【研报精选】驱动上涨的新叙事找到了?浅谈“真实收益”

DeFi之道Published on 2023-02-19Last updated on 2023-02-20

Abstract

新牛市的旗手?

DeFi 领域正在酝酿一个热门的新叙事——“真实收益”(Real Yield),协议根据其创造的收入向用户支付收益。

🧵本文就要聊聊这个新叙事,其为什么能够成为下一周期的支柱以及具有代表性的项目。👇

真实收益归类为“真实”收入产生的收益,而并非发行代币产生的收入。真实收益运作方式很直接:更多的收入 = 支付给用户更多的收益,反之亦然。

因此,押注一个真实收益项目其实就是在赌它 a)积累新用户以及 b)增加创收以奖励代币持有者的能力。

在我讲一些具有代表性的项目之前,了解这个叙事的来源是很重要的。

让我们回到 2021 年。当时吸引用户最常见的方式就是以高昂的 APR 为诱惑,从而吸引更多的 TVL(不惜一切代价)。

这些 DeFi 协议都是通过发行/稀释代币来进行激励的例子。

$TIME

$SUNNY

$AXS

$ANC

事实是,2021 年几乎所有 DeFi 协议都采用了激进的代币发行模型以达到快速吸引流动性的目的。

为什么会这样呢?因为这是一场比赛。用户的兴趣和贪婪达到了空前的高度。项目方感受到了这种 FOMO,而且不想错过。

问题在于,这种模式是不可持续的。在被迫转向可持续的模式之前,项目方只能在有限的时间内提供人造收益。没有这些人造收益来激励用户存钱和质押,很多 DeFi 协议都会面临可预见的崩溃。

这就导致很多投资者在 $LUNA 和 $UST 上蒙受了重大的损失。PTSD(创伤后应激障碍)和 DeFi 随之而来的崩溃导致的用户流失突显了当前 DeFi 领域的致命缺陷:

A) 通过激励流动性来发行代币人为扩充了 TVL。一旦失效,很多链的“真实”价值就暴露了。

B) 很多协议都不具备精心设计的底层价值增值机制。

结果是什么呢?随着市场偏向避险,就会出现从“虚假”到“真实”收益协议的急剧转变。这种转变体现在近期永续 DEX 的增长以及在合并(The Merge)预期下以太坊生态的反弹。

以下是我最喜欢的真实收益项目,他们都是通过实际的收入来产出收益的。我会简单说说他们的情况,如何产生收入以及他们的潜力所在。

第一类属于“去中心化永续交易所”范畴。

他们提供高流动性和低费率的杠杆交易,同时拥有所有 DEX 和 CEX 具备的正面优势:

没有 KYC

没有交易对手风险

安全

独立自主

首先是 $DYDX。据 Token Terminal 的数据,dYdX 是最大的且使用永续交易最多的 DEX,每年产生超过 3.21 亿美元的协议收入,在 dAPP 协议收入中排名前三。

现阶段 $DYDX 的收益仍是中心化的(并未直接支付给代币持有者),但他们计划在今年年底的 V4 更新中改进这一模式。

$DYDX 还将面临大量稀释。因此,就目前而言,其在众多竞争对手中并不配备最好的代币经济学,然而……

我认为 dYdX 最大的利好在于其即将在 Cosmos 上推出自己的链。与其他 DEX 相比,dYdX 的灵活性为他们提供了得天独厚的优势,这也是我长期看好这个项目的原因之一。

其次是 $GMX,Arbitrum 上最大的项目(TVL 2.5 亿美元),在 $AVAX 上排名第 7(9000 万美元)。

GMX 以独特的多资产池为基础,赚取 LP 费用,可实现现货资产 30 倍的杠杆交易,且滑点很低。

可以说 GMX 在所有永续 DEX 中拥有最好的代币经济学。质押 GMX 代币可以获得 30% 的平台费用,以 ETH 支付。另外还有一个 esGMX 模型‌来激励流动性的“粘性”。

然后是 $GNS。Gains Network 基于 Matic,其首发产品 gTrade 近期的交易量超过了 150 亿美元。它拥有时尚的用户界面、出色的代币经济学,与同类产品相比,其市值“适中”,为 6000 万美元。

CertiK 给 $GNS 的安全评分很高,信任评分为 87,社区评分为 84(总分 100)。

(鉴于近期的 DeFi 攻击事件,在投资一个项目之前了解它是否值得信赖还是很有必要的。)

上述三个 DEX 都是不错的选择。有关这几个永续 DEX 的对比,更多的信息可以参见 @gnsGoblin‌ 以及这篇文章‌。

$SNX:基于以太坊和 OP 的去中心化合成资产协议。也就是说,你可以互相交易虚拟和现实世界资产,如黄金、白银、加密货币、欧元、石油和股票。

你可以质押 $SNX 来赚取 $sUSD 和 $SNX。他们通过协议费用(由铸造/销毁合成资产产生的费用)产出收益。

据 Token Terminal,$SNX 目前每年产生 1 亿美元的协议收入,在收入排名中位居第九。

可以看到 $SNX 和 $GMX 产生的费用都排名前十,超过了整个加密货币领域 7 天 1 亿美元的平均值。

$UMAMI:它最大的创新就是 USDC Vault。与 Anchor 不同,它支付了 20% 的可持续收益,由铸造 GLP 和收取交易费用产生。他们还将推出 ETH 和 BTC Vault。

