空投热潮退去,四大热门项目真实实力大起底:谁在裸泳?

coinvoicePubblicato 2024-07-12Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-07-16

作者:Golem,Odaily 星球日报

 

2024 上半年 4 大热门空投项目(Starknet、ZKsync、LayerZero、Blast)终于都在空投结束后告一段落,然而在社交媒体上仍时常有关于它们真实网络情况的争议,有观点认为它们曾经耀眼的链上数据是因为撸毛用户和工作室的存在,而当空投落地后,它们将是一个只有「8 个真实用户」的「链上鬼城」。

那么真实情况究竟如何,当热闹散尽还有多少用户留存,现在是时候看看它们真正的实力了。本文 Odaily 星球日报将从链上活跃地址、TVL、交易量等数据角度对这 4 个项目进行对比和总结。

 

Starknet:用户流失较多,但网络质量并未明显下降

 

Starknet 官方代币 STRK 的空投领取时间为 2 月 20 日至 6 月 20 日。

活跃地址数较空投前约减少 80% 

为了尽早卖出和避免承受抛压,许多用户都会选择尽早领取空投。因此根据 Starknet 官方浏览器 starkscan 的数据,在 2 月 21 日 Starknet 网络的日活跃地址数接近 2023 年 7 月的历史高度,超 38 万个地址。

但当大部分用户空投领取完后,日活跃地址也呈断崖式下跌,直到 6 月 20 日之后,日活跃地址数已经降到了 2023 年 3 月时的水平,大概 1.5 万到 2 万左右。

2023 年 5 月至 2024 年 2 月宣布空投前这段时间,Starknet 网络日活跃地址数平均约为 10 万,而目前来看空投申领结束后日活跃地址数已经减少了约 80% 。

TVL:空投后 U 本位下降,币本位并未减少

根据 Starknet 官方浏览器 starkscan 的数据,总体来看,Starknet 网络 TVL 仍处于上升趋势,以币本位计算,ETH 锁仓量一直在增加。即使是 STRK 空投后,TVL 也并没有下降太多,图中 4 月份 STRK 的 TVL 下跌是因为币价跳水,而实际锁定的 STRK 总量并未有太大变化。

日交易量无明显变化,交易笔数下降

根据 Defillama 的数据,Starknet 网络日交易量在空投前后并无明显变化,空投结束后并未影响用户在 Starknet 网络上交易的热情。

但日交易笔数却呈断崖式下跌。根据 Artemis 的数据, 2 月 20 日空投当日 Starknet 网络日交易笔数创新高,但之后总体呈下跌趋势,远不如空投前水平。

小结

以上数据总体反映出因空投结束撸毛用户与工作室的退出,网络活跃人数与交易频次下降,但整体网络质量却并未因此而下降太多,网络 TVL 与日交易量在空投前后并未有太大差异。同时总体交易笔数下降带来的影响便是网络的手续费用与收入也在空投后下降。

 

ZKsync:真实用户比例最高,网络质量较好

 

ZKsync 官方代币 ZK 的空投领取开始时间为 6 月 17 日。

活跃地址数较空投前约减少 40% 

根据由 Matter Labs 创建的 Dune 仪表盘显示,空投当天 ZKsync 的日活跃地址数创下历史新高。当大部分用户领取完后,日活跃地址数于空投当天相比下降约 70% ,但与空投前相比较,只下降了约 40% 。

TVL:U 本位下降,但受空投影响因素不大

根据 Artemis 的数据,ZKsync Era 网络的 TVL 以 U 本位计算在今年 3 月份未开始空投前就已经呈现下跌趋势, 6 月份空投之后 TVL 仍在持续下跌。

但是根据 L2 beat 的数据,以币本位计算,ZKsync Era 网络空投后的 TVL 下降趋势并不明显。可见,其 TVL 降低受空投的影响并不大,而可能受其他因素(如整体赛道行情、币价、生态建设等)影响较大一些。

日交易量空投前后无明显变化

根据 Defillama 的数据,因为领取空投的需求, 6 月 17 日 ZKsync Era 网络交易量达到了 2.4 亿美元,创下 2024 年最高记录。但当空投领取完后,日交易量迅速回归平均水平,也无明显下跌。

但与日活跃地址数类似,ZKsync Era 网络的日交易笔数在 6 月 16 日空投当天达到了历史新高,约 170 万笔。随后日交易笔数下跌,与空投前平均日交易笔数相比约减少 50% 。

