积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

Odaily星球日报Publicado em 2024-02-06Última atualização em 2024-02-06

Resumo

代币市盈率低,对应市场快速扩张,Whales Market前景可期。

原创 | Odaily星球日报

作者 | 南枳

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

通常而言,热门大体量项目空投,在宣布空投和实际发放之间往往间隔较长一段时间,例如近期的 TIA、JUP 和 DYM。为提前锁定利润或赚取定价差,许多用户会选择提前进行 OTC 交易。但通过个人或小型组织构建的场外平台交易,用户往往面临着安全性问题——OTC 交易通常由买卖双方向中间人双押,资金在正式成交之前都存放于中间人处,存在着中间人跑路风险。

Whales Market 通过推出一系列交易平台来解决这个问题,支持热门代币上线交易所前的盘前交易,以及 Solana 生态代币 OTC 交易。买卖双方执行链上点对点交易,保证金锁定在智能合约中,仅在交易成功结算后释放给各方。这简化了交易过程,还极大地降低了因欺诈行为而造成的财务损失风险。

另一方面,在 Blast 证明了积分模式能够引入大量的 TVL 之后,积分制开始大行其道。空投的热门板块,如 Restaking、Solana 生态、BTC L2生态等,大部分项目都引入了积分制度,但积分如何定价,积分制协议如何选择,是多数用户的痛点,并且定价问题也同样适用于未上线交易所的代币。另一方面,距离这些项目预期的空投日期仍有较长距离,对此 Whale Market 推出了积分交易市场,同样以挂单+点对点交易的形式进行,提供定价场所,同时满足用户的提前锁定利润需求。

各交易市场机制和费用解析

盘前市场

Whales Market 的盘前市场(Pre Market)允许用户交易即将上线交易所的热门代币,如 ALT、JUP、MANTA 都曾上线过该市场,目前可以交易 DYM 和 AEVO。

买卖流程

用户能够主动挂单或者承接要约(Offer)。主动挂单中,用户设置购买或出售的代币、价格、数量以及是否可以部分成交(Partial Fill),然后等待对手方接受要约。若非部分成交而是完全成交,意味着只能有一个对手方直接将整张挂单吃下。

部分成交情况下,挂单方可以选择提前结束单子,按照已成交部分进行后续交易,未成交部分的保证金则相应退回。

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

结算机制

Whale Market 的机制要求,在代币 TGE 后的 24 小时内,代币卖方必须进行成交单结算,完成结算后退还保证金。若卖家拒绝兑付,则将扣除其保证金并支付给买家。

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

交易费用

当订单成功结算或者卖家跑路时,将按照订单金额收取 2.5% 的交易费用。

当用户提前取消挂单时,将对未成交部分收取 0.5% 的费用。

OTC 市场

链上代币尤其是 Meme 币,添加的 LP 池通常不会太大,与市值存在数十倍的差距,大额订单若直接通过 DEX 交易,将产生较大滑点。

对此,Whales Market 推出了 OTC 市场,挑选了一批 LP 池大于 30 万美元的代币,允许用户通过挂单形式进行点对点交易,避免流动性不足的滑点问题。

在 OTC 市场中,平台收取 0.1% 的挂单费用和 0.1% 的交易费用。

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

积分市场

基于前文所述的积分交易需求,Whales Market 推出了积分交易市场,交易形式与盘前市场、OTC 市场一致。目前已上线了 Magic Eden、HyperLiquid、EigenLayer、friend.tech 等四个协议的积分交易。根据官方公告,后续将上线的协议还包括 Solana 生态的 Drift、MarginFi、Kamino,以及 Blast。

积分市场同样通过挂单交易进行,市场会列出买卖挂单的盘口均价,供用户参考和定价。虽有已成交单列表,但尚未提供进一步的价格分析工具。

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

费用方面积分市场与盘前市场一致,当订单成功结算或者卖家跑路时,将按照订单金额收取 2.5% 的交易费用。当用户提前取消挂单时,将对未成交部分收取 0.5% 的费用。

