Исследователи CryptoQuant: крипторынок готовится к бурному росту в четвертом квартале 2025 года

cryptonews.ruPubblicato 2025-06-17Pubblicato ultima volta 2025-09-18

Сентябрь 2025 года оказался относительно спокойным для крипторынка, но аналитики считают, что ситуация изменится уже в октябре. Последний квартал года традиционно сопровождается повышенной волатильностью, и многие ожидают снижение доминирования биткоина. При этом котировки BTC и ETH, по прогнозам, будут обновлять исторические максимумы. Эксперты отмечают, что сезонность в крипторынке остается важным фактором, усиливающим восходящую динамику. Однако они предупреждают, что уже в 1-м квартале 2026 года возможна масштабная коррекция.

Одним из ключевых индикаторов для оценки потенциала биткоина называют модель Energy Value Model (EVM), разработанную Чарльзом Эдвардсом из Capriole Investments. Согласно расчетам, справедливая цена биткоина находится в диапазоне от $145 000 до $168 000. Сейчас актив торгуется около $115 000, что на 20% ниже расчетного уровня. Если рынок подтянется к «энергетической стоимости», то уже в ближайшие месяцы биткоин может достичь $150 000 и даже приблизиться к $200 000.

Дополнительным подтверждением оптимистичного прогноза служит показатель Estimated Leverage Ratio (ELR), используемый CryptoQuant. В июне 2025 года этот показатель снижался до 0,18, однако в августе и сентябре он стабилизировался на уровне 0,2. Рост ELR отражает активное использование заемных средств трейдерами и усиливает ожидания позитивного движения рынка. Это говорит о том, что участники готовы увеличивать риски в расчете на рост цен.

В целом аналитики считают, что четвертый квартал станет сильным периодом для криптовалют. Биткоин имеет все шансы выйти на новые максимумы благодаря сочетанию сезонности, фундаментальной модели справедливой цены и повышенной активности инвесторов. Однако рынок остается чувствительным к глобальным экономическим условиям, поэтому сценарий масштабной коррекции в начале 2026 года нельзя исключать.

Letture associate

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

Jameson Lopp's analysis concludes that BIP-110, a proposal to restrict arbitrary data (like inscriptions) on Bitcoin, failed due to economic and technical realities, not moral arguments. The proposal, championed by Luke Dashjr and others, aimed to "cleanse" the chain but never reached its 55% miner activation threshold. Upon its forced signaling deadline in August, only the OCEAN pool (with ~1% hash rate) supported it, creating a short-lived fork that quickly died as miners faced unredeemable block rewards. Lopp's earlier predictions about its economic infeasibility were proven correct. Technically, BIP-110 was flawed; workarounds to embed data compliant with its rules were demonstrated almost immediately, proving it couldn't achieve its stated goal. The debate often devolved into moralistic rhetoric, with supporters accusing opponents of supporting child exploitation material—a tactic Lopp criticizes as ineffective for building consensus. Lopp argues Bitcoin is driven by incentives and game theory, not morality. Past forks like Bitcoin Cash promised economic benefits, while BIP-110 offered only restrictions and reduced miner fees, gaining no substantial support from major economic players. He predicts the "puritans" behind the failed fork will continue complaining but their new chain will remain insignificant. The episode reaffirms that attempting to censor data on a permissionless, anti-censorship network like Bitcoin is a futile battle.

marsbit5 min fa

Jameson Lopp's BIP-110 Postmortem: Bitcoin Is Driven by Game Theory, Not Morality

marsbit5 min fa

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

Securitize's first quarterly report post-IPO reveals a paradox: while its tokenized assets under management hit a record $4.3 billion (up 16% YoY) and platform trading volume surged 147% to $5.3 billion, total revenue fell 5% to $14.4 million. Tokenization revenue specifically dropped ~12% to $7.8 million, leading to an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5.5 million. CFO Francisco Flores explained that most trading volume is not yet monetized, with the majority of tokenization revenue still coming from one-time projects like new protocol integrations. In contrast, asset servicing revenue, a more recurring stream, grew slightly to $6.6 million. The company has lowered its full-year revenue guidance to $70-$80 million from an initial projection of $110 million. Industry experts note this highlights a structural challenge for the tokenization sector. Scaling assets on-chain doesn't automatically scale a profitable business model. Current implementations often rely on costly, customized projects for each new asset or jurisdiction. The future, they argue, lies in building standardized infrastructure that generates recurring "infrastructure revenue" from post-issuance activities like compliance, distributions, and secondary trading—similar to enterprise software. Analysts caution against misinterpreting high trading volumes as indicative of a mature fee-based model, as Securitize's broad volume metric includes many non-monetized actions. The key test for the industry is whether adding billions in new assets can generate sustainable revenue without constant new custom projects.

