Tiffany携NFT项链来加密圈“抢钱”,90后高管掌舵布局Web3消费生态

PanewsPubblicato 2022-08-13Pubblicato ultima volta 2022-08-13

Introduzione

Tiffany从圈内顶流CryptoPunks切入进行了一场成功的饥饿营销,把NFT变成真实珠宝的操作,也让Tiffany在珠宝业、时尚界、Web3圈子里吸睛无数。

50年前,在电影《蒂凡尼的早餐》中,奥黛丽·赫本站在Tiffany玻璃大橱窗驻足凝望的经典一幕,让Tiffany&CO.这个珠宝品牌成为了全世界无数女生的憧憬。

自从去年LV集团的二公子、90后的AlexandreArnault出任Tiffany的产品与传播副总裁之后,Tiffany开始在潮流圈里动作不断,不断拓展自己更年轻的时尚第二曲线。

最近,Tiffany也搞起了时下最火的NFT。此次,Tiffany从圈内顶流CryptoPunks切入进行了一场成功的饥饿营销,把NFT变成真实珠宝的操作,也让Tiffany在珠宝业、时尚界、Web3圈子里吸睛无数,并再次把NFT的CC0版权模式推向了风口浪尖。

很多人都调侃,看来未来不仅只是女孩们憧憬Tiffany小蓝盒了,男孩们也要为它抢破头。

越来越潮的Tiffany, 34万一条的NFT项链被疯抢

上周初,Tiffany正式宣布正式踏足NFT领域,并推出了品牌首个项目“NFTiff”, 即“NFT”和“Tiffany”的组合。这套NFTiff系列以CryptoPunks为主题,限量250组,每组定价为30 个以太坊(约34万人民币)。

此次NFTiff最大的特点是“虚实结合”,购买了“NFTiff通行证”的用户,不仅可以获得一款独一无二的Tiffany定制版实体吊坠,同时还可以获得该吊坠的NFT 数字藏品。

在官方发布的NFTiff项目宣传片中,Tiffany一改往日精致优雅的路线,小蓝盒变成了像素风,音乐变成了电子版,再配以CryptoPunks的吊坠示例,给人一种突然变身成了潮牌的感觉。

但需要注意的是,此次的NFTiff并不是你有钱就可以买得到。除了限量发售之外,此次的NFTiff 的销售对象被限定在了CryptoPunks的持有者之中,且每位用户限购三个“NFTiff通行证”。

作为NFT市场上最早和最火的系列数字藏品,CryptoPunks系列作品中百万美元级别的头像比比皆是,甚至最高卖出价超过了2000万美元。因此Tiffany的这波操作,可以说是完全把目标客户聚焦在了高净值人士身上。

为了高品质还原CryptoPunks头像原貌,Tiffany设计团队将CryptoPunks系列1万个头像中所曾出现的87种属性和159种颜色,一一转换为了颜色最为相近的宝石和珐琅,再在18K玫瑰金或18K黄金底盘上进行彩绘与镶嵌。

区块链公司Chain的创始人的项链实物,图片来自Deepak.eth推特

Tiffany在美东时间8月3日上午开启了100 个NFTiff通行证的预售,很快被一抢而空,剩下的150 个NFTiffs 在5日正式发售,仅仅开卖20分钟左右就宣告售罄。买家中也不乏一些大家都熟悉的身影,比如林俊杰、Moonbird的创办人Kevin Rose等等。

统计显示,此次Tiffany仅用这250个通行证就顺利筹集了超过1250 万美元。Tiffany表示,首批NFT藏品交付时间预计在今年12月,而配套的定制项链交付时间预计为2023年2月。

但硅星人注意到,目前NFTiff在二级市场的交易地板价已经跌破了30个以太坊的发行价。

90后“高富帅”总裁掌舵,Tiffany布局Web3消费生态

实际上,从去年NFT开始爆火至今,包括Gucci、Burberry、巴黎世家等很多奢侈品品牌都曾试水搞过NFT,Tiffany并不是第一个。

但此次项目最大的特点就在于Tiffany并没有依托Opensea或其他交易平台来发行或售卖自家的NFTiff,而是携手区块链技术创新企业Chain,来打造了自家面向全球的NFT平台nft.tiffany.com。

从中也可以看出,Tiffany此次进军NFT并不只是一次玩票那么简单,而是有着更加长远的计划。接下来,Tiffany可能还会跟更多的NFT系列作品进行合作,复制和升级此次CryptoPunks的玩法,通过NFT开发、数字版与实体版相互转换、交易和转卖等多个环节,打造一个全新的NFT业务生态。

Tiffany此次高调进军Web3的转型尝试,可以说跟它如今的产品和营销副总裁Alexandre Arnault息息相关。

2020年10月,LV集团以158亿美元的价格收购了Tiffany,创下了奢侈品行业历史上的最大交易。而Alexandre Arnault,就是LV集团掌门人Bernard Arnault的二儿子。出生于1992年、身高1米9的Alexandre被业内认为是LV集团最具潜力的接班人之一,他以年轻化的行事风格闻名,对于近年来LV集团的数字化转型、年轻客户拓展做出了很大贡献。

