Почему учреждения не решаются на децентрализованные финансы

cryptonews.ruPublished on 2024-08-31Last updated on 2025-03-31

Шибтоши, основатель торговой платформы SilentSwap, сохраняющей конфиденциальность, изложил несколько проблем, из-за которых учреждения не решаются принимать решения децентрализованных финансов (DeFi). Среди них конфиденциальность, отсутствие стандартизированных правил соответствия и юридическую ответственность.

Основатель проекта DeFi сказал, что высокая прозрачность транзакций в блокчейне представляет собой проблему для компаний, которые должны скрывать конфиденциальную информацию, включая торговые стратегии, информацию о заработной плате и соглашения между предприятиями.

«Основные проблемы — неопределенность регулирования, ограничения конфиденциальности и сложный пользовательский опыт — реальны, но решаемы. Инновации в протоколах сохранения конфиденциальности делают DeFi все более совместимыми с потребностями предприятий. Такие платформы, как SilentSwap, являются шагом в этом направлении», — сказал Шибтоши.

Неопределенность регулирования продолжает оставаться одной из самых больших проблем для DeFi и усугубляется фрагментарным подходом в правовых юрисдикциях, что препятствует институциональному принятию, добавил Шибтоши.

«Являются ли токены DeFi ценными бумагами? Что произойдет, если децентрализованная автономная организация (DAO) ошибется — и кто будет нести ответственность за это? Все это пока довольно неясно», — сказал основатель SilentSwap.

Шибтоши призвал к здравому смыслу в правилах, которые поощряют инновации и сохраняют ценностные предложения децентрализованных финансов, включая самостоятельное хранение, скорость и экономически эффективные транзакции.

Общая заблокированная стоимость (TVL) в экосистеме DeFi, еще не вернулась к пиковым уровням, наблюдавшимся в 2021 и 2022 годах. Источник: DeFiLlama

Конгресс США отменяет архаичное правило DeFi, но сектор все еще в опасности

Обе палаты Конгресса США недавно проголосовали за отмену крайне непопулярного правила брокера DeFi, требующего от децентрализованных финансовых протоколов и платформ сообщать о транзакциях клиентов в Службу внутренних доходов (IRS).

Сенат США отменил правило брокера IRS 70 голосами против 27 4 марта, после чего члены Палаты представителей США проголосовали за отмену правила IRS 11 марта.

Несмотря на отмену архаичного правила, чрезмерное регулирование может в конечном итоге убить сектор, который родился как децентрализованная, более доступная и псевдонимная альтернатива традиционным финансам.

По словам криптопредпринимателя и инвестора Артема Толкачева, соблюдение нормативных требований подрывает децентрализацию в DeFi и разрушает ценностное предложение зарождающегося сектора.

Акцент на мерах соблюдения нормативных требований увеличивает потенциал цензуры и переносит контроль от пользователей к сторонним посредникам и крупным учреждениям, написал Толкачев.

Behind Robinhood's Launch of Its Own Chain, the Beautifully Packaged "Tokenized Stocks" Still Have No Equity Rights

Robinhood has launched "Robinhood Chain," an Ethereum-based Layer 2 built with Arbitrum technology, and introduced "Stock Tokens." This article clarifies that these tokens are not actual on-chain equity. They are tokenized debt securities issued by Robinhood Assets Jersey Limited, offering economic exposure to reference stocks or ETFs but lacking direct ownership, voting rights, or other shareholder privileges. The legal structure is conservative, relying on traditional financial intermediaries, custody, KYC/AML controls, and specific jurisdiction rules, even though the tokens are transferable on-chain. The move is part of Robinhood's broader strategy to evolve from a retail brokerage into a global financial ecosystem, integrating services like banking, retirement, crypto, and DeFi. Robinhood Chain aims to provide a programmable settlement layer, making financial products more portable and accessible while masking underlying complexity. However, the "brokerage chain paradox" lies in balancing a simple user interface with the intricate, regulated reality of the wrapped assets. The success of this model depends on users and regulators accepting this structured approach without misunderstanding the tokens as direct stock ownership. Key components supporting this strategy include the Bitstamp acquisition (expanding institutional crypto capabilities), the Robinhood Wallet (bridging brokerage and self-custody), the Robinhood Earn program (integrating DeFi lending), and the Lighter perpetual contracts platform. While ambitious, the initiative is still early, facing challenges in achieving liquidity, developer adoption, and regulatory clarity across jurisdictions.

marsbit5m ago

Behind Robinhood's Launch of Its Own Chain, the Beautifully Packaged "Tokenized Stocks" Still Have No Equity Rights

marsbit5m ago

Strategy's Accounting Gimmick: The Cap on BTC Sales Far Exceeds $1.25 Billion

The article, originally from Bankless, discusses how MicroStrategy's (MSTR) recent Bitcoin (BTC) sales reveal a much larger potential selling capacity than the widely reported $1.25 billion "reserve-building" cap. On July 7, MicroStrategy disclosed a sale of 3,588 BTC (~$216M) to pay dividends for its STRAT (STRC) preferred shares and replenish its USD Reserve. Crucially, the company stated this sale did not count against its stated $1.25 billion "reserve-building capacity." The analysis explains that MicroStrategy's "BTC Monetization Plan," part of its broader "Digital Credit Capital Framework," actually outlines three main purposes for selling BTC, only one of which has the $1.25B cap: 1. **Building the USD Reserve** (capped at $1.25B). 2. **Covering preferred share/ debt costs** (replenishing the reserve after payments). 3. **Funding buybacks** (up to $10B for preferred shares and $10B for MSTR common stock). The key nuance is the accounting distinction between "building" the reserve (selling BTC before making payments) and "replenishing" it (selling BTC after using reserve funds for payments). While functionally the same—converting BTC to cash for obligations—only "building" counts against the publicized $1.25B limit. This means sales for "replenishing" and the $20B+ buyback pool allow for total potential sales exceeding $30B. The article frames this as part of MicroStrategy's shift from a simple "buy and hold" Bitcoin narrative to an "active capital management" model, where BTC becomes a balance-sheet tool to manage pressures between its common stock, preferred shares, dollar reserve, and Bitcoin holdings. This creates complex trade-offs and potential conflicts of interest. The conclusion warns investors that the $1.25B figure is not a total sales ceiling. Understanding terms like "build," "replenish," and "repurchase" in MicroStrategy's disclosures is now critical, as the company navigates a new, more complex role as an actively managed entity rather than a passive Bitcoin accumulator.

