Cardano 大型更新来了 六月硬分叉会带动ada上涨吗?

金色财经Publicado em 2024-07-08Última atualização em 2024-07-08

老牌公链Cardano 创办人Charles Hoskinson 上周日(9)在社群平台X 上宣布,Cardano Node 可能会在本月达到9.0 版本,这意味着Cardano 已准备好进行Chang 硬分叉升级,现在正在等待70% 的权益池运营商(SPO)安装新节点。ungs93FQlxgp2qiRzNmzQnJQZ7jWTVtkoi8zN8y2.png

值得一提的是,本次硬分叉后Cardano 将进入路线图的最后一个阶段「伏尔泰(Voltaire)」。

什么是硬分叉?

硬分叉是一种区块链技术的更新方式,它会产生一条与原来区块链不兼容的新链。简单来说,硬分叉就像是给区块链系统做了一次大升级,这次升级会让新系统和旧系统无法再相互沟通。

例如,比特币在2017 年因扩容争议经历了硬分叉,分裂出比特币现金(BCH)。以太坊在2022 年9 月完成了「The Merge」升级,透过合并信标链和主网的硬分叉,将以太坊的共识机制从工作量证明(PoW)转换为权益证明(PoS)。

Cardano 路线图五大阶段

根据官方显示,Cardano 路线图共有五大发展阶段,也称为「时代」,都是以艺文和科学领域的著名人物命名,依序分别是「拜伦(BYRON)」、「雪莱(Shelley) 」、「高更(Goguen)」、「芭蕉(Basho)」和「伏尔泰(Voltaire)」。

其中,前三个阶段实现了基本的区块链、去中心化和智慧合约,Basho 时代重点是扩展区块链。最后Voltaire 时代则是为Cardano 添加治理、投票和财务管理功能。

另外Hoskinson 还表示,此次硬分叉将会是Cardano 历史上最重要的里程碑:

这是Cardano 历史上乃至整个产业最重要的里程碑。 Cardano 将成为一个遍布全球、拥有数百万居民的去中心化文明。我们将拥有最先进的区块链治理系统、年度预算、金库以及整个社群的智慧来指导我们。

HphSRPZzvSrPANMS43Us8DJOTH7Zjp8AQCI31Svr.png

ADA 近24 小时下跌1.9%

或受近期加密货币市场下跌趋势影响,Chang 硬分叉升级的利好消息似乎未能体现在Cardano 原生代币ADA 的价格上,截稿前报0.433 美元,近24 小时下跌1.9%,近一周跌幅达5.8% 。至于后续ADA 价格是否会随着升级消息发酵而增长,值得我们持续关注。

8wLEhQsoZ6mQVVpIUEVFWkB8WZ1NwUYE939i0iXX.png

Leituras Relacionadas

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbitHá 17m

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbitHá 17m

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight NewsHá 23m

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight NewsHá 23m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbitHá 39m

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbitHá 39m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbitHá 45m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHá 45m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片