小结

以上数据总体反映 ZKsync Era 网络的真实用户占比相对较高,空投前后用户与交易频次仅减少 40% ~ 50% ,其他网络质量方面受空投因素而前后发生变化的影响小。

 

LayerZero:用户流失最大,网络质量骤降

 

LayerZero 在 5 月份初宣布进行了快照, 6 月 20 日正式宣布开放空投申领。

日活跃地址数较宣布快照前减少约 85% 

据 Dune 数据,自 LayerZero 在 5 月份初宣布完成快照后,链上活跃地址数断崖式下降, 5 月 2 日前链上活跃地址数还有超 11 万, 5 月 2 日后直接减少约 40% ,随后更是逐渐走向新低,较宣布快照前减少约 85% 以上。

跨链消息较空投前减少约 80% 

根据 LayerZero 官方浏览器 layerzeroscan 数据,使用 LayerZero 跨链的总消息数在官方宣布快照后也经历了断崖式下跌,除了在 6 月 20 日空投领取当日数据有起色外,与空投前相比,平均减少约 80% 以上,回到了 2023 年 3 月的水平。

跨链金额与日交易笔数减少 90% 以上

根据 Dune 数据,每日使用 LayerZero 进行跨链的资金在官方宣布快照后骤降,每日平均保持在 1500 万美元左右,与空投前高峰期相比,减少了 90% 以上。

同时,使用 LayerZero 的日交易笔数在宣布快照结束当天也下跌约 47% ,空投后日交易笔数平均保持在 2 万左右,与空投前平均 20 万的日交易笔数相比,也减少了 90% 以上。

小结

以上数据反映 LayerZero 网络表现并不客观,空投前后数据差异较大,用户与网络质量较空投前都下降了约 90% ,这也证明当撸毛用户和工作室退出后,LayerZero 的真实用户需求仅为空投前的 1/10 。

 

Blast:用户信心不足,未来发展堪忧

 

Blast 在 2 月 20 日宣布一周后发放空投,官方代币 BLAST 的空投领取开始时间为 6 月 26 日。

日活跃地址持续下降

根据 Artemis 的数据, 6 月份 Blast 的日活跃地址数整体处于上升趋势,表明用户对于 Blast 的信心实际在增加。但当 6 月 26 日空投落地,日活跃地址数骤降,短短几天回到了 3 月份时的水平,并且这种下降趋势仍在继续。

TVL 在空投前就开始下跌

根据 Artemis 的数据,Blast 网络的 TVL 在其官方 6 月 20 日宣布即将空投消息时就已经开始呈现下跌趋势,而实际到 6 月 26 日空投后,下跌趋势更加明显,资金正在撤出 Blast。

日交易量无明显变化,日交易笔数骤降

根据 Defillama 的数据, 6 月份 Blast 网络的交易量呈上升趋势, 6 月 26 日因空投领取达到历史最高,但很快回到了空投前 6 月份平均水平。

日交易笔数与日活跃地址数类似,在 Blast 官方 6 月 20 日宣布空投后就开始下跌,因 7 月 2 日 Blast 生态去中心化杠杆交易协议 Particle 向用户开放空投而有短暂回升,总体仍是下跌趋势。

小结

以上数据反映虽然 Blast 第一阶段空投并未结束多久,但用户对于 Blast 的信心明显不足,无论是用户还是资金与空投前相比都出现明显的撤退痕迹。但从交易量也能看出,因生态应用建设和新阶段的空投激励措施等作用,网络质量目前还处于一个较好的状态。

 

结语

 

综上,可以看出空投前这 4 个项目在用户量及链上活跃度方面确实存在较大的水分,但随着空投结束后大量撸毛用户和工作室的退出,真实链上数据被还原,所有项目都回归本身的价值时,我们就能够较为客观地看出是谁在裸泳。

针对走技术叙事的两条以太坊 L2(Starknet 和 ZKsync),当空投结束后,从真实用户数量与网络质量角度来说,它们也并没有想象中的那么不堪,TVL 与交易量没有与活跃地址数减少成正比。

反而是跨链互操作协议 LayerZero 与 收益型 L2 Blast 空投前后数据差异较大,特别是 LayerZero 不仅链上活跃地址大幅下降,日跨链金额也都经历了大幅下跌。这也侧面说明当空投泡沫破灭后,跨链协议的真正价值有待进一步评估。