Odaily星球日报20m ago

Strategy's Accounting Gimmick: The Cap on BTC Sales Far Exceeds $1.25 Billion

Odaily星球日报20m ago

The Networking Game in Silicon Valley's Elite Circles: Those with Connections Get $50 Million, While the Truly Talented Can't Raise Money?

"Silicon Valley's Meritocracy to Relationship Game: How Networks Now Trump Talent." The article argues that Silicon Valley has shifted from a meritocracy to a "kingmaker" system where connections and background outweigh true ability. Key factors driving this change include: 1. **AI-Distorted Expectations:** Unprecedented growth curves (e.g., Anthropic) have led VCs to seek only "sure things" or pattern-match against past successes. 2. **Capital Concentration:** LP funds are concentrated in a few large, multi-stage funds, pushing VCs to overpay for hot deals to secure capital. 3. **VC Professionalization:** The industry has become a standardized career path, attracting conformist "NPCs" rather than independent thinkers. The long IPO timeline incentivizes safe, consensus bets for career advancement over risky, fund-returning outliers. This consensus capital fuels consensus founders. Startups are now a standard career option, with accelerators pressuring uniform ideas (e.g., 81% AI). Founders from elite schools (Stanford, OpenAI) easily raise millions based on pedigree, not proof. Large funds preemptively back "centrally cast" teams with $10-50M war chests to dominate categories, sidelining outsiders. The "kingmaker" strategy has downstream effects: it encourages aggressive, sometimes fraudulent, revenue reporting and allows founders to sell significant secondary shares early, attracting grifters. The author predicts a mean reversion. History shows the hottest trends rarely produce the most valuable companies. They advocate backing underestimated outsiders with "a chip on their shoulder" over anointed insiders, believing true meritocracy will ultimately win. "Those chasing the herd are set up for slaughter."

marsbit36m ago

The Networking Game in Silicon Valley's Elite Circles: Those with Connections Get $50 Million, While the Truly Talented Can't Raise Money?

marsbit36m ago

Bitcoin demand stays weak despite $1B USDT injection – Here is why!

Bitcoin is exhibiting a clear divergence between spot and derivatives markets. While futures demand has rebounded sharply, spot demand remains weak, indicating the current recovery is primarily driven by leverage. This makes the rally fragile and vulnerable to a sharp correction, especially amid renewed macro uncertainty from events like U.S.-Iran tensions. Recent data supports this cautious view: spot Bitcoin ETFs saw net outflows, and the Coinbase Premium Index turned negative, signaling weaker U.S. institutional demand. Despite Tether injecting $1 billion in new USDT, much of this liquidity appears to be sitting on the sidelines rather than flowing into Bitcoin spot purchases. This fresh capital could further fuel speculative derivatives activity instead of attracting real buyers. Historically, the current bear market of 248 days is shorter than previous major cycles (381 days in 2022, 385 days in 2018), suggesting the broader downtrend may have further room to run. In summary, Bitcoin's bear cycle remains intact, with the recovery being led by fragile derivatives speculation rather than strong spot demand.

ambcrypto48m ago

Bitcoin demand stays weak despite $1B USDT injection – Here is why!

ambcrypto48m ago

From 2 Million Monthly Active Users to Zero: Zapper's Demise in the "Maturation" of DeFi

From 2M MAU to Zero: The Demise of Zapper in a Maturing DeFi Landscape On July 8, 2026, Zapper co-founder Seb Audet announced the platform's full shutdown. Once a DeFi star with 2 million monthly active users, $13B in processed transactions, and $16.5M in funding, Zapper's journey ends. Born in 2020 from the merger of DeFiZap and DeFiSnap, Zapper rode the "DeFi Summer" wave. It became essential for users to track complex, multi-protocol yield farming positions across chains. At its peak, it supported 14 chains, 450+ protocols, and 7000+ tokens, with its signature "Zap" feature simplifying multi-step DeFi actions. However, sustainable revenue never materialized. Its primary model—taking small fees from DEX aggregation—faced fierce competition and squeezed margins. Meanwhile, maintaining its extensive, real-time data indexing system was costly. Crucially, the DeFi ecosystem matured, with activity and liquidity concentrating in fewer top protocols. The core demand for a complex, multi-protocol dashboard waned as user behavior simplified. Zapper attempted multiple pivots that failed to gain traction: an NFT-based points system (2021), a social app called Chainchat (2023), and plans for a ZAP token and open protocol (2024). These efforts reflected a persistent "blockchain-native" mindset focused on creating new C端 (consumer) needs rather than addressing existing pain points or bolstering its revenue-generating products. The article contrasts Zapper with DeBank, which successfully narrowed its asset-tracking focus while developing Rabby Wallet—a revenue-stabilizing, competitive product. Zapper's story serves as a cautionary tale for tooling projects: over-immersion in a purist vision, coupled with an inability to adapt business models to market shifts—like the consolidation of DeFi activity—can be fatal, even for once-dominant platforms.

marsbit1h ago