链上协议六支柱，HyperEVM 正面对决以太坊

深潮Published on 2025-08-11Last updated on 2025-08-12

联结主义，链上资产的幂律膨胀。

撰文：佐爷

以太坊携 DeFi 再次回归，Aave/Pendle/Ethena 让循环贷成为杠杆放大器，相比于 DeFi Summer 以 ETH 为基准的链上堆栈，USDe 等稳定币支撑的杠杆上升曲线更为平缓。

我们可能进入一个温暖的长周期，对链上协议的考察将分为两部分，其一是涉及更多的资产类型，外部资金流动性在美联储降息预期下将更为充沛；其二是考察杠杆倍数的极限取值，对应安全去杠杆的过程，即个人如何安全退出，牛市会如何结束。

加密六协议：生态和代币的互动

链上协议和资产不胜枚举，但在二八法则下，我们只需要关注 TVL/ 交易量 / 代币价格这些参数即可，更聚焦一点，关注对链上生态不可或缺的最少数个体，进而考察其在生态网络中的关系，以兼顾个体重要性、生态链接度和增长潜力最高的新协议。

图片说明：DeFi TVL Overview，图片来源：@zuoyeweb3

在 DeFi TVL 构成上，以太坊在 7 月份 DeFi TVL 占比超过 60%，而 Aave 占以太坊生态 TVL 也在 60% 以上，这就是二八法则中的 20%，剩下的协议必须和二者存在强联系，才能被纳入主被动受益者的行列。

随着循环贷三剑客的飞轮启动，Ethereum、Aave、Pendle 和 Ethena 的关联程度自不必说，继续把 Bitcoin 加上，WBTC、ETH 和 USDT/USDC 是事实上的 DeFi 基础资产，但是 USDT/USDC 和 Lido 类似，他们只具备资产属性，基本不具备生态价值，Plasma、Stablechain 等刚开始竞争。

稍作区分，一种协议可以具备多重价值，比如 Bitcoin 基本只具备资产价值，即大家都需要 BTC，但是没人知道怎么利用 Bitcoin 生态，没有说 BTCFi 是骗局的意思哈（狗头保命）。

而 ETH/Ethereum 则具备双重价值，大家既需要 ETH，也需要以太坊网络，包括 EVM 和其上广泛的 DeFi 堆栈以及开发设施。

根据资产、生态价值进一步划分，考察各头部协议的「被需要」程度，被需要资产属性得一分，被需要生态价值得一分，可以归纳出下表：

Pendle/Aave/Ethena/Ethereum/HyperEVM/Bitcoin 是链接最强的六个协议，任意两者之间的关系都可以相互耦合，最多需要额外一个协议或资产链接。

我们来稍作解释：

  1. Ethena <> HyperEVM：USDe 已经部署至 HyperEVM 生态

  2. Pendle <> HyperEVM：$kHYPE 和 $hbHYPE 分列趋势榜第一和第三

  3. Aave <> HyperEVM ： Hyperlend TVL 占 HyperEVM 25% ($500M vs. $2B)，其是 Aave 的友好分叉，承诺 10% 利润分给 Aave

  4. BTC/ETH 是 Hyperliquid 交易量最大的两个币种，并可通过 Unit Protocol 充值和提取

  5. Pendle、Aave、Ethena 已经成为一体，不过 USDe 的资产属性被承认，$ENA 生态价值略逊一筹

  6. Pendle 新产品 Boros 以资金费率为交易基本，首选便是 BTC 和 ETH 合约

  7. Aave 需要 WBTC 和各类 ETH，如质押 ETH，尤其是以太坊作为基础设施的生态价值被 Aave/Pendle/Ethena 需要，是 ETH 价格的链上支撑

  8. 这里面最特殊的是以太坊生态单向需要 BTC，Bitcoin 生态不需要任何外部资产

  9. Ethena 和 Bitcoin/BTC 暂无关系

  10. HyperEVM/Hyperliquid 是「最主动」的外部生态，大有「我是来加入这个家」的即视感

经过统计，这是链接最紧密的六种资产，任何其他生态和代币的引入，都需要更多的假设步骤，比如 TVL 第二的 Lido，和 Hyperliquid 和 Bitcoin 关系就很弱，以及 Pendle 在「抛弃」 LST 资产转投 YBS 后，Lido 的以太坊内生态联动属性就会走弱。

我们以 BTC 最高的 7 为基础，根据对其他协议的影响力，划分 6 种资产为三种节点，请注意，这不是对其资产价值的描绘，而是在生态内重要性的排名：

BTC/ETH 是最强的基础设施，BTC 胜在价值属性，ETH 生态地位无可撼动，大家可以把 Solana 加进来计算链接程度，就会发现不如 Hyperliquid/HyperEVM 对以太坊的链接，核心原因是 Hyperliquid 本身的交易属性，结合 HyperEVM 更贴合 EVM 生态。