marsbit8 min fa

Tokenization Scale Soars to $4.3 Billion, But Why Did Securitize Incur a $5.5 Million Loss?

marsbit8 min fa

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

**Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence** Artificial intelligence (AI) is an era filled with paradoxes, which we navigate as we advance. **1. The Prediction Paradox** AI experts, from pioneers like Marvin Minsky to contemporary figures like Geoffrey Hinton and Demis Hassabis, have a history of inaccurate forecasts regarding AI's capabilities and timelines, such as achieving human-level machine intelligence or surpassing radiologists. Predictions about Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) vary wildly between optimistic entrepreneurs and skeptical academics, highlighting the inherent unpredictability of technological futures. **2. The Employment Quantification Paradox** Despite numerous studies from institutions like the OECD, IMF, and McKinsey attempting to quantify AI's impact on jobs, estimates of affected employment range from 0.4% to 67%, revealing vast inconsistencies. This paradox arises because isolating AI's effect from other economic, social, and technological factors is virtually impossible, and forecasts depend on static assumptions about a dynamically evolving technology. **3. The Productivity Paradox** While AI is a transformative General Purpose Technology, significant productivity growth has not yet materialized in major economies like the EU and has only matched historical averages in the US. This disconnect between rapid innovation and slow productivity gains, reminiscent of the "Solow Paradox" from the computer age, is often explained by time lags. History shows it takes decades for such technologies to diffuse and trigger complementary innovations that boost productivity. **4. The Data Value Paradox** Data is hailed as the "new oil" and critical for AI, yet its economic value is paradoxical. Its worth is realized only in use, not in straightforward trade. Despite policy emphasis and initiatives for data asset recognition on corporate balance sheets in China, the monetized value remains negligible—accounting for only about 0.06% of major telecom operators' total assets—highlighting the gap between perceived utility and financial valuation. **5. The Industrial Revolution Paradox** For decades, nearly every major new technology, from the internet and nanotechnology to blockchain and now AI, has been proclaimed as the driver of a "Fourth Industrial Revolution." This constant reassignment suggests prior labels were premature. True industrial revolutions are typically identified in hindsight, not in real-time. Furthermore, the coexistence of such a proclaimed transformative revolution with ongoing economic crises would be historically anomalous. Whether AI truly defines a new industrial revolution remains a narrative for the future to decide.

marsbit10 min fa

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbit10 min fa

Experts Warn of Mass Crypto Hacks Using AI Agents

Experts warn that AI agents could dramatically lower the cost and scale of attacks against cryptocurrency holders. Speaking at the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, industry figures noted that automation allows malicious actors to simultaneously search for vulnerabilities in wallets, passwords, and networks across a vast number of potential victims. Ryan Kirkly, co-founder and CEO of Global Settlement Network, criticized the industry for often viewing autonomous agents only as beneficial tools while underestimating their offensive potential. Data from TRM Labs shows the crypto industry experienced a record 207 hacks in the first half of 2026, causing $972 million in losses, with the number doubling from the same period in 2025. Vice President of Technical Operations at Web3 Foundation, Bill Labun, agreed that the efficiency of autonomous systems also benefits attackers. While defenders like the Ethereum Foundation are using AI agents for security audits, the need for human verification remains high due to false positives. A major concern is granting AI agents direct access to financial tools and personal data. New services like MetaMask's Agent Wallet, which allows AI to manage assets within set limits, introduce risks such as prompt injection attacks. Panelists also highlighted risks from metadata leakage, which can compromise privacy even on private networks, and the unresolved issue of legal liability for an AI agent's autonomous and potentially irreversible actions. Lack of user trust, due to AI's tendency to "hallucinate" or generate incorrect information, was cited as a key barrier to widespread adoption.

cryptonews.ru11 min fa

Experts Warn of Mass Crypto Hacks Using AI Agents

cryptonews.ru11 min fa

Trading

Spot
活动图片