal for tasks lacking APIs or structured tools, such as operating legacy software or multi-app workflows. However, it's the slowest method and has the widest permission scope, requiring careful supervision for sensitive actions. **2. Chrome Extension:** This grants Codex access to the user's logged-in Chrome browser state, including cookies, profiles, and open tabs. It's best for tasks requiring user identity across websites like Gmail, LinkedIn, Salesforce, or internal dashboards. Its key advantage is multi-tab control for complex workflows. While more powerful for browser-based tasks than Computer Use, it carries higher sensitivity as actions are performed under the user's identity. **3. In-App Browser:** This is a browser isolated within the Codex thread, separate from the user's personal browsing data. It excels in web development and debugging scenarios—previewing local servers, testing responsive layouts, or annotating designs directly on the page. Its isolation is a strength for development but a limitation for tasks requiring login sessions. The core principle is to choose the narrowest, safest, and most structured interface for the task. Use plugins or MCPs first, resort to visual control (Computer Use) only for GUI-dependent tasks, employ the Chrome extension for identity-reliant browser work, and prefer the In-App Browser for isolated development. **Appshots** are clarified as a fourth, complementary tool for *inputting* context—capturing a screenshot of a window to point Codex to something—rather than a method for Codex to *act*. Together, this layered approach highlights a key to AI agent productization: not granting unlimited permissions, but constraining them within clear boundaries for specific tasks while preserving user oversight.

marsbit3 h fa

How Does Codex Use a Computer? Three Entry Points and Permission Boundaries

marsbit3 h fa

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片