  • 以太坊内，Lido/Sky 和既有六种协议的互动不足

  • 以太坊外，Solana/Aptos 和既有六种协议互动不足

但是 Solana 需要扶持自身 DEX 才能兼容更多外部资产，需要的假设步骤天然就会多一步，SVM 兼容 EVM 生态也会更困难，一句话，Solana 的一切都要独立发展。

图片说明：联结主义，图片来源：@zuoyeweb3

不过，在关系网中，以太坊生态的协同效应是最强的，1 美元的 Ethena 经由 ETH 对冲而来，随后进入 Pendle 和 Aave 中进行价值流转，而其上产生的 Gas Fee，便成为 ETH 的价值支撑。

除了 Bitcoin 天然靠 BTC 完成价值自循环、自流转外，ETH 最接近价值闭环，但这是积极主动作为的结果，而 Hyperliquid/HyperEVM 的组合仍在路上，能否完成交易（Hyperliquid）+ 生态（HyperEVM）和 $HYPE 的联动，尚需时日。

这是个假设逐步增多的熵增过程，BTC 只需要自身，ETH 需要生态和代币，$HYPE 需要交易、代币和生态。

DeFi 的扩张是否有尽头？

前文提到，Hyperlend 需要给 Aave 分润，Aave 的影响力并不局限于此，实际上，Aave 才是本次 Pendle、Ethena 发起的循环贷主角，承担整个循环体系的杠杆作用。

Aave 是最接近成为以太坊链上基础设施的存在，这不是因为其 TVL 最高，而是安全性和资金量的综合考虑，任意的公链和生态，启动借贷模式的最安全方式是合规分叉 Aave。

图片说明：Aave 和 Hyperlend 分润设置，图片来源：@zuoyeweb3

在 Hyperlend 的分叉模板中，分润 10% 是基础，此外还有分配自身代币 3.5% 给 Aave DAO 和 1% stAave 持有人，即 Aave 将自身作为一种服务售卖给各个生态，这是其生态价值和代币价值联动之处。

但并非毫无竞争者，Maple 已经扩展至 HyperEVM，Fluid、Morpho 等新形态借贷协议也和 YBS 等新资产打得火热，而 HyperEVM 作为以太坊 EVM 生态体系最强竞争者，也未必会一直保持平和。

从主动性上而言，Bitcoin 和 HyperEVM 是绝对的两个极端，HyperEVM 正在通过 HIP3 虹吸传统交易类型至链上，通过 CoreWriter 打通 HyperCore 和 Hyperevm 二者流动性，通过 Builder Code 扶持自身的前端代理人。

此外，还利用 Unit Protocol 和 Phantom 打通 Solana 生态的资金，虹吸一切链上流动性，这也是一种基础设施的扩展方式。

总结一下：

  • Pendle 盯上一切可被拆分的资产类型，从固定收益出发，扩展永续合约之外的衍生品市场，即广泛意义上的利率互换市场

  • Ethena 借助 DeFi 循环贷模式和财库策略，从 $ENA 和 $USDe、$USDtb 核心出发打造稳定币第三极，USDT/USDC 的基本用途仍然是交易和支付，USDe 希望成为 DeFi 领域的无风险资产

  • Aave 已经是事实上的借贷基础设施，其地位和以太坊紧密绑定

  • Bitcoin、Ethereum 代表的是区块链经济系统的极限，其扩张程度是 DeFi 增长的基础，即 BTC 规模能被迁移至 DeFi 多少，DeFi 还有多大的增长区间

  • Hyperliquid/HyperEVM 已经在生态上紧密绑定现有 DeFi 巨头，虽然 TVL 远逊于 Solana，但是增长前景更大，Solana 的故事在于要从公链角度击败 EVM 体系

结语

加密六协议，考察的是相互之间的链接程度，并不是说其他协议缺乏价值，而是高协作紧密度会让资金自由度和利用度指数级提高，进而雨露均沾，一荣俱荣。

当然，一损也会俱损，这就需要考察 DeFi 换锚——从 ETH 切换到 YBS 的后续发展，ETH 作为高价值资产，在杠杆率上更为激进，YBS 如 USDe 天然较为价格稳定（并非价值），以其为基础的 DeFi 乐高更为稳固，除去极端脱锚情况，理论上可以让加杠杆和去杠杆的曲线更为温和。

