「Runes Summer」迟迟未至,符文还有救吗?

Odaily星球日报Published on 2024-07-12Last updated on 2024-07-12

Abstract

符文的成长,需要比特币的文艺复兴

Ordinals is dead,这是 Ordinals 流传甚广的梗之一。而自从有了符文以后,这个梗又发展到了 Runes is dead 和著名的「Casey 切腹」。

从上线以来,符文的表现总是让人不太满意。目前,符文的总市值将将维持在 10 亿美元上方,这是著名的「Casey 切腹线」,我们又回到了老地方。过去的 5 天,符文市场的总交易量都只有可怜的 200 万美元左右,甚至更低。由于 ticker 命名方面的限制,自 4 月底上线以来,总共只有约 87500 个符文 Token 被「蚀刻(部署)」。

与之相比,自今年 4 月 1 日以来,在 Solana 上就有超过 64 万个 meme Token 被部署。交易量上就更不用说了,Solana 过去 24 小时交易量排名前 30 的 meme Token 一个都可以单挑整个符文。

夏至已过,老外们呼唤的「Runes Summer」却迟迟不来。

在许多中文 degen 的眼中,符文简直就是典型的「CJB」——不是都说老外共识吗?中外互不接盘吗?老外光打雷不下雨,先拉跨了...

事实上,我觉得这种说法是有认知陷阱的。符文的确是老外在 Ordinals FT 协议层面的共识,但是 Ordinals 的圈子本身就很小,再细分到老外符文玩家这个群体,就更小了。与之相比的是,在去年的铭文热潮中,几乎所有中文圈的玩家都参与了进来,并且中文圈是真正经历过从而有过一个共识——铭文这个赛道是可以赚钱的。

这实际上是一边倒的对抗,大部分的中文 degen VS 少数派的老外 degen。

符文起不来,一方面有当前市场又进入较为平淡甚至低迷的阶段的原因,另一方面则是比特币生态,或者说 Ordinals 生态乃至符文生态,仍然是整个 Crypto 圈里的一个小圈子。

「Runes Summer」迟迟未至,符文还有救吗?

符文总 Holder 数量只有不到 73 万,打过符文的更是只有 48 万出头。排除掉一人控制多个地址的情况,实际的独立玩家数量更是少得有点可怜

符文完全不缺好的、性感的 meme Token。才完成空投不久的 EPIC•EPIC•EPIC•EPIC,堪称比特币版本的 $PEOPLE,以 Blob 团队为首的众多 Ordinals 项目、社区乃至个人众筹了 33.3 比特币拍下了今年减半出产的历史第 4 个「史诗聪」,将这个符文「蚀刻(部署)」于其上之后免费空投给了超 9 万个地址。

这种集生态之力并回馈于生态的故事,够性感了。但是,认知门槛也是客观存在的。比特币在过去这么多年的时间里一直被视为「货币」或是「虚拟黄金」,从 Ordinals 诞生开始,围绕 Ordinals 生态的争议不断存在。同时,许多 Crypto 玩家对于比特币的印象也还依然停留在「货币」——比特币啊?哦,不错,很贵,投资比特币赚不到翻身级别的财富,我不玩。

这种印象的存在,使得一个比特币最小单位「聪」被一群比特币生态信仰者以 33.3 比特币的价格买下来这种故事的传播需要主动破圈才能够被更多人听见。很多人首先并不知道什么是「稀有聪」,其次听说了这个故事可能也是一头雾水,领略不到这个故事的魅力。

我必须要说,没有任何一个加密货币能够拥有这样的文化属性,我们不可能在以太坊上看到某枚 ETH 拥有 33.3 亿倍于其本身的价值。更何况, 33.3 比特币买下一个「稀有聪」在此前并无先例可循,这意味着一帮比特币文化的狂热探索者在用 33.3 比特币去寻求一个答案——如果 33.3 比特币等于 1 聪证明了比特币的文化价值,那么这 33.3 比特币能否创造出更大的价值呢?

此前,$PUPS 的 BRC-20 版本桥接到 Solana 上并引起了暴涨以及轰动,这是一个非常好的开始。在 $PUPS 之后,我观察到 Solana 生态和 Ordinals 生态之间的交流变得密切许多,最直接的感受就是 Bitcoin Puppets 和 OMB 两个 NFT 系列有了不少来自 Solana 的买家。

拉盘,或者价格的暴涨,当然能够在短期内为一个生态带来众多的关注度以及新用户,但要让他们留下来,这个生态必须要有感染力,要有 Vibe,要有属于自己的动人的故事乃至文化。比特币在 Ordinals 诞生后,已经从一个「价值介质」本身逐渐发展出了「文化介质」的一面。或者说,比特币本身就是一种文化,在它屹立不倒如此多年,却从未凭借各类应用型叙事直到今天,就已经证明了它是我们这代人的货币,是一代人信仰的堆积。

符文的成长需要什么?首先,我想我们需要符文到其它链的桥,这样的基建,RuneMine、Beyond 还有 MultiBit 都在做了,我想离我们拥有符文桥的日子已经不远。

流动性在我看来反而是其次,更多的是,要让符文、Ordinals 生态的故事带到其它链的用户那里,让他们看到比特币有优秀的原生 meme,有动人的原生故事,让大家更新对于比特币的印象,正如年轻人鲜少会真的去买黄金而是去炒鞋、炒游戏饰品、炒 NFT 那样,比特币,现在也是年轻的。

我们需要比特币的文艺复兴,我们需要挑战大众对于比特币的旧有印象,让更多人开始欣赏比特币的文化多样性。

Related Reads

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."

marsbit27m ago

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

marsbit27m ago

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28m ago

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

链捕手28m ago

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.

marsbit1h ago

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

marsbit1h ago

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.

marsbit1h ago

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

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
活动图片