当然,目前的数据也并不能代表它们的表现,随着主流叙事发展、行情变化、项目方路线图的进展等,未来市场会选择真正有价值的项目,而淘汰那些依靠空投积分策略获得一时热度的项目。

毕竟空投结束时,拼的才是真刀真枪。


声明:本内容为作者独立观点,不代表 CoinVoice 立场,且不构成投资建议,请谨慎对待,如需报道或加入交流群,请联系微信:VOICE-V。

来源:星球日报 原创

Crypto di tendenza

Letture associate

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

"Glue Finance founder argues Ethereum's current price underperformance stems from its 'unfinished machine' status. Despite record usage and settlement value in 2026, ETH remains below its 2021 peak because the protocol's continued development creates a dependency on the Ethereum Foundation for guidance and fixes. Key issues include centralized L2 sequencers, governance-based freezes (as seen with Arbitrum), state bloat, a vulnerable public mempool, and looming quantum computing threats. This 'dependency discount' prevents ETH from accruing the 'ossification premium' that markets award to immutable, trustless systems like Bitcoin. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed escape paths: a 'war mode' shift towards centralization for speed (which would sacrifice Ethereum's core value), or simply replacing the EF with another governing body. The only solution is the 'Manhattan Plan' or 'Lean Ethereum': a concerted, accelerated effort to complete and then *freeze* the protocol's neutral core. This involves finalizing critical upgrades in consensus (Lean Consensus), scaling (targeting 1 trillion gas/sec), quantum resistance (leanXMSS signatures), and full ZK-provable execution. The goal is to pass the 'walk-away test'—where Ethereum could run forever, neutrally, without the EF. Success would transform Ethereum into the first programmable, quantum-resistant, immutable global settlement layer, flipping its current discount into a unique 'eternity premium' that surpasses Bitcoin's. Failure—stagnation or trading neutrality for speed—would relegate it to being a slower, less trustworthy competitor."

marsbit17 min fa

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Coming

marsbit17 min fa

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手18 min fa

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手18 min fa

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.

marsbit1 h fa

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

marsbit1 h 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.

marsbit1 h fa

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

marsbit1 h fa

Trading

Spot

Articoli Popolari

Come comprare BLAST

Benvenuto in HTX.com! Abbiamo reso l'acquisto di Blast (BLAST) semplice e conveniente. Segui la nostra guida passo passo per intraprendere il tuo viaggio nel mondo delle criptovalute.Step 1: Crea il tuo Account HTXUsa la tua email o numero di telefono per registrarti il tuo account gratuito su HTX. Vivi un'esperienza facile e sblocca tutte le funzionalità,Crea il mio accountStep 2: Vai in Acquista crypto e seleziona il tuo metodo di pagamentoCarta di credito/debito: utilizza la tua Visa o Mastercard per acquistare immediatamente BlastBLAST.Bilancio: Usa i fondi dal bilancio del tuo account HTX per fare trading senza problemi.Terze parti: abbiamo aggiunto metodi di pagamento molto utilizzati come Google Pay e Apple Pay per maggiore comodità.P2P: Fai trading direttamente con altri utenti HTX.Over-the-Counter (OTC): Offriamo servizi su misura e tassi di cambio competitivi per i trader.Step 3: Conserva Blast (BLAST)Dopo aver acquistato Blast (BLAST), conserva nel tuo account HTX. In alternativa, puoi inviare tramite trasferimento blockchain o scambiare per altre criptovalute.Step 4: Scambia Blast (BLAST)Scambia facilmente Blast (BLAST) nel mercato spot di HTX. Accedi al tuo account, seleziona la tua coppia di trading, esegui le tue operazioni e monitora in tempo reale. Offriamo un'esperienza user-friendly sia per chi ha appena iniziato che per i trader più esperti.

195 Totale visualizzazioniPubblicato il 2024.12.11Aggiornato il 2026.06.02

Come comprare BLAST

Discussioni

Benvenuto nella Community HTX. Qui puoi rimanere informato sugli ultimi sviluppi della piattaforma e accedere ad approfondimenti esperti sul mercato. Le opinioni degli utenti sul prezzo di BLAST BLAST sono presentate come di seguito.

活动图片