加密众神殿席位有限，新天选者只能奋力前进，结交现有神祇，打造最强协议网，才能为自己挣得容身之处。

Related Reads

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

Three Years Later: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's launch, I made 20 predictions about its future. Now, in mid-2026, I've used AI agents to fact-check each one against the latest data. Overall, most major directional forecasts were correct, with only one outright error (incorrectly stating GPT-4 had 100 trillion parameters). Key successes included predicting that RAG and retrieval architectures would become the standard for handling knowledge and hallucinations, that natural language interfaces (LUI) would create a massive new industry layer beyond the models themselves, and that China would develop viable large language models, significantly closing the performance gap with Western counterparts within about three years. Predictions about the absence of mass unemployment, the rise of a new "robot network" for agent communication, and ChatGPT not possessing consciousness also held true in their core arguments. However, the "devil was in the details." Errors frequently involved specific numbers, timelines, or overlooking distributional effects. I tended to overestimate the speed of adoption (e.g., for agent networks) while underestimating the ultimate scale of capabilities or costs (e.g., AI winning IMO gold without tools, or the extreme capital required for frontier models). Other misjudgments included: underestimating how AI would reinforce, not dissolve, information filter bubbles; incorrectly assuming AI-generated content would easily circumvent copyright (it has instead triggered record-breaking settlements); and misidentifying where value would be captured (it accrued overwhelmingly to the compute layer, like Nvidia, not just the application or model layers). Key lessons from reviewing these predictions are: 1) Directional and mechanistic insights are far more reliable than precise numbers or absolute statements. 2) There's a consistent bias to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude. 3) Errors often lie in missing distributional impacts within a generally correct aggregate trend. 4) Predictions phrased with nuance and caveats aged the best. 5) Some fundamental debates (e.g., on machine consciousness or the ultimate value chain) remain unresolved even after three years. This exercise is less about scoring the past and more about establishing rules for clearer thinking about the next three years of AI.

marsbit1h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back at My Predictions About ChatGPT in 2023

marsbit1h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

Looking Back After Three Years: Revisiting My 2023 Predictions on ChatGPT In March 2023, shortly after ChatGPT's debut and before GPT-4's release, I made over twenty predictions about AI's future based on limited information and intuition. Now, in May 2026, I revisited those forecasts using an AI-driven analysis with 41 Opus 4.8 agents to cross-reference them with the latest data. The assessment used symbols: ✅ Correct, 🟢 Mostly Correct, 🟡 Partially Correct, ❌ Incorrect. Overall, the directional judgments held up well, with only one major factual error regarding GPT-4's rumored parameter size (incorrectly cited as 100T). However, nuances and degrees of accuracy revealed more. **What Was Largely Correct:** Predictions about mechanisms and directions proved accurate. The rise of RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) as the standard architecture for combating AI hallucination was confirmed, as was the transformative potential of LUI (Language User Interface) in creating a new industry layer atop GUIs. The emergence of "robot networks" (agent-to-agent communication protocols) and China's rapid catch-up in developing capable large models (closing the performance gap with top models to ~2.7%) were also on point. The analysis affirmed that LLMs lack consciousness and that the Turing Test merely measures perceived intelligence. **What Was Off Target:** Errors often involved specific numbers, over-optimistic timelines, or misjudged distributions. The prediction that value would primarily accrue to the application layer was half-right but missed NVIDIA's dominance as the profitable infrastructure layer. Forecasts about AI circumventing copyright issues and fostering a "global common ground" by averaging human viewpoints were incorrect; instead, major copyright settlements occurred and AI personalization is increasing. Estimates for model training costs ("$5-10 billion cap") were significantly off, underestimating frontier costs and overestimating replication costs. The notion that LLMs could never do complex math without tools was disproven by later models winning IMO gold. **Key Patterns from the Review:** 1. **Direction over precision:** Judgments about mechanisms and trends were more reliable than specific numbers or definitive statements. 2. **Timing bias:** There was a tendency to overestimate short-term speed but underestimate long-term magnitude and transformation. 3. **The distribution blind spot:** Aggregate-level correctness often masked uneven impacts (e.g., on young professionals' employment). 4. **The value of qualifiers:** Predictions framed with caution (e.g., "reportedly," "for now," "prototype in 2-3 years") aged better. 5. **Some debates continue:** Issues like the nature of "emergent abilities" or machine consciousness remain unresolved. This three-year review highlights that while seeing the big picture is crucial, humility regarding specifics, timelines, and disparate impacts is essential for future forecasting.

