稳定币将控制15%的美国国债市场?专家说…

币界网Publicado em 2024-08-22Última atualização em 2024-08-22

币界网报道:
    稳定币可能是美国国债(债券市场)的主要参与者。根据Bitwise高管的说法,稳定币在美国国债中的持股比例可能会增长到15%。

美国国债已成为大多数稳定币发行人最青睐的备用资产。鉴于其安全性和流动性,Tether和Circle等发行商已成为市场上的关键参与者,为发行的每一个稳定币代币提供1:1的支持。

数字资产管理公司Bitwise的投资策略师Juan Leon表示,稳定币持有的美国国债可能会从目前的1%增长到15%。

稳定币目前持有约1%的美国国债,但很快可能会增长到15%,使其跻身前三大持有者之列

稳定币:不是“小鲸鱼?”

上述Bitwise前景是对彭博社最近一份报告的反应,该报告淡化了稳定币在美国国债市场的重要性。

根据该报告,稳定币对市场1%的控制意味着发行人是“小鲸鱼”,其影响力不如其他债券市场参与者。

然而,Leon指出,数字经济正以3倍的速度增长,美国稳定币框架可能会加速这一领域的发展。

她补充说,稳定币在几年内从0美元增长到1700亿美元,当美国在2025年通过稳定币法案时,可能会更快地增长到1万亿美元。

稳定币的使用量正以指数级速度增长,这意味着从1700亿美元到1T美元的增长速度将快于从0美元到1700亿美元的增长。以1万亿美元的价格,稳定币购买国库券将使10只最大的货币市场基金相形见绌,并将使它们跻身前三大持有者之列(8000多亿美元)

美国投资银行巨头Cantor Fitzgerald的董事长霍华德·卢特尼克(Howard Lutnick)呼应了莱昂的观点。Lutnick称赞Tether通过选择美国国债作为备用来帮助偿还美国债务。

Tether通过将数字美元USDT交到世界各地新兴市场的人们手中,将这一点提升到了一个新的水平。由于USDT由数百亿美元的美国国债支持,全球3亿USDT钱包持有者正在帮助我们为债务融资

Lekker Capital的加密货币对冲创始人Quinn Thompson指出,Lutnick对Tether的公开支持预示着可能的“变化”

根据Coingecko的数据,截至撰写本文时,稳定币的市值为1695亿美元,Tether的USDT以1170亿美元领先,其次是Circle的USDC,为348亿美元。

Leituras Relacionadas

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbitHá 2h

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbitHá 2h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbitHá 2h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 2h

Trading

Spot
活动图片