解读Token经济:如何像美联储一样管理、发行Token?

Block unicornPublicado em 2022-08-15Última atualização em 2022-08-15

Resumo

当需求不足时,政府往往会改变政策,鼓励买家多花钱,从而提高整个经济体的生产率,避免长期供应短缺。

在讨论和分析项目tokenomics(代币经济学)时,投资者往往关注代币发行和分配、代币作用和代币供应和解锁时间表,虽然这三个方面很重要,但了解代币化资产和代币经济的基本特征对建设者和投资者都有帮助。

在讨论和分析项目tokenomics(代币经济学)时,投资者往往关注三个主要方面:

1. 代币发行和分配

2. 代币的作用

3. 代币供应和解锁时间表

虽然这三个因素无疑是至关重要的,但了解代币化资产和代币经济的基本特征对建设者和投资者都有帮助。

在深入挖掘这一基本分析之前,我将介绍一下代币经济的概念。很好地理解这个概念,不仅可以让建设者创建可持续的项目和代币经济,还可以帮助投资者制定一个框架来评估市场上项目的内在价值。

代币经济学

全球经济可以分解为更小的次经济体,如国家、组织或个人群体。同样,在每个加密项目中,人们参与“代币经济”,在项目生态系统中进行一系列与商品和服务的生产、消费和贸易相关的活动。

在一个经济体中,每当有人为了换取商品和服务,就会有人获得报酬。一个经济体往往也有自己的规则和约束,以帮助鼓励生态系统内的合作和互惠行为,同样的原则也适用于基于网络的经济学和区块链经济学。

对于专注于生产和销售区块空间的区块链经济,协议的代币政策激励验证者加入,并帮助确保网络安全,以便人们在生态系统内安全的进行交易,而不是通过竞争协议或其他途径。

一个经济体的生产力和可靠性,决定了该经济体的货币相对于其他经济体的价值比较。当一个经济体能够创造并向其他经济体出口商品和服务时,它将增加对其本土货币的需求,并使其在一段时间内比其他经济体的本土货币更有价值。

然而,一个经济体的供给和需求要达到平衡,使经济规模有效增长,是不容易的。根据现代货币理论,这是政府和中央银行干预杠杆、货币政策,以优化供需平衡。

当需求不足时,政府往往会改变政策,鼓励买家多花钱,从而提高整个经济体的生产率,避免长期供应短缺。

同样的原则也适用于加密项目和科技初创公司。通过支付高薪让开发人员开发可扩展的产品,科技初创公司也在投入大量资金来推动需求增长。

对于传统的科技公司或网络Web2.0公司,团队利用筹集到的现金来帮助他们的企业创造产品或获得吸引力,有效做到这一点的公司能够生存下来,并有机会成为世界顶级的科技公司,其他公司则会烧掉他们从投资者筹集到的所有现金,然后失败。

虽然大多数Web 3创业公司使用相同的增长模式,但在如何利用现金来刺激经济方面存在差异。

刺激措施采取代币发行的具体形式,治理团队或协议使用代币政策来鼓励预期的行为。代币接收者可以为投资/实用性目的持有代币,或将其代币卖给公开市场。

如果有一个人在卖东西,交易的另一方就必须有一个买家。因此,市场对代币的需求必须大于销售供应量,以保持代币价格的长期增长。

基本的代币需求

以Ethereum为例,该链的设计是为了激励人们下载服务器软件和运行节点,以帮助保护网络安全,前提是他们能够满足一些要求,如拥有昂贵的GPU(PoW)或质押32个ETH的权益证明(PoS)。在成功验证交易并保持网络安全后,这些验证者会收到代币奖励,他们可以持有或出售。

另一方面,区块链用户相信网络的安全性,并希望在区块链上进行经济活动(交易、部署dapp、建立业务、POS节点),他们将从交易所购买ETH,并用它支付手续费。如果支付手续费的ETH需求增长速度,超过了ETH质押/挖矿奖励的抛售压力,那么该货币就达到了可持续的平衡。

在这种情况下,质押/采矿奖励(包括天然气费)越高,就会有越多的人加入网络,成为验证者,这有助于网络变得更分散,因此也更安全。一旦网络变得更加安全,更多的人会希望在网络上进行交易,从而增加了区块空间的价值和对网络的需求。当然,相对于质押需求,网络安全的增加带来的回报是递减的(网络安全程度增加,意味着更多人加入节点质押挖矿,挖矿奖励就会减少)。因此,治理团队和社区应该跟踪这一轨迹,以便了解何时可以更好将更多资源分配到经济的其他部分。