还有很多其他项目都符合真实收益这一新叙事,包括:

$RBN

$BTRFLY

$DPX

$LOOKS

$FXS、$CVX、$CRV

一些补充信息:

我认为,真实收益从客观上说一定更好,这是一种误解。

发行代币也有自己的目的。很多协议都通过发行代币提高了 APR,从而成功获取了很多新用户,并且建立了很好的社区。

很多一开始采取了激进的发行计划的代币都开始逐渐向费用生成模式转变。最终,只有能够产出真实收益的协议才能成功。炒作和通胀都只能体现在短期的价格表现上。

尽管会有很多 DeFi 协议转向这个模式,但有些会失败,因为脆弱的代币经济学;有些会成功,因为成功适应了新的架构。

无论如何,真实收益越来越趋近于 DeFi 的未来。只有成功部署可以同时驱动普及和收入生成的项目,才能在未来几年蓬勃发展。

随着这一领域的成熟,投资者将倾向于选择能够产生真实和可持续收入的协议,尤其是在市场动荡的情况下。

对于机构 DeFi 而言,寿命和风险调整后的增长潜力也将成为关键考虑因素。

Related Reads

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbitHá 4m

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbitHá 4m

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbitHá 17m

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbitHá 17m

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

"Standing in the Light: Understanding the Optical Module and CPO Industry Chain" This article analyzes the critical role of optical communication technology, specifically optical modules and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO), as the "nervous system" for modern AI data centers. With exponential growth in AI computational demands (e.g., NVIDIA's Vera Rubin architecture), traditional electrical interconnects using copper cables face severe bottlenecks in bandwidth, power consumption, and signal integrity over distance. The core function of an optical module is to act as a "translator," converting electrical signals from chips into optical signals for transmission over fiber (and vice-versa). Key internal components include lasers, modulators, photodetectors, drivers, and DSP chips. The industry is currently transitioning from 800G to 1.6T modules. However, the future lies in CPO. This next-generation technology integrates the optical engine directly with the switch ASIC/XPU on the same package substrate, drastically reducing power consumption (by ~3.5x according to NVIDIA), overcoming bandwidth density limits, and minimizing signal attenuation compared to traditional pluggable modules. Key challenges for CPO include advanced packaging capacity (dominated by TSMC), thermal management, repairability, and standardization. The article details the broader technology landscape, including Near-Packaged Optics (NPO, a pragmatic intermediate step), Linear-drive Pluggable Optics (LPO), Optical I/O (OIO for chip-level integration), and Optical Circuit Switches (OCS). A comprehensive CPO industry chain is mapped, highlighting shifting power dynamics: * **Architecture Definers:** NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Marvell now hold greater influence. * **Advanced Packaging & Manufacturing:** TSMC is central; Fabrinet is a key EMS player. * **Lasers ("The Heart"):** A strategic bottleneck. EML lasers are led by Lumentum and Coherent (both receiving major NVIDIA investments). CW lasers, favored for CPO/silicon photonics, see strong Chinese players like Source Photonics and Sicoya. * **Silicon Photonics Chips:** The mainstream path for CPO engines, with key players like Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, and China's Accelink. * **Fiber Connectivity Components:** A major new, high-growth market created by CPO, including Fiber Array Units (FAU), Polarization-Maintaining Fiber (PMF), and MPO connectors. Companies like Tianfu Communication and US Conec are leaders. * **Fiber & Cable:** Experiencing a super-cycle (e.g., Corning, Yangtze Optical Fiber). * **PCB/Substrates:** Requiring advanced materials (e.g., Shengyi Tech). * **DSP & SerDes:** Functions are integrated into switch ASICs in the CPO era (e.g., Broadcom, Astera Labs). * **Optical Module Makers:** Transitioning from standalone module suppliers to providers of optical engines and NPO/LPO solutions while riding the current pluggable boom (e.g., Zhongji Innolight, Eoptolink). The investment timeline is segmented: Short-term (2026-2027) features the "last feast" for pluggable modules and CPO's initial rollout. Medium-term (2027-2029) will see CPO expand and NPO peak. Long-term (2029-2032+) involves CPO/OIO penetration into intra-rack scaling. In conclusion, optical interconnects are fundamental to AI infrastructure. The competitive landscape sees US firms leading in architecture and high-end chips, TSMC in advanced packaging, and Chinese firms holding strong positions in modules, connectivity components, CW lasers, and fiber/cable. The future belongs to companies that can navigate the technological shift from "selling shovels" (modules) to "building highways" (CPO/OIO infrastructure).

marsbitHá 27m

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

marsbitHá 27m

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片