但积分市场存在一个潜在问题,对于未上线代币而言,是明确的 1: 1 兑付。但积分与项目实际代币的关系不一定成线性关系,例如用户购买了某项目的 100 积分,但实际空投时项目方设定低于 500 积分均不空投,这种情况下应由谁承担损失,并没有定论和先例。

项目代币解析

Whales Market 的代币总量共 1 亿枚,其中:

  • 65% 用于激励,四年线性释放,由 DAO 进行代币治理,确保收入大于通胀速度;

  • 7.5% 用于提供流动性,其中 2.5% 预留给 CEX 上市;

  • 团队占比 9.5% ,锁定 9 个月后,线性释放 36 个月;

  • 其余部分合计 18% 。

积分制协议太多,难以定价和抉择?Whales Market这样解决

交易费用分发

各个市场的每笔交易都会收取费用,费用以如下比例进行分发:

  • 60% 分配给 WHALES 代币质押人;

  • 20% 用于支付持续性的开发费用;

  • 10 % 用于回购和销毁代币;

  • 10 % 分配给 LOOT 代币持有者和 xLOOT 持有者。

数据成绩和项目前景

代币方面,据 Dune 统计数据显示,已有超 1000 万枚 WHALES 进行了质押,占流通量的 62.7% 。而当前 WHALES 已达 3 USDT,一个月上涨约 100 倍,展现了投资者对 WHALES 的长期信心。

协议方面,Whales Market 总交易量达 3330 万美元,Solana 上已捕获费用 83.7 万美元,以太坊捕获费用 4.6 万美元,相较代币当前的 4880 万美元市值,量级上相差不大,考虑到代币仅上线一个多月,盈利能力较为可观。

据 Whales Market 所披露路线图,后续将上线 Runes 市场和白名单市场,并正在进行 CEX 上市准备。考虑到积分市场还将持续扩大,Whales Market 前景可期。

Leituras Relacionadas

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

In mid-June, three seemingly independent industry events—the compliance-driven throttling of Fable 5, the open-sourcing of GLM-5.2, and the leaked release timeline for GPT-5.6—are pushing the global AI industry toward a watershed moment. These shifts signal a fundamental restructuring of the industry's underlying logic. First, **"usability" has substantially overtaken "advanced capabilities"** as the primary weight, pushing the global large language model (LLM) supply chain into a "dual-track" phase of controlled closed-source and local open-source coexistence. Second, **the competitive moats of closed-source giants are shifting**. Their technical focus is moving from "language intelligence" toward "spatial intelligence (world models)"—a domain heavily reliant on computing power. Third, faced with常态化 transnational compliance risks, **a "model-agnostic" decoupled design has become a survival necessity for application-layer developers to maintain business continuity.** The article details how Anthropic's Fable 5, despite its advanced engineering feats, was restricted for non-U.S. citizens within 72 hours of launch, highlighting how geopolitical compliance can instantly limit even the most advanced models. In response, the open-source camp, exemplified by Zhipu AI's MIT-licensed GLM-5.2, is gaining market share by offering stable performance improvements and significant cost advantages (up to 70% savings for enterprises), while achieving full adaptation with domestic semiconductor platforms. Meanwhile, closed-source leaders like OpenAI are pivoting. The anticipated GPT-5.6 reportedly shifts focus from language to spatial intelligence and world models, aiming to rebuild a generational gap in areas like 3D understanding, simulation, and industrial design that demand immense compute. The core conclusion is that the LLM supply chain's logic has changed. Enterprises must now evaluate infrastructure based on a composite of technical performance and policy compliance. For developers, complete reliance on a single closed-source API poses unacceptable risk. Implementing a truly model-agnostic architecture—enabling swift switches to compliant, locally deployable open-source alternatives—is no longer just good practice but a fundamental baseline for business continuity.

