山寨季姗姗来迟?四大信号或预示轮动已悄然开启

比推Publicado em 2025-09-01Última atualização em 2025-09-01

作者:BitMEX

原文标题:虽迟但到的山寨季:四大信号揭示早期轮动已启动


不是梗图,是数据在说话。我们判断一轮早期山寨季正在展开,理由很简单:

  • 市场结构: TOTAL3(剔除 BTC/ETH 的山寨总市值)相对两大主流币企稳;即便没有 BTC/ETH 的放量突破,市场宽度也在扩散。

  • 领涨方向: SOL/ETH 上行、资金费率温和、强平不多——真买盘,不是挤空。

  • 催化因素: 美国政府推进区块链应用,商务部将 GDP、PCE 等官方数据上链(经 Chainlink/Pyth),平台币阶段性重估等基本面把“场外”资金带回场内。

  • ETF 资金面: ETF 仍净流入但明显降温;ETH 相关 DAT(币股)的市值/净值比(m/NAV)偏低 → 增发吸引力下降,可能给山寨留出更多空间。

信号 1|市场结构与 TOTAL3 的韧性

过去 5 天的走势,更像山寨季开端而不是“只涨主流”的轮动。TOTAL3 在 BTC、ETH 震荡时未创新低;衍生品侧保持有序:资金费率接近中性、被动平仓有限——指向现货主导的真实需求。对交易员而言,重点很明确:不等 BTC/ETH 创新高,广度也能扩散;在配对交易里挑选山寨,性价比更高。

信号 2| SOL跑赢ETH,开始轮动

SOL/ETH 上行同时资金费率平稳、没有明显挤空痕迹,说明是主动配置的真实买盘。历史上,这常常领先于高流动中盘和功能赛道的配对轮动;同时提供更低 β的表达:做多 SOL / 做空 ETH。

信号 3|主流币“稳,但不带节奏”

来源:https://www.strategicethreserve.xyz/

主流币的基本面依旧正面,但 ETH、BTC 的边际动能在下降:回调有承接、上攻缺追涨,难以直接推高新高。

以太坊币股 为例,m/NAV 多在 1.0–1.1×,跑输现货 ETH,难以支撑继续“增发+被动现货买入”的链条。我们的判断是:主流抄底盘足、追高盘弱,边际风险下沉到有事件催化的山寨更合理。

信号 4|可落地的区块链应用在推进

政策与基础设施两端都有硬催化:美国商务部宣布将实际 GDP、PCE 等官方系列上链(经 Chainlink、Pyth,覆盖 Arbitrum、Avalanche、Base 等),权威且可机读的数据为数据驱动型 DeFi、代币化风控、事件市场打开新场景。

同时,区块链为底层的应用也获得了主流机构的认可和采用,Numerai(以 $NMR 激励、AI 驱动的对冲基金)获 摩根大通资管 5 亿美元策略容量承诺。

平台币阶段性走强:OKB 受代币模型调整提振,CRO 因特朗普家族基金投资等相关消息面而受关注。以上进展都不依赖 BTC/ETH 创新高——这正是山寨季早期的典型特征。

结论|交易框架

当前画面:主流有序、ETF 净流入降温、DAT 溢价偏薄、硬催化把资金往下游带。

策略上继续坚持配对优先、新闻优先:


说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Leituras Relacionadas

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.

marsbitHá 11m

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

marsbitHá 11m

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.

marsbitHá 14m

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

marsbitHá 14m

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.

marsbitHá 16m

The Five Paradoxes of Artificial Intelligence

marsbitHá 16m

Trading

Spot
活动图片