好事将近?StarkWare 发布 STRK 通胀管理提案

foresightnewsPubblicato 2024-02-07Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-02-07

Introduzione

该提案拟增加 STRK 总供应量,通胀率最高为每年 4%。

该提案拟增加 STRK 总供应量,通胀率最高为每年 4%。


撰文:StarkWare

编译:Peng SUN,Foresight News


摘要


  • Starknet 的去中心化要求采用 PoS 机制,即通过参与网络治理、安全和维护工作,向质押者提供代币奖励。
  • StarkWare 为 Starknet 提出的代币发行提案主要由两方面组成:
  • 质押代币越多,总通胀率就越高;
  • 质押代币越多,质押奖励占质押金额的百分比就越低。
  • 与所有重要的协议升级一样,该提案需通过社区与治理批准才能生效。


简介


2022 年 7 月,StarkWare 提出了 Starknet 网络完全去中心化的路径,并解释了 Starknet 原生代币 STRK 将在其中起到什么作用。该计划的一部分是将 Starknet 定序器和证明器的运行过渡至 PoS 协议,即任何人都可以参与排序,这样的话网络运行将不再依赖于任意单方。


任何 STRK 持有者都可以参与 Starknet 质押,使社区能够参与网络的治理、安全和整体维护。


每个 PoS 机制都需要一种代币发行机制,既能鼓励参与网络维护,又能管理通胀预期。在这份提案中,我们提出了一种在 Starknet 过渡至 PoS 之前实现这一目标的具体机制。


指南


基于以太坊从 PoW 过渡至 PoS 后的货币政策,Starknet 提议的通胀机制旨在实现质押奖励与通胀预期之间的平衡:


  • 为网络(治理、安全和维护)做出贡献的质押者提供奖励。部分质押奖励将用于抵消网络质押的固定成本,质押者也可能会从手续费中获得额外奖励。
  • 通过设定通胀率上限来设定 STRK 通胀预期。Starknet 代币 STRK 总供应量为 100 亿枚。若该质押提案生效,STRK 总供应量将会增加,但通胀率将被限制在每年 4%(下文将对此进行详细介绍)。


为了实现这一目标,该机制需要新增发行大量 STRK 以确保质押者能够获得充分奖励,同时还要防止质押率过高,导致代币流通过多、通胀失控。


这就意味着:


  • 质押代币越多,总通胀率就越高(以确保质押者获得足够多的奖励);
  • 质押代币越多,质押奖励就越低(以实现质押者奖励和控制通胀之间的平衡)。该机制可通过市场来调节质押率,并确保有充分的代币质押。


代币发行曲线


我们已经确定,质押率与总通胀率之间应存在直接关系,而质押率与质押奖励之间应存在反比关系。采用以太坊的「平方根」权衡法,我们建议通胀率与质押率的平方根成正比,并添加参数以确保在 25% 的质押率下,年通胀率为 2%。


这意味着通胀公式为 M = 0.4 * √ S。其中,S 是以代币总供应量百分比为单位的质押率,M 是以代币总供应量百分比为单位的年通胀率。譬如,S=25 表示有 25%=1/4 的代币被质押,在这种情况下,平方根为 5,M=0.4*5=2,表示年通胀率为 2%。通胀公式和隐含奖励率如下图所示:



这意味着理论上,如果质押率达到 100%,那么年通胀率最高则为 4%。以下是其他一些示例:



以上面第一行为例。如果质押率全年固定在 10%,那么年通胀率约为 1.26%,也就是说,年底流通代币数约为当年第一天代币数量的 1.0126 倍,每位质押者的年回报率约为 12.6%(以 STRK 为单位)。一些次要细节以及质押率和奖励的计算时间将在未来 SNIP(Starknet 改进提案)中确定。


值得注意的是,只有当 Starknet 供应计划启动、STRK 成为可转让代币后,该计划才能生效。此外,作为 Starknet 去中心化进程的一部分,代币发行机制还需要可用且无需许可的质押。最后,任何代币发行提案都必须通过社区治理投票。


总结


Starknet 将继续实现去中心化,下一步是过渡至 PoS 机制。Starknet 网络将需要一种机制来发行新代币,这种机制既能奖励代币质押者,鼓励参与网络维护,又能设定通胀预期。


我们期待在 SNIP 中更详细地介绍这一代币通胀曲线提案,并期待社区的意见。

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.

marsbit42 min fa

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

marsbit42 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.

marsbit59 min fa

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

marsbit59 min 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