链捕手4h ago

Three Years Later: Looking Back on My 2023 Predictions for ChatGPT

链捕手4h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

The article issues a stark warning about a potential AI investment bubble. It notes that while the AI boom shares similarities with the TMT bubble of the late 1990s, its scale is vastly larger, currently driving 93% of U.S. GDP growth. Major hyperscale cloud providers like Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Oracle are planning to invest trillions in AI data centers over the coming years. However, calculations based on analyst projections for 2025-2030 reveal a concerning math problem: expected capital expenditure growth far outpaces projected revenue growth. Even under an extremely optimistic scenario of zero costs, the implied return on investment for most of these tech giants (except Amazon) is deeply negative. This suggests that the current trajectory could lead to one of history's largest shareholder value destruction events. The piece outlines two potential escapes: AI generating vastly more revenue than currently anticipated—a near-impossible task—or a significant cutback in the planned investment splurge. The latter scenario could trigger a domino effect, severely impacting the entire tech supply chain (from Nvidia to TSMC), potentially pushing the U.S. economy into recession, and causing a major stock market downturn. The author suggests upcoming high-profile IPOs by companies like OpenAI and Anthropic might represent a transfer of risk from early investors to public market participants. While the peak of the hype cycle might sustain investment through 2026, the fundamental financial dilemma remains unresolved, setting the stage for a potential market correction in 2027 or 2028, similar to the years following Alan Greenspan's "irrational exuberance" warning.

marsbit5h ago

AI Bubble Warning: AI Investments Are Negative Returns for Most Tech Giants

marsbit5h ago

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

The article "From Token to Machine Labor: AI is Evolving from Tool to 'Worker'" argues that the business model for AI is shifting beyond simply selling computational resources (tokens, GPU hours) or model access. Instead, a new "machine labor market" is emerging, where the core economic transaction is the purchase of economically useful work directly performed by software. The central thesis is that AI pricing will evolve through four stages: 1) raw tokens, 2) standardized LLM capabilities (e.g., text generation), 3) industry-specific labor markets (e.g., legal review, radiology), and finally 4) a programmable results market where tasks like resolving a support ticket are bid on and priced based on outcome. In this future, buyers will care less about *which* model or GPU completes a task and more about whether the work meets specified standards for accuracy, latency, and cost. This transition reframes the impact of AI on human labor. Rather than simple replacement, it suggests a re-coordination where machines handle standardized, verifiable work, freeing humans for roles involving oversight, context management, responsibility, and final judgment. In some cases, this "last 1%" of human input becomes more valuable as it enables the other 99% to be automated. Furthermore, as AI reduces the cost of work, demand may expand, creating larger markets (e.g., 24/7 customer service) rather than just cheaper versions of existing ones. The article concludes that while infrastructure (GPUs, models, tokens) remains crucial upstream, the market is converging on a simpler, tradeable unit: machine labor that can be defined, measured, priced, and procured based on contractible specifications.

marsbit5h ago

From Tokens to Machine Labor: AI is Shifting from Tool to "Worker"

marsbit5h ago

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

The price of Xiaomi's MiMo-V2.5 series API has been permanently reduced by up to 99%, specifically for the "Input (Cache Hit)" cost, which covers users re-reading historical context in long conversations. MiMo's head, Luo Fuli, published a detailed technical blog to clarify that this drastic price cut stems from genuine engineering breakthroughs, not a marketing stunt or a simple price war. The core of the achievement lies in six key engineering optimizations. First, the model architecture adopts a Hybrid Sliding Window Attention (SWA), reducing the memory footprint (KVCache) to 1/7th of a traditional model. Second, a dual-pool memory management system actually utilizes these savings, allowing a single GPU to handle over 5 times more concurrent users. Third, an upgraded prefix caching mechanism achieves a cache hit rate of 93-95% for repeated reads, meaning most such requests bypass GPU computation entirely. Fourth, a self-developed distributed cache (GCache) utilizes idle SSD space on existing GPU servers, eliminating additional storage costs. Fifth, an intelligent scheduling system (LLM-Router) efficiently routes requests to maximize cache reuse and performance. Sixth, Multi-Token Prediction (MTP) accelerates the model's text generation ("output") side. Together, these systemic optimizations dramatically lower the real computational cost per request, enabling the 99% price reduction for cached inputs while reportedly maintaining positive gross margins. Luo Fuli's disclosure aims to shift the narrative from "price war" to a demonstration of substantive AI engineering progress.

marsbit7h ago

Xiaomi MiMo's 99% Price Cut is Not Marketing! Luo Fuli Posts on X to Refute Critics

marsbit7h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures

Hot Articles

Discussions

Welcome to the HTX Community. Here, you can stay informed about the latest platform developments and gain access to professional market insights. Users' opinions on the price of ETH (ETH) are presented below.

活动图片

Top Questions

Hot Categoriesright-arrow

Hot Tagsright-arrow