这种确切的机制适用于其他L1(1层网络)和 L2(2层网络),比特币、Avalanche(AVAX)、Polygon(MATIC)。

支付业务的成本

美国经济是由美联储和美国政府部署的货币和财政政策推动的。货币政策有助于控制市场上的货币供应流动性,而财政政策有助于将额外印制的货币分配给经济中的不同参与者。每当货币供应增长超过经济中对商品和服务的需求时,货币就会失去一些购买力,也就是通货膨胀。

这个概念同样适用于代币经济。只要代币的浮动供应量的增长速度超过对协议产品的需求时,代币就会失去购买力。

由于增加浮动供应量会导致代币失去购买力,那些推动代币政策的人应该对一段时间内发生多少供应膨胀非常谨慎。他们还需要深思熟虑地有效分配该数量的代币,激励目标参与者贡献积极的价值,而不是激励破坏价值和搭便车行为的参与者(就像某些机构,出钱跟投之后,不会有任何贡献)。

以通货膨胀为代价的安全补贴

随着权益证明协议的成功和日益普及,市场上已有数百个不同的项目尝试采用权益证明(POS)机制。很多项目通过较高的代币供应量,来提高质押收益率,以吸引代币投资者,这些投资收益率显然是不可持续的。这些收益率有一个目标,而且只有一个目标: 激励人们不要出售代币。

把庞氏经济学放在一边,让我们分析一下基本的收益率——以质押挖矿的形式为L1网络增加安全和价值。

世界上大多数国家都为军事和国防分配了预算,以加强其领土的安全。当一个国家变得更加稳定和安全时,人们也更愿意在这个经济体内进行经济活动,创造商品和服务。国家安全费用通常由税收和通货膨胀(联邦储备银行印出来的钱,然后作为国债交给政府)资助。

同样,为了使第1层区块链使用和稳定,其代币经济也必须通过发放验证奖励来资助 "安全费用",目前有两个来源支持这些奖励。

1. 来自网络用户的交易费用,可以看作是等价的税收。

2. 大宗奖励或质押奖励(不包括交易费用),作为证券激励新产生或从押注池中释放代币(补贴)。

这自然导致了这样一个问题:一条链的安全支出有多少可以仅由交易/Gas费来支付?换句话说,顶级1层区块链的安全费用有多大一部分是被补贴的?

为了探究这个问题,我们收集了一些数据,如下图所示:

市场上最顶层的第1层项目,如比特币、以太坊、Avalanche和Polygon,大部分的安全费用都在85%—100%的补贴率上下波动,这也意味着交易费用只占网络 “ 安全费用 ” 的5%—20%。

以太坊,如果没有EIP1559,最接近于无补贴网络。在牛市高峰期,以太坊协议的收入(Gas费用)可以覆盖50%-70%的 "安全支出",而其他网络仍然严重依赖补贴的奖励。

我们还可以在图表上绘制180天平均的每日安全费用补贴率)与代币的通货膨胀率,以查看政策控制的影响,以及确定项目可能采取什么政策来改善代币经济。

从图表中,我们可以看到,以太坊通过燃烧(销毁)80%-90%的交易费用,大大降低了他们的通货膨胀率(从2.65%到0.5%),因为交易费用本来可以覆盖50%-70%的网络安全成本。这个代币政策(EIP-1559)将网络的日常安全成本减少了42%(从4700万美元到3300万美元)。

如果一个国家的GDP很小,但它决定印钱来资助其国防,这通常会导致高通货膨胀。能够直观看到网络的支出,以及谁在资助这些支出,可以帮助社区在代币政策和可持续的代币经济学方面做出更好的决定。

项目可以在图表中向上自行移动,而不需要更改任何代币政策。当更多的用户需要他们的区块空间时,他们的协议收入(总交易费用)将会增加。举个例子来说吧,如果Polygon的协议收益(总gas费用)开始显著增加,他们便会在图表上下滑动,从而给他们提供空间,要么去减少质押奖励,要么开始燃烧交易费用。

虽然Avalanche可能一眼看上去很极端,因为他们是一个年轻的项目,有着积极的发展战略,但他们的代币政策是燃烧100%的交易费,明确的围绕着实现长期通货紧缩而制定。有了这个政策,Gas收入增长的通缩效应要比其他协议大得多。一旦协议收入足够高,这种代币政策可能会帮助AVAX迅速转变,实现长期的通货紧缩目标,同时以可预测的补贴奖励保持安全水平。

