2026-04-18 Sábado

Centro de Notícias - Página 710

Obtém notícias cripto em tempo real e tendências de mercado com o Centro de Notícias da HTX.

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

The article "Why Banks Are Determined to Ban Yield-Bearing Stablecoins?" explores the ongoing debate around the U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill (CLARITY), particularly the fierce opposition from large banks against interest-bearing stablecoins. Banks argue that such stablecoins could cause deposit outflows, but the author refutes this, explaining that funds used to purchase stablecoins like USDC ultimately flow back into the banking system as reserves held by issuers like Circle. The real concern for banks is not the total volume of deposits but a shift in deposit structure. U.S. major banks (e.g., Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase) rely heavily on "low-interest banking," where transaction deposits (used for payments, transfers) pay near-zero interest, creating a significant spread between deposit rates and the Fed’s benchmark rate. This model generates massive profits—over $360 billion annually from interest differentials and transaction fees. Stablecoins directly compete with transaction deposits by offering similar utility (payments, settlements). If stablecoins can generate yield, users may shift funds from bank transaction accounts to stablecoins to earn higher returns. While the money remains in the banking system (as stablecoin reserves), it moves from low-cost transaction deposits to higher-yield instruments, squeezing bank profit margins and reducing fee income. Thus, banks oppose yield-bearing stablecoins to protect their lucrative low-cost deposit base and maintain control over profit distribution, making it a central issue in the CLARITY legislative battle.

marsbit01/19 09:43

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

marsbit01/19 09:43

Single Post with 150 Million Views: Dan Koe and His Super Individual Business

Dan Koe, a prominent figure in the "one-person business" space, recently achieved 1.5 billion views on X with a post titled "How to fix your entire life in 1 day." Despite the massive reach, he earned only $4,495 from the platform in two weeks. His real income comes from his broader business: Koe made over $4 million in 2024 through paid newsletters, books, and digital products aimed at teaching people how to build personal brands and escape traditional employment. His success is built on years of content creation, a large following (750k on X, 1.2M YouTube subscribers), and a trusted brand. The viral post served as a top-of-funnel tool to attract potential customers into his paid ecosystem, rather than a direct revenue source. The "super individual" trend reflects a growing desire for self-directed work, but the market is increasingly crowded. While AI tools allow easy imitation of high-engagement content, established creators like Koe retain advantage through authenticity and timing. X's recent push for long-form content, including a $1M incentive program, benefits top creators most, reinforcing a cycle where platforms and influencers mutually profit—while most followers remain consumers, not successful creators.

marsbit01/19 09:38

Single Post with 150 Million Views: Dan Koe and His Super Individual Business

marsbit01/19 09:38

Bitcoin Drops to $91K as EU–US Tariff Tensions Trigger Crypto Crash

The European Union announced plans to retaliate against the U.S. in response to new tariffs imposed by President Trump, triggering a significant cryptocurrency market crash. Bitcoin dropped from approximately $95,000 to $91,000 in early Monday trading, erasing recent gains and leading to over $850 million in liquidations. The overall crypto market cap fell by 3%, with altcoins following Bitcoin’s decline. The market has lost over $110 billion since mid-January. Trump’s tariff announcement, which includes a 10% levy on goods from major EU countries starting February 1 and a potential increase to 25% by June 1 if a deal on Greenland is not reached, was met with threats of retaliation from the EU. The legality of the tariffs is still under review by the U.S. Supreme Court, adding to market uncertainty.

TheNewsCrypto01/19 09:36

Bitcoin Drops to $91K as EU–US Tariff Tensions Trigger Crypto Crash

TheNewsCrypto01/19 09:36

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

The article explores why U.S. banks are strongly opposing interest-bearing stablecoins, despite claims that such assets could cause bank deposit outflows. It argues that funds flowing into stablecoins like USDC do not leave the banking system—instead, they are held as reserves in highly liquid assets like cash or Treasury bills, which eventually return to banks. The real concern for large banks is not the total volume of deposits, but a shift in deposit structure. U.S. megabanks rely heavily on low-cost transactional deposits (used for payments and transfers), which pay near-zero interest. These deposits allow banks to profit from the spread between the Fed funds rate and what they pay depositors, as well as from transaction fees. Interest-bearing stablecoins threaten this model. They offer similar transactional utility but also provide yield, incentivizing users to move funds out of traditional bank transactional accounts. While the money may return to the banking system, it would likely be placed in higher-yielding deposit accounts, increasing banks’ funding costs. Additionally, stablecoins could disrupt banks’ fee income from payment services. The core issue is profit redistribution: stablecoins—especially those offering yield—could reduce banks’ low-cost funding advantage and erode their transaction revenue, explaining the fierce opposition to interest-bearing models in proposed legislation like the CLARITY Act.