marsbitHá 2h

GPT-5.6 Countdown: Abandon the Illusion of a Single API, Computational Iteration Can't Outpace a Single Page of Compliance

marsbitHá 2h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

The article discusses the ongoing "token subsidy war" among AI giants like OpenAI and Anthropic, questioning whether it's nearing its end. It reveals that current AI subscription prices are heavily subsidized, with some plans offering tokens at up to 70 times the actual cost to attract and retain heavy users, especially developers and enterprises. This strategy mirrors past internet-era subsidy battles, but with a key difference: AI tokens lack "lock-in" effects. Unlike ride-hailing or food delivery apps, users can easily switch between AI providers as APIs become standardized, making it difficult for companies to raise prices post-subsidy. The piece highlights a structural asymmetry in the competition. Giants like Google, with massive advertising revenue, can afford to subsidize tokens indefinitely, akin to using "tokens as a weapon." In contrast, venture-backed companies like OpenAI and Anthropic face pressure to become profitable, especially as they approach IPO. The article cites Google Ventures founder Bill Maris, who suggests Google could slash token prices by 80%, putting immense pressure on competitors. Two potential endgames are presented: the "internet service" model (subsidize, monopolize, then raise prices) and the "utility" model (tokens become a standardized, low-margin commodity like electricity). Given the low switching costs, the latter seems more likely. The competition may not have a single winner but could instead accelerate AI's evolution into a foundational, infrastructure-level technology, akin to a public utility. For now, users continue to benefit from heavily subsidized token costs.

marsbitHá 2h

Is the 'Token Subsidy War' Among AI Giants Almost Over?

marsbitHá 2h

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

"Beyond the Pitch: The Profit Game Around the World Cup" The FIFA World Cup transcends being a sporting spectacle, evolving into a massive global arena for speculation and profit-seeking. The 2026 tournament has amplified this dynamic, creating a multi-layered ecosystem of financial opportunism alongside the football. **Prediction markets** have surged into the mainstream. Platforms like Polymarket and Kalshi saw trading volumes for World Cup contracts soar, attracting new users with their financial trading model and high-profile, chain-based wealth stories that overshadow traditional sports betting in terms of growth and narrative. However, **traditional sportsbooks** remain the dominant force, leveraging established user habits, legal markets, and comprehensive product offerings to handle the vast majority of speculative wagers, with projections suggesting record-breaking betting volumes. Capital markets also react. **"Concept stocks"** in countries like South Korea and Japan experience volatile price swings based on team performance and anticipated fan spending on items like chicken, beer, and viewing parties, effectively becoming a stock market reflecting fan sentiment. The **ticket resale market** has become a sophisticated arena for arbitrage. Prices fluctuate wildly based on team draws and star power, with sellers sometimes listing tickets they don't yet own in a practice akin to short-selling, while FIFA's own "Right to Buy" tokens add another layer of speculative trading. **Collectibles and merchandise** offer another avenue. Panini sticker albums, with their inherent scarcity and nostalgic value, can become high-value collectibles. Limited-edition or locally themed jerseys command significant premiums on secondary markets, and even counterfeit vendors profit from fans' desire for affordable match-day identity. The **cryptocurrency** space has seen a frenzy of speculative, unauthorized World Cup-themed meme coins on chains like Solana. These tokens, often exploiting team names and player imagery, experience extreme pump-and-dump cycles, creating stories of massive gains for a few early entrants and steep losses for many others. Finally, an entire industry thrives on **providing information and tools** to other speculators. Developers create platforms like SeatSidekick to track ticket inventory and prices, while paid Telegram groups and subscriptions sell betting tips and predictions, monetizing the widespread desire for an informational edge. In essence, the World Cup has become a compressed, global laboratory for speculation. While the games determine champions on the field, a parallel, complex network of financial transactions—spanning prediction contracts, bets, stocks, tickets, collectibles, crypto, and information services—settles its own scores in the global market.

marsbitHá 3h

Beyond the Stadium: The Profitable Games Surrounding the World Cup

marsbitHá 3h

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片