如何看待Taproot Assets和Ordinals的多资产叙事呢?

Odaily星球日报Опубликовано 2023-11-08Обновлено 2023-11-08

Введение

看清楚,再做选择。

原文作者:Haotian(X:@tmel0211

编者按:近期 Ordinals 赛道复苏,相关 BRC 20 代币的暴涨也让比特币生态再获热议和关注。加密研究员 Haotian 发文探讨了 Taproot Assets 和 Ordinals 的多资产叙事。Odaily星球日报整理如下:

Ordinals 资产,容易分发,但难抢,Taproot Assets 资产不用抢,但难分发。很少谈及 Brc 20 。为什么呢?因为看明白 Brc 20 本质上属于市场投机 Speculation 范畴,没有任何技术成分可言。如果你认为我对 Brc 20 有偏见,我觉得反倒是你对比特币 UTXO 技术缺乏敬畏。

我理解市场存在的 shilling 行为,但不一定非要建立在混淆视听的前提下。

如何看待 Taproot Assets 和 Ordinals 的多资产叙事呢?简单来说:Ordinals 资产,容易分发,但难抢,Taproot Assets 资产不用抢,但难分发。

Ordinals BRC 20 

Ordinals 是第三方数据索引 index,代币的 depoly、mint、transfer 等行为全靠用户向链上发布特定数据字段来实现,Ordinals 只能基于检索的去中心化数据做「合法性」解释。

好处是:

1)天然具备公平发射特性,用户直接向链上发送交易备注特定参数即可参与资产流通;

2)易 Fomo 投机,有信息和认知差得一部分人能够借助市场情绪赚得盆满钵满;

3)符合矿工利益,Fomo 情绪下整体矿工费会被拉高。

坏处是:

1)公平发射只是偷换概念,真正有增长的资产,你很难参与到早期 mint 或低价吸筹得环节;

2)Fomo 起来大部分小白散户都可能损耗量大量资产却 mint 不到资产;

3)易市场操纵,暗庄任何时候都可以 depoly 一个代币,然后靠拉盘获得流量和拥趸。

非要讲技术逻辑,你会发现一堆 Bug,比如:在往交易所充提 Brc 20 资产时很容易出现 Ordinals 索引账本和交易所平台账本对账出错问题,容易导致假充值攻击;又比如:技术上完全可以实时监控 Mempool 数据来阻挠 Brc 20 的 Deploy 行为,干扰代币发行的公平性;或者 Ordinals 索引和一些代打服务平台之间也可能存在记账逻辑出错,导致资产流通秩序被打破。

总而言之,碍于链上区块确认的「延时」效应,Ordinals 相关代币无法像以太坊智能合约代币一样有清晰的状态切割,只能通过多个平台记账对账的方式来管理资产,一旦资产的流通环境复杂起来,各类问题就会接踵而至。

对 Brc 20 我并没有偏见,只是它不属于技术逻辑范畴的产物,仅基于市场投机范畴去理解它就对了。用所谓技术的优势来 shilling 一个纯市场逻辑的东西,隔着数千米之外都能看到阁下头顶的那抹韭菜绿。

Taproot Assets

Taproot Assets 是基于比特币多签和哈希时间锁等做资产发行,并利用闪电网络的信任通道做资产大批量的分发流通,全过程由比特币主网提供资产结算,而闪电网络作为发展多年可信的链下环节,也有强大的共识依托,相当于 layer 2 一样的比特币扩容解决方案。

虽然技术面更 Make sense,且基于闪电网络钱包和中继节点分发代币,能够形成消费,为比特币带来长期落地应用价值。但 Taproot Assets 发币模型类似于 ICO,发币容易后续运营和分发难,需要项目方有强大的技术、运营、市场等综合实力。

1)只有预先建立初始化通道才能流通资产;

2)通道容量有限,每个通道容量有限,要扩大规模就得加大通道规模;

3)分发效率有限,通道内资产转移也存在吞吐量限制等等,况且用户压根还没习惯用闪电网络进行资产交互。

这就决定了,Taproot Assets 很难有短时 Fomo 效应。

很多人不知道,Taproot Assets 上已有超 4 万多种资产被发布了,包括代币和 NFT。但这类代币并非发行的早就有先发优势,任何人都可以去发行 Sats,但选择相信谁的叙事,选择上谁的车,比拼的还是持续的运营增长能力。这显然更像一个蠢蠢欲动的新比特币 ico 时代,问题是要讲怎样的故事呢?

好在,Taproot Assets 的叙事才刚开始,还没被带偏节奏,依然如故看好其作为「稳定币」的主流通赛道,激活一个全新的比特币应用叙事浪潮。可以对标以太坊的发币到 DEX、CEX 代币分发流通全层级代理分发机制。来看 Taproot Assets 的发展。

总的来说,短期投机的话,去 BRC 20 或许更香,只不过得警惕投机路上给你讲长期价值的人,长期价值发现,一定不要错过 Taproot Assets,但短期不要期望过高,否则也会被投机的人利用。