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:26

Why Must Banks Ban Stablecoin Yields?

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:26

Ethereum validator queue hits 0 – While the network has never been busier

Ethereum's validator exit queue has dropped to zero, indicating minimal near-term sell pressure from validators. Conversely, the entry queue has surged fivefold to nearly 2.6 million ETH, resulting in a 45-day wait to become a validator. This is supported by strong on-chain activity, as daily transaction counts have reached a new all-time high, driven by consistent use in DeFi, stablecoins, and other applications. Despite these strong fundamentals, ETH's price has pulled back to test the key $3,100-$3,120 support level after failing to hold recent highs.

ambcrypto01/19 09:11

Ethereum validator queue hits 0 – While the network has never been busier

ambcrypto01/19 09:11

Why I Am Not Bullish on Ethereum at Its Current State?

Why I'm Not Bullish on Ethereum at Current Prices The author expresses skepticism about Ethereum's current valuation, not its long-term business growth potential (user base and transaction volume are expected to increase). The author believes the price is too high relative to its fundamentals, based on the following analysis: - Active users and transaction counts have reached new highs but are growing slower than some leading e-commerce platforms. - Monthly transaction fees are only 0.6% of the previous cycle's peak, and average fees per transaction are 0.5% of previous highs. This slow growth comes at the cost of drastically reduced service prices, which is unfavorable in any industry. - If Ethereum is viewed as a company selling block space, its price-to-fee (PF) ratio exceeds 2,000x and its price-to-sales (PS) ratio exceeds 10,000x. It has negative net profit, so no P/E ratio exists. In comparison, traditional cloud service companies have P/E ratios of 20-30 and single-digit PS ratios. - If considered a commodity (like digital oil), Ethereum faces competition from other chains and rollups offering similar services. Its value proposition may not justify such a high premium, especially as its narrative as a store of value (like Bitcoin) has faded. - There is a lack of new, product-market-fit crypto native applications this cycle, leading to oversupply of block space and stagnant growth in the public chain sector. - Grand visions of Ethereum becoming a decentralized "Wall Street on-chain" lack supporting data and factual evidence. The author advocates for investment based on rationality, not belief or hype, and suggests waiting for concrete data before buying into this narrative.

marsbit01/19 09:08

Why I Am Not Bullish on Ethereum at Its Current State?

marsbit01/19 09:08

The Ultimate 2026 Project Interaction Checklist (Includes 182 Projects with Strategies)

"2026 Airdrop Interaction Guide: Ultimate List of 182 Projects with Strategies" This comprehensive guide provides a curated list of 182 crypto projects for potential airdrop hunters in 2026, categorized across 8 major sectors. It outlines core interaction rules: prioritize sustained activity over short bursts (3-5 actions over 2-6 weeks), use separate wallets for security (main, farming, and high-risk), and complete social verification when required. Key sector-specific interaction templates are provided: - **L1/L2 Chains:** 30-100 transactions over 6-12 weeks, bridge assets, use 3-7 dApps. - **DeFi:** Deposit, swap, provide liquidity (7-30 days), borrow/lend weekly. - **Perp DEXs:** Deposit, execute 20-80 trades, grow volume, maintain a balance. - **SocialFi:** Complete profile, verify, be active daily, invite friends. - **DePIN:** Run nodes/apps consistently, complete tasks. Projects are rated on four metrics (H: Heat, E: Expected Airdrop, F: Priority, S: Potential Airdrop Size, all /10). Top-rated projects include: - **L1/L2:** MegaETH (H9 E8 F8 S8), Aztec (H8 E8 F8 S8) - **DeFi:** Symbiotic (H8 E7 F7 S7), Bungee (H8 E7 F7 S7) - **Wallets:** Metamask (H9 E6 F7 S6) - **Social:** Farcaster (H8 E7 F7 S6) - **Others:** Opensea (H9 E8 F7 S7) A practical execution strategy is offered: For limited capital but more time, focus on a rotating "Top 30" weekly (10 chains, 10 DeFi/Perps, 5 SocialFi, 5 high-potential picks). For those with capital but limited time, concentrate only on the highest-rated (S/A-tier) projects. The guide emphasizes consistent, dispersed activity over time rather than concentrated, one-off interactions.

