Инвестор Maelstrom потерял почти половину вложений в Pantera Early-Stage Token Fund

cryptonews.ruPublicado em 2025-11-16Última atualização em 2025-11-16

Акшат Вайдья, партнер фонда Maelstrom, связанного с Артуром Хейсом, рассказал о значительных потерях, понесенных в результате инвестиций в Pantera Early-Stage Token Fund. Согласно опубликованному отчету, вложенные им $100 000 за 4 года снизились на 50%. На счету осталось $56 054 по состоянию на конец сентября 2025 года. Несмотря на то что курс биткоина за тот же период вырос более чем в 2 раза, фонд показал отрицательную доходность.

Согласно отчету Pantera, месячная прибыль инвестора составила $1766 при доходности 3,25%, однако годовой результат остался отрицательным — минус 6,08%. Снижение капитала связано с комиссией за управление в размере 3% и сборами за успех в 30%, что, по словам Вайди, нивелировало потенциальные доходы от успешных проектов.

Инвестор подчеркнул: за период участия фонд не продемонстрировал результативности, сопоставимой с ростом рынка. По его словам, даже при успешных сделках в секторе, приносящих 20–75-кратные прибыли, общая структура затрат сделала участие LP (ограниченных партнеров) экономически невыгодным.

Вайдья назвал текущее состояние ранних криптовалютных венчурных фондов признаком системной перегруженности. Он отметил, что большинство таких проектов стали слишком большими для ограниченного числа качественных стартапов, что снижает эффективность инвестиций и повышает риск недоходности.

Он также призвал институционалов искать более масштабируемые и устойчивые возможности для размещения капитала. По его мнению, сектор ранних токенов и seed-инвестиций в криптостартапы перестал обеспечивать пропорциональные риску доходы, а прежние модели венчурных фондов требуют пересмотра в условиях зрелости рынка. Maelstrom, основанный Артуром Хейсом, ранее заявлял о фокусе на долгосрочных инвестициях в инфраструктуру Web3 и DeFi. Однако, как показывает пример Вайдьи, даже опытные LP сталкиваются с трудностями при выборе фондов.

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 1h

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

marsbitHá 1h

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 1h

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbitHá 1h

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbitHá 1h

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbitHá 1h

Trading

Spot
活动图片