代币政策—控制通货膨胀框架

任何区块链社区在决定其代币政策时都应考虑一系列复杂的目标,包括安全级别的要求。下面的框架在奖励率和通货膨胀方面,提供了一个有用的决策点图。

例如,如果比特币想要降低通货膨胀或将自己变成通缩资产,燃烧所有的交易费用不会有太大帮助,因为目前98%的安全成本是由区块奖励提供的。因此,比特币社区可以考虑减少或取消区块奖励,以降低通货膨胀率,这已经纳入了比特币减半政策。在未来,当区块奖励比现在小得多的时候,开始燃烧交易费用的决定将对降低通货膨胀产生更大的影响,或者帮助比特币成为一种通缩资产。

另一方面,如果比特币的挖矿成本开始增加,盈利能力下降(或者最后一个比特币被挖出),矿工数量的下降可能会威胁到比特币网络的安全。在这种情况下,比特币社区可以使用上述框架来决定他们是否想要增加区块奖励或停止销毁交易费用,以保持网络正常和安全运行。

请注意,高奖励率可能会导致代币的通货膨胀,但不是导致项目通货膨胀的主要因素。对任何经济参与者的资源分配不足都可能导致一个经济体的本国货币失去其购买力。此外,如果网络能够在短期内实现显著增长,高通胀可能是合理的。

燃烧的影响

燃烧(销毁)总是好的吗?简短的答案是否定的。虽然燃烧代币会增加代币的购买力,但政策制定者应该注意谁会受到火灾的影响。

例如,在以太坊(EIP-1559)和Avalanche的燃烧机制下,大部分花掉的交易费用会从质押/挖矿奖励中移除。在这种情况下,验证节点是感受到压力的节点。假设燃烧速率足够显著,验证节点不能盈利; 潜在的验证者将离开经济或投资于另一个协议,可能会降低去中心化和网络安全。

虽然这些验证人也会从更高的购买力中受益,但情况与拥有ESOP或公司股票的员工必须减薪的情况类似。尽管接受减薪会帮助他们的公司变得更有利可图—从长远来看,这将有利于ESOP和股票—但在公司长期估值的不确定性中发生的减薪,可能会导致员工辞职。

在熊市中,当人们在交易费用上花费较少时,高燃烧率加上代币价格的下行可能会减少验证节点的数量,然后伤害网络的去中心化。这种下降趋势还可能启动一个正反馈循环,即网络随着时间的推移变得不那么安全,导致用户对他们的资金感到不安全,并决定离开生态系统,这反过来又进一步降低了交易费用。

最后的总结

上面的框架举例说明了将宏观经济原则应用于考察代币经济的一种方法。这个框架不仅可以帮助投资者改善他们的风险分析和基本分析,而且还可以帮助建设者和社区深入了解他们应该为项目的每个增长阶段采取什么样的代币政策。

如果代币持有者不质押或不能质押,发放更多的权益奖励,更有可能是伤害而不是受益。虽然燃烧交易费用有助于提高代币的购买力,这对所有代币持有者都有利,但时机不好可能会伤害和威胁到网络安全。这种情况将类似于美联储在经济衰退期间提高利率和部署量化紧缩政策。

Leituras Relacionadas

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 7m

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

Foresight NewsHá 7m

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 22m

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

marsbitHá 22m

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 29m

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbitHá 29m

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight NewsHá 30m

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight NewsHá 30m

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

This article explores why cryptocurrency projects frequently change their names, a practice uncommon in traditional businesses where brand equity is a core asset. Over 16% of crypto projects have reportedly rebranded, often for strategic, marketing, or defensive reasons. The primary explanation is the weak user loyalty in crypto; many users are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. When a project's token price falls, its narrative fades, or it faces scandals/hacks, its old name becomes a liability laden with negative history rather than brand value. Therefore, frequent rebranding aims to shed this historical baggage. Name changes can be a marketing strategy to align with new business directions (e.g., Matic to Polygon), capitalize on trending narratives (e.g., adding "AI" or "Multiverse"), or distance from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap to Multichain). However, the most concerning aspect often involves a simultaneous token migration or swap. This process can serve as a "liquidity reset": it wipes historical price charts, potentially eases market manipulation, and is sometimes used to introduce new tokenomics that dilute existing holders' value through hidden inflation. The article concludes that while legitimate strategic pivots can justify a rebrand, many crypto name changes are less about building a new future and more about escaping the past—erasing bad memories, failed narratives, and dissatisfied communities. The key questions for any rebranding project are: what genuine new value or strategy does it bring, how has the tokenomics changed, and what part of its history is it trying to make users forget?

链捕手Há 37m

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手Há 37m

Trading

Spot
Futuros
活动图片