聪明的看官,能看明白这层逻辑,各走各的道,再别互相 diss 和混淆视听了。

让「他们」看清楚,再做选择。

原文链接

Похожее

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

NEAR Returns to AI Origins: From Payroll Struggles to Blockchain, Now Focusing on AI Agents and Privacy NEAR Protocol's journey began not with grand blockchain ambitions, but from a practical hurdle: its AI startup founders, including Transformer paper co-author Illia Polosukhin, couldn't efficiently pay international developers in 2017. This led them to pivot and build a high-performance, scalable blockchain. After years navigating various crypto narratives like sharding and cross-chain interoperability, NEAR is now leveraging its AI roots to re-enter the AI arena. A key driver is its "NEAR Intents" layer, which abstracts complex cross-chain transactions. Users simply state their goal (e.g., swap BTC for ETH), and a solver network finds the optimal route. This system has processed over $20B in cross-chain volume, generating significant fee revenue. A major growth area is private transactions via "Confidential Intents/Swaps," which hide trade details until settlement to protect against MEV and front-running. Remarkably, private swaps recently accounted for over 40% of NEAR's transaction volume, highlighting strong demand but also potential regulatory scrutiny. With its AI-founder pedigree, NEAR is positioning itself at the intersection of blockchain, AI agents, and privacy, aiming to become infrastructure for the emerging agent economy while navigating the challenges of its rapid adoption.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Near Returns to the AI Stage: Transformation into a Public Chain Due to 'Payroll Difficulties,' Agent and Privacy Emerge as New Growth Narratives

marsbit1 ч. назад

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

In recent discussions, Vitalik Buterin has frequently emphasized the concept of "CROPS," a framework defining core values for Ethereum's development. CROPS stands for Censorship Resistance, Capture Resistance, Open Source, Privacy, and Security. Initially outlined in the Ethereum Foundation's "EF Mandate," it represents a commitment to user sovereignty, ensuring that the network resists external control, remains open, protects privacy, and prioritizes security. The relevance of CROPS extends beyond Ethereum's foundational principles, becoming crucial in the context of AI integration. As AI agents begin handling wallet operations and automated transactions, the risk increases that users may cede control over their digital assets, privacy, and intentions to centralized AI service providers. A "CROPS AI" would therefore emphasize local execution where possible, privacy-preserving remote model calls (e.g., using zero-knowledge proofs), and transparent, verifiable processes to maintain user agency. Vitalik highlights a significant convergence between "CROPS Ethereum access layer" and "CROPS AI." Both address the same fundamental challenge: how users can access powerful services—be it blockchain data via RPCs or AI models—without exposing sensitive information or relinquishing ultimate control. This intersection points toward a future digital entry point that is more private, secure, and user-controlled. Ultimately, CROPS is not merely an abstract ideal but a practical guidepost. It steers development—from protocol resilience and wallet design to AI agent safety—towards a future where users retain self-sovereignty even as digital systems grow more complex and powerful. In an era of accelerating AI adoption, these "slow variables" of censorship resistance, openness, privacy, and security may define Ethereum's enduring value.

marsbit1 ч. назад

From Ethereum to AI's 'CROPS': What Exactly is This Set of 'Slow Variables' That Vitalik Repeatedly Emphasizes?

marsbit1 ч. назад

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

Silicon Valley investor and "Godfather of Startups" Steve Hoffman warns that combining Web3 with AI is likely a trap, not a promising venture. In an interview, Hoffman argues that while AI is a foundational technology touching all industries, Web3 adds complexity, friction, and regulatory risk without solving mainstream consumer or business needs. He advises founders to focus on deep, specialized applications where startups can out-iterate giants, rather than on generic features easily replicated by large tech companies. Hoffman observes that Silicon Valley will lead foundational AI research, while China excels at rapid, large-scale application and commercialization, particularly in robotics. He stresses that AI-driven autonomous agents capable of collaborative, multi-step tasks are 2-4 years away, which will cause significant job displacement. The solution is not to slow AI but to redesign business models around human-AI collaboration and reform social systems like education and retraining. For startups, Hoffman recommends focusing on vertical, expertise-heavy domains to build defensibility. He sees major opportunities in AI fraud detection and cybersecurity. Key founder mindsets include systemic thinking over feature-focus, relentless customer centricity, building adaptive teams, and deeply understanding AI's capabilities and limits. Hoffman is also leading a non-profit initiative to establish university centers aimed at training future leaders in responsible, human-value-aligned AI innovation.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Silicon Valley 'Startup Guru' Steve Hoffman: Web3 + AI Could Be a Trap

marsbit3 ч. назад

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

The article "Tokens Aren't Economical, Economics Aren't Tokenized" analyzes a pivotal shift in the AI industry from a technology-driven narrative to one dominated by capital efficiency. It highlights two concurrent trends: a severe capital shortage due to the exorbitant and recurring costs of compute (e.g., OpenAI's high burn rate) and a wave of corporate spin-offs where major tech companies are separating their AI units (like Kuaishou's Kling and Baidu's Kunlunxin). The core argument is that AI's "anti-internet" business model, where user growth increases costs rather than profits, has created a disconnect between high valuations and actual cash flow. Spin-offs address this by allowing AI assets to be valued independently. Within a parent company, they are seen as cost centers, but as standalone entities, they are priced based on their growth potential and scarcity in the primary market, leading to massive valuation premiums (e.g., Kling's estimated value tripling post-spin-off). The industry is at an inflection point, moving from "model worship" to "value realization." The competition is evolving from a pure compute (GPU) race to a broader focus on systemic efficiency and full-stack engineering (involving CPUs and orchestration) to achieve viable commercialization. The year 2026 is framed as a critical moment where the industry must definitively answer how to economically translate AI capability into tangible business value, reshaping the sector's future power structure.

marsbit3 ч. назад

Token Inefficient, Economy Tokenless

marsbit3 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片