TON生态Meme币DOGS火爆全网 只需TG电报就能领取空投

金色财经Publicado em 2024-07-11Última atualização em 2024-07-11

来源:币界网

作者:Web3嗅观察

 

昨天新出的Meme“金狗”代币DOGS,疯狂传播刷屏,社群,推特KOL和TG到处是这个DOGS的bot 邀请链接。该项目到底什么来头?怎么领取空投?本文给您详细解读。

Telegram &TON生态新成员——Meme币DOGS通过电报领空投、邀请用户机制等,其上线不到24 小时,便迅速达到了一百万以上用户。截止目前,DOGS的TG频道已经突破175万人。这个搭载在TON 和Telegram 上的项目,用户增长速度惊人。

 56lsW4CXmtXwVOKVfyAB1s8wPveCvtSwT500KBIt.png 

DOGS利用其强大的电报“病毒传播”空投模式,目前热度仍在持续升温中。DOGS的黑白狗形象灵感源自TON的创始人Pavel Durov制作的吉祥物Spotty。官方称,DOGS 是最具Telegram 本土特色的Meme币,旨在将Spotty 作为吉祥物代表的精神和文化,带入加密货币的世界中,创造出一个有趣、由社群驱动的、独特的新项目。

rRLGsiKKNGTTylkuXQmgOqa0FULS9mYVQbeQ5k0G.png 

无成本、无门槛参与领取DOGS空投

DOGS 空投可以说是专门给电报用户准备的,只要有电报账号就可以领取,玩法简单粗暴。

目前,参与DOGS空投非常简单,用户只需加入DOGS 的Telegram Bot频道,该Bot 会根据用户的TG 帐户资料(如使用年限、是否为Premium 会员等)空投DOGS 代币。

机器人会自动分析你的TG电报账号,根据注册时间、活跃度来给你账号评级,再根据等级分发积分。另外,开通了Premium 的账号还有额外积分奖励。通过邀请朋友加入也能获得额外的积分。

据小编实测,绝大部分用户都拿800-3000左右积分,例如,注册1年的电报账号,加入频道后可以获得990积分,注册 4 年的电报账号,可以获得 3000积分左右。

WMbcNheirMZ6qZm59GRCsoklJQuLiwfwn0tkE4FP.png

然而,这些代币积分目前还只是数字,未来是否会有价值还有待观察。如果想赚取更多的DOGS,可以通过邀请更多新人来获得,这也是其病毒传播迅速的原因之一。

需要提醒的是,目前这些只是积分,并不能立即兑换成代币,具体的兑换比例尚未公开。关于DOGS积分如何兑换成代币,以及更多的玩法细节,我们将持续关注。预计到时候电报用户可能需要注册一个TON链的钱包,然而充值TON以申领代币。目前这些细节未知。

TON生态Meme币的再度破圈

由于TON依托于Telegram庞大的用户基础(超过9亿活跃用户)和强大的社交网络效应,其社区和生态发展迅猛。今年以来,TON链的成长态势显著,其总锁仓量(TVL)不断创下新高。

据DefiLlama数据显示,截至7月11日,TON网络的TVL锁仓量已突破7.14亿美元。TON(Toncoin)代币的市值已达到179亿美元,全球市值排名第八。

0ATtP47Sjkv0IcCH9xHYWwZTBfv5GfWemoTfj9Wf.png 

近期,人们对TON生态系统再度破圈的期望主要集中在Memecoin上。在这轮行情中,Memecoin在市场动荡中的优质弹性,以及Notcoin引领的TON生态出圈效应,吸引了大量散户押注Meme+TON这一组合。今年,这两个强势概念的结合不断引发市场遐想。 

 FxzV2l1iFA0bZ8FII9ZRPEQdw0R8CQqNC5x2yRAQ.png

虽然TON生态系统中还有一些Meme项目,如FISH和REDO等,但它们尚未实现破圈和带来显著的财富效应。TON的基因和特色更注重小游戏、支付应用和跨境电商等Web2和Web2.5领域,而在DeFi和Meme领域则相对薄弱。

在TON生态缺乏代表性Meme项目的情况下,病毒传播的黑白狗DOGS似乎有潜力成为依赖Telegram快速传播的文化符号。在市场短期重新洗牌的时期,这样的Meme项目无疑值得每个玩家给予更多关注。 

Leituras Relacionadas

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbitHá 7m

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbitHá 7m

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbitHá 14m

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbitHá 14m

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight NewsHá 16m

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight NewsHá 16m

Trading

Spot
活动图片