比如他在25岁的时候出任了百年行李箱品牌Rimowa的CEO,革新了品牌营销策略,推进了Rimowa与年轻品牌Supreme、Off-White等的合作,此外他还牵头打造了LV的电商平台24 Sevres。

图片来自Alexandre Arnault的个人Instagram

接手Tiffany之后,Alexandre也是“年轻化革命”动作不断。而作为一个自诩为“科技宅”的Alexandre,对时下火热的Web3也是兴趣盎然。

今年一月,Alexandre就将自己的Twitter和Instagram的头像都换成了CryptoPunks,紧接着4月就在推特上晒出了以自己CryptoPunks为蓝本做的Tiffany饰品,当时就让外界猜测Tiffany会在NFT上有所动作。但与此同时,他的父亲、LV掌门人 Bernard Arnault也曾公开表示对于低价出售品牌的虚拟产品没有兴趣。

而此次,Alexandre显然是找到了一个将数字产品和实体产品结合的好方法。不仅没有削弱Tiffany作为奢侈品的调性,同时还为日后NFT和实体商品的转换找到了一个很好的路径。

NFT版权问题再成为焦点,CC0模式究竟如何运行?

Tiffany此次将NFT实体化的玩法,可以说是给各个品牌商打开了新世界的大门。既然可以把热门NFT变成珠宝饰品,那是不是也可以如法炮制将其变成奢侈品包包、衣服和配饰?于是,NFT的版权问题如何界定、NFT的稀缺性如何保证、收益的归属问题就成为了大家非常关注的问题。

实际上,此次Tiffany的NFT项目虽然是以CryptoPunks为基础,但却与CryptoPunks的项目方并没有什么直接关系。用CryptoPunks官方的说法就是,Tiffany的此次尝试为它们即将发布的版权许可协议做了一个很好的案例诠释。

今年3月,无聊猿的母公司YugaLabs 宣布收购了CryptoPunks的所有知识产权,并宣布将计划授予所有CryptoPunk持有人以商业权利。也就是说,当你拥有一个NFT时,你不仅拥有它的所有权,同时也拥有它的版权,你可以决定用你的CryptoPunk做什么,并围绕它建立什么样的IP。

放在Tiffany此次的例子中,本质上来说,此次并不是Tiffany卖了产品给客户,而是CryptoPunks头像的持有者们委托Tiffany基于他们所持有NFT来创造新的IP,而这个新的IP就是Tiffany的CryptoPunks吊坠和一个新的NFT。

这背后涉及到的其实是一个近期NFT业界内的讨论焦点,一种名为CC0版权形式。

CC0 是非营利性组织CreativeCommons(知识共享组织,CC) 于2009 年推出的一款专门用于放弃版权、将作品投入到公共领域的版权数字授权许可。如果一个NFT项目声明了CC0 许可,意思就是任何人都可以都可以通过多种方式将 NFT 用于商业或非商业用途,无需注明原始NFT的创作者、也无需经过任何申请。

简单来讲,CC0可以看作是一种开源 IP。也就是说即使你不持有一个NFT,你也可以基于那个NFT作品来进行二次创作并从中获利。目前,有很多新兴NFT项目都转向CCO模式,比如Mfers、Moonbirds、Blitmap、Nouns等。

当然,目前业界对于NFT项目是否应该采用CC0协议也仍然充满争议。

支持方认为,CC0能够快速扩大项目的知名度和扩大整个NFT市场的边界和规模,当人们都在使用NFT来创造更多创意型产品时,NFT市场会快速繁荣。同时这种不把版权掌握在项目方手里的做法,显然也更符合Web3去中心化的精神。

反对方认为,CC0协议会导致NFT作品的滥用,从而削弱原始NFT项目的影响力和稀缺性。同时很容易造成版权和创意的纠纷,损害NFT持有者们的自身权益。

在这样的情况下,目前包括无聊猿、Meebits、CloneX、Azuki等头部项目便采用了一种比较折中的办法,就是授予限制性的许可。比如无聊猿就允许持有者使用自己拥有的NFT去创作和售卖衍生产品,但要求不能使用BAYC 的品牌LOGO 和名称;Meebits要求持有者获取的商业利益每年不超过10万美元等等。

在这种模式下,NFT作品的版权仍然归项目方所有,但项目方将权力在某些约束性的条件之下免费授予给了持有者。因为并不是面对所有人开放使用,从而也能保证项目的稀缺性。

在被Yuga收购之前,CryptoPunks其实采用的是完全封闭的版权形式,持有者们除了能将购买的作品用作头像、交易买卖之外不具备其他任何权益。这也是导致为CryptoPunks作为最早的NFT,但后期发展却不如无聊猿等后起之秀的重要原因。而Tiffany的此次试水,显然是为CryptoPunks打开了一个全新的商业通道。

目前来看,在NFT退潮的大环境下,项目转向限制性许可或完全CC0化或许是大势所趋。而伴随着NFT的版权问题的日渐明晰,接下来,我们可能也会看到更多带有NFT元素的实体商品出现在我们的日常生活中。

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
活动图片