空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

Odaily星球日报Pubblicato 2024-07-11Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-07-11

Introduzione

2024年的空投现状:用户感到沮丧,协议基本面下降。

原文作者:Stacy Muur(@stacy_muur)

原文编译:Peisen,BlockBeats

编者按:
Delphi Digital 对整个空投现状进行研究,从最初的 Uniswap 到近期由积分制引发无数争议的大型协议,空投越来越泡沫化,协议留不住客户成为了最显著趋势。加密研究员 Stacy Muur 对报告内容做了总结,原文编译如下:

2024 年的空投现状:用户感到沮丧,协议基本面下降。

Delphi Digital 撰写了一份《空投伤害大于帮助吗?》的报告,以下是主要见解。这份报告对用户来说必不可少,对创始人来说必读。

Uniswap 空投标志着 Web3 市场的关键时刻,即使已经过去四年,它仍然是有史以来最大的空投,在巅峰时期价值达到惊人的 64 亿 B。

从那时起,该行业发生了重大变化,产生了女巫和空投农民。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

加密货币领域最大的 50 次空投已分配了超过 266 亿美元的价值。

这个「免费资金」的机会并没有被忽视。现在,每一次激动人心的加密货币协议发布都会吸引渴望获得初始空投代币的大部分的女巫和机器人。因此,协议制定了新的空投标准和反女巫措施。

最初,使用固定奖励系统(Uniswap)。然后,出现了分层空投(Jito)。Optimism 团队推广了多种基于标准的空投。现在,我们有了积分系统。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

然而,对于许多受空投猎人欢迎的 dApp 来说,空投的主要问题是泡沫效应:一旦拍摄快照,使用指标就会急剧下降。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

让我们以 LayerZero 为例。自 4 月以来,Stargate 桥接交易量从 16.7 亿美元下降到 4.067 亿美元,交易量下降了 75%。我个人从未 farm 过 $ZRO,我的分配很普通——大约 400 美元。这种模式非常主流。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

在 $ZK 空投之前,zkSync 产生的每日费用与 Arbitrum 相当。然而,自快照公告和代币分发以来,这个数字一直在下降。最近,自 zkSync Era 推出以来,每日费用首次跌破 1 万美元。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

Delphi Digital 的研究详细探讨了类似的案例,包括 Kamino、Parcl、 Jito 和 Manta Network。所有这些都显示出类似的模式:快照后,活动经历显着下降,随后的激励揭示了 PMF 的现实。

这种无机增长的最大问题是公平的协议评估和做出明智的投资决策。在这里,有几件事可能会有所帮助:

• 跟踪 DAU 和 MAU 指标随时间推移,以查看在宣布空投快照和之后的激励后是否有下降。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

• 衡量空投后预定时间(例如, 1 周、 1 个月)后有多少用户继续使用平台。

• 衡量新用户与老用户相比的 DAU 或 WAU 的比例。

• 监控每个用户的交易数量。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

监控正在使用哪些功能以及使用频率。空投后核心功能的持续或增加使用表明持续的兴趣或产品市场契合度。

• 跟踪钱包参与度指标。

• 监控社区讨论和治理论坛上的活动。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

2024 年空投的另一个问题是许多新协议广泛采用「低浮动、高 FDV」代币模型。这种模式使新买家难以评估增长潜力并抵消空投抛售压力。

但那是另一回事了。

空投趋向泡沫化,协议应当如何重构信任与价值?

个人说明:空投可以吸引新用户,其中一些可能会留下来。然而,这类似于 X 上的赠品:一些用户会访问,一些用户可能会成为活跃的读者,但大多数会消失。

作为投资者,区分有机增长和无机增长。作为协议,确保您可以留住用户以构建长期成功的产品。

原文链接

Letture associate

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit10 min fa

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit10 min fa

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit18 min fa

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit18 min fa

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News19 min fa

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News19 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片