腾讯领投 1500 万美元融资,Chainbase 怎样构建全链数据交互层

链捕手Pubblicato 2024-07-26Pubblicato ultima volta 2024-07-26

作者:Pzai,Foresight News

 

时至今日,链上所产生的数据已经数以亿计,对这些数据的处理也日益成为加密领域亟待考量的事务。并且随着生态发展,各链之间的数据互通存在不同程度的瓶颈和割裂,导致相关用例(如 AI、钱包、链上基础设施等)需要更复杂的建构,故对更广泛和便捷获取全链数据的需求也在逐渐上升。

近日,区块链数据网络 Chainbase 宣布完成 1500 万美元 A 轮融资,腾讯投资(Tencent Investment Group)和经纬中国(Matrix Partners China)领投,Folius Ventures、Hash Global、JSquare、Mask Network 和 Bodl Ventures 参投,这也是腾讯近一年来在加密领域的唯一一次出手。

Chainbase 是什么?

Chainbase 旨在将所有区块链数据整合到统一的生态系统中,为人工智能时代提供一个开放透明的数据互操作层。在操作层上,作为全链模式的数据层,必然需要进行数据的有机整合,而在 Chainbase 网络中,囊括了运营商、验证者、开发者和委托人等角色,继而通过 API 等渠道为各类 Web3 应用提供数据。现在在网络中已有 20 多条链的相关数据,并在多条链上实现小于三秒的即时性同步。

在网络中,数据基于「手稿」的结构进行流通,其中包含两部分,分别为图式(Schema)和运算符(Operators),图式定义了链上交易的数据类型和对应参数,运算符则作为数据提取与分析手段存在。在开发者编译完手稿后,运营者(需在 EigenLayer 中注册)会对这些手稿进行索引,并与验证者进行确认,验证者需要确保数据的安全性和完整性,而委托人会将原生 ETH 或协议代币 CBT 进行质押和委托,从经济层面上确保安全性。

图 1 网络运作模式

在底层构建上,它设计了一种新颖的双链技术架构,支持跨链的数据互操作性和可编程性,并达成高吞吐量、低延迟和最终性,以及更高的网络安全性。具体而言,在双链技术架构中,执行层与共识层之间是分离的,执行层基于 EigenLayer 支持的 AVS 构建经济安全性,并通过协议虚拟机(CVM)提供并行计算能力,通过可编程的运行环境实现高吞吐量的数据处理,允许开发者处理复杂数据任务。在公示层中,得益于 Cosmos CometBFT 架构,数据处理可以实现即时的最终性,而无需额外确认或重组,且通过 Cosmos 与 EigenLayer,协议可以构建双重质押模型。

代币经济学

在协议内,CBT 作为一种实用性代币,用于协调网络内的数据提供者和消费者,并激励协议参与者有效地组织数据,实现网络的可持续性和生态的有机增长。

图 2 代币经济学

在开发者创建手稿后,数据集的相关查询需要支付 CBT 费用,这些费用包括数据检索成本,并将费用的 80% 作为对网络资源提供者(如运营商和验证者)的奖励,15% 分配予开发者,其余 5% 进行销毁,实现可持续性。另外协议代币总量的 15% 在 6 年内进行线性分配并全额按数据处理质量与数量分配予运营商和委托人。另外 2% 的年通胀分配予验证者及其委托人,确保了网络的可持续性和长期的激励。

加密世界 AI 模型

加密世界一直建构于海量且快速增长的区块链数据之上,其中包含丰富的知识和潜在机会。在不断提取并组织这些数据的同时,加密数据中大量的「暗知识」无法仅靠传统数据库和有限的人力进行有效率的组织规划,继而对于一般加密人士而言,存在一定访问知识的门槛。

Chainbase 基于区块链数据构建了一个加密世界大模型 Theia,该模型旨在学习区块链数据并实现对原生区块链环境的模拟和推理。未来基于它构建的 AI Agent 可以有效地理解、预测区块链并与之交互。具体实现上,该模型通过将大模型分解为量级向量和方向向量,组成的矩阵可以体现链上的广泛知识,且模型上构建的完整推理链为用户提供易读性较强的结果。并且去中心化的数据模型天然具有高性能的加密原生性和高透明度。

结语

现有的数据相关项目在去中心化、性能、泛用性和经济模型上都略有掣肘,而 Chainbase 希望在一定程度上突破这个局面。随着 Mass Adoption 的临近,我们正在面临更汹涌的数据海啸,而坚实的防波堤也正在构建,可以期待未来在去中心化的高性能架构之上,我们可以更从容地面对它。

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.

marsbit6 min fa

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

marsbit6 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.

marsbit14 min fa

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

marsbit14 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 News15 min fa

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

Foresight News15 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片