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:06

The Ultimate 2026 Project Interaction Checklist (Includes 182 Projects with Strategies)

Odaily星球日报01/19 09:06

Lazy Man's Guide to Earning While You Sleep 2.0: Holding 10 BNB in 2025, Outperforming 99% of Tokens with Alpha and Ecosystem 'Basic Income'

Title: Lazy Earnings Guide 2.0: Holding 10 BNB in 2025 Outperforms 99% of Tokens with Alpha and Ecosystem Benefits In 2025, holding BNB and participating in Binance's ecosystem activities remained a highly effective strategy. According to Binance's annual report, each BNB yielded $71.5 in passive income from core activities: $43.32 from Hodler Airdrop, $18.37 from Launchpool, and $9.81 from Megadrop. With 10 BNB (initial cost ~$7,000), this passive income totaled $715. Combined with BNB's price appreciation (from $700 to an average of $1,000), the conservative "lazy" approach generated ~$3,715, a 53% return. However, the real gains came from Binance Alpha, which offered 288 airdrop events with a theoretical max gain of $16,300. After adjusting for high thresholds, missed opportunities, and transaction costs, a diligent user with 10 BNB could net ~$11,350 from Alpha after ~$1,250 in trading fees. Adding passive income and appreciation, the total reached ~$15,065 (215% return). A compound strategy, reinvesting Alpha earnings into BNB, boosted the final value to ~$23,634 (237% return). Compared to the broader market—where only 10% of 443 major tokens had positive returns and less than 1% gained over 200%—BNB strategies offered superior risk-adjusted returns. Binance Alpha distributed $782M to 17M users, reinforcing Binance's dominance. Ultimately, being a "lazy" participant in Binance's ecosystem proved more profitable than actively trading most tokens in 2025's volatile market. (Note: This is not financial advice.)

marsbit01/19 08:48

Lazy Man's Guide to Earning While You Sleep 2.0: Holding 10 BNB in 2025, Outperforming 99% of Tokens with Alpha and Ecosystem 'Basic Income'

marsbit01/19 08:48

Pantera: The Year of Ups and Downs in 2025, The Projects We Invested In

Pantera Capital's 2025 Investment Report highlights a record year with 31 investments, 85% of which were led by the firm. Four portfolio companies went public, reaching a combined market cap of ~$33 billion. Key investment areas included Infrastructure (38.71%), Internet Capital Markets (16.3%), Stablecoins (12.9%), Consumer (12.9%), AI & Robotics (12.9%), and Enterprise Solutions (6.45%). Geographically, 64.52% of investments were in North America. The year saw significant developments like $46T in stablecoin volume, BlackRock’s IBIT surpassing $100B AUM, and increased regulatory clarity. Pantera emphasizes that 2025’s volatility helped distinguish real value from hype, setting the stage for a stronger 2026.

marsbit01/19 08:38

Pantera: The Year of Ups and Downs in 2025, The Projects We Invested In

marsbit01/19 08:38

2025 Crypto Buyback Revelation: When a $138 Million Buy Order Can't Save an 80% Plunge

"2025 Crypto Buyback Report: A $1.38B Buyback Fails to Prevent an 80% Crash" The year 2025 witnessed an "industrial revolution" in crypto fiscal discipline, with on-chain protocols spending over $1.4 billion on token buybacks. This strategy, driven by mature DeFi business models and favorable US regulatory shifts, aimed to reshape tokenomics. However, the outcomes were starkly polarized. Hyperliquid emerged as the dominant success story, allocating over $640 million (nearly 46% of the total market) to buybacks, which fueled a 4x price surge. Its key was a high "Net Flow Efficiency Ratio" (NFER > 3.0), where buyback volume drastically exceeded token unlock sell pressure, creating net deflation. In contrast, major failures demonstrated that buyback size alone is meaningless against structural inflation. Despite a massive $138 million buyback, Pump.fun's token price crashed 80% as the mechanism served as exit liquidity for concentrated whales without lock-ups. Jupiter spent $70 million but faced an overwhelming $1.2 billion in annual unlocks (NFER of 0.06), making its efforts futile. The analysis introduces NFER as the critical metric: Buybacks only positively impact price when the annualized buyback volume surpasses the value of annual unlocks and emissions (NFER > 1.0). Otherwise, they are ineffective or even counterproductive. By early 2026, a strategic pivot occurred. Projects like Helium and Jupiter halted buybacks, recognizing that capital was better spent on user acquisition, subsidies, and building network effects—akin to "growth stocks." Mature protocols with established cash flows, like Optimism, began adopting buybacks to transition from speculation to value. The conclusion is clear: Financial engineering cannot overcome structural inflation. The new paradigm rewards protocols that use cash flow to build real economic moats and achieve genuine net deflation. Investors must now scrutinize NFER, holder structure, and the source of buyback funds.

marsbit01/19 08:37

2025 Crypto Buyback Revelation: When a $138 Million Buy Order Can't Save an 80% Plunge

marsbit01/19 08:37

活动图片

Categorias popularesright-arrow

Etiquetas Popularesright-arrow