XRP、ADA、BCH、LTC、STX 被福布斯选入 20 种僵尸加密货币

金色财经Pubblicato 2024-07-08Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-07-08

以其对金融市场的深刻分析而闻名的著名商业出版物《福布斯》最近发布了一份综合报告，揭示了加密货币的神秘世界。在这项开创性的研究中，《福布斯》确定了一组选定的加密货币，将其称为“僵尸区块链”。

尽管加密货币市场呈指数级增长，拥有超过 14,000 种代币，总市值高达 2.4 万亿美元，但这些选定的加密货币似乎在现实世界中的效用或用户采用率极低，从而违背了传统的成功指标。此列表中的知名名称包括瑞波币 (XRP)、卡尔达诺 (ADA)、莱特币 (LTC)、比特币现金 (BCH) 和以太坊经典 (ETC)。

这些加密货币的与众不同之处在于它们的持续运营和交易活动没有实现实际目的的切实证据。“僵尸区块链”一词恰如其分地描述了这些项目，让人想起不死生物，它们的存在在效用或重要用户群方面没有显示出生命的重要迹象。

Ripple 的 XRP 和其他主要加密货币受到严格评估

在受到《福布斯》严格审查的众多加密货币中，Ripple 的 XRP成为审查的焦点。XRP 最初被认为是 SWIFT 银行网络的强大竞争者，承诺提供快速且具有成本效益的国际银行转账，但此后一直在努力实现其崇高愿望。尽管 XRP 未能颠覆 SWIFT，但它仍然是市场上最有价值的加密货币之一，市值高达 360 亿美元。然而，《福布斯》分析师断言，XRP 的市场主导地位在很大程度上是由投机交易而非真正的实用性支撑的。

这一观察结果提出了有关 XRP 的基本可行性和目的的相关问题，凸显了加密货币生态系统中市场估值与实际应用之间日益扩大的鸿沟。同样，莱特币、比特币现金、比特币 SV 和以太坊经典等其他主要加密货币也受到了《福布斯》敏锐分析的审查。

“以太坊杀手”面临的挑战和缺乏治理

除了评估现有的加密货币之外，《福布斯》的报告还对经常被称为“以太坊杀手”的新兴竞争者给予了批判性的关注，包括Tezos (XTZ)、Algorand (ALGO) 和 Cardano (ADA)。尽管这些加密货币拥有强大的技术实力和巨大的市场估值，但尚未得到广泛采用或大量用户活动。例如，对卡尔达诺的投机兴趣似乎主要是由其创始人查尔斯·霍斯金森（Charles Hoskinson）的声望推动的，而不是现实世界实用性的切实证据。

这些实体在没有监管监督或对股东承担义务的情况下运营，经常发现自己陷入困境，评估其长期生存能力变得越来越具有挑战性。尽管遭受重大安全漏洞，以太坊经典的持续交易活动清楚地提醒人们，投资缺乏健全治理结构的加密货币存在相关风险。

Letture associate

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit3 min fa

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit3 min fa

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News9 min fa

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News9 min fa

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit25 min fa

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit25 min fa

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit31 min fa

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit31 min fa

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight News33 min fa

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight News33 min fa

Trading

Spot

Futures