别用简单“牛熊”判断加密市场,关注流动性和供应的变化

深潮Опубликовано 2024-08-15Обновлено 2024-08-15

随着流动性的增加,未来 6-18 个月我们将进入轮动领域。

作者:Rancune

编译:深潮 TechFlow

这可能是我迄今为止最重要的帖子之一。许多人可能会错过"牛市"。你会吗?这里的许多人都非常线性地思考,只考虑熊市或牛市 - 一维的;价格要么上涨要么下跌。长期以来,这种观点让我感到不安(请回顾第一条回复中的展示a)。今天,我提出了一个新的概念模型,我相信这个模型:

a)为周期提供了一个全新的视角,

b)帮助我们更好地理解当前的情况,

c)是可操作的。

维度

系统中的流动性 | 加密货币比传统金融更难获取,在效率、入金、稳定币、中心化交易所可及性等方面都不够成熟。特别是现在,比特币和以太坊有传统金融的护栏,但这些护栏并没有向下传导,游戏规则已经改变。

代币的稀缺性 | 供应是加密货币的一个主要因素;它决定了可获得的流动性必须分散的分母。这与传统金融不同,在传统金融中,代币数量自然受限,通常需要IPO,而不是在Twitter Space上听到一个词就急于去Pumpfun。

根据我的理论,我们在2021年从低流动性和低供应飙升到高流动性和低供应("牛市盛宴")。之后,我们崩溃了,最终在2022年陷入"熊市荒原"。许多人称之为熊市,低供应和低流动性。熊市荒原和牛市盛宴的相似之处在于,由于供应量低,代币一致上涨(或下跌)。市场在移动,不一定是叙事在移动(尽管它们显然存在,但通常比我们当前的15分钟元叙事持续时间长得多)。

从FTX造成的损害和FTX的清算对生态系统的影响中缓慢恢复,流动性略微增加,但代币供应量增加更多。容易成为猎物的人退出了游戏,留下经验丰富(和恶意的)参与者,他们的提取基础设施已经建立并到位,可以提取更多。

从2023年开始,我们进入了"消耗竞技场",在这里我们无法从更高的流动性中受益,因为代币供应呈指数级增长。这真的是适者生存;最有技能的人(或与最好的人脉/最多内部信息的人)获胜。其他人则成为接盘侠。

我们经常将代币增长归因于Pumpfun和Solana垃圾币,这显然是真的,但不仅限于此。还包括无用的L1、L2、rollups、AI协议、桥等的数量之多。显然我们需要所有东西的分叉,我们绝对需要更多没有有机交易量、由风投资助的L2。这是我在展示b和c中写过的内容。

根据我的经验,每次我们在加密货币领域扩张时,接下来都会有一个收缩阶段。无论是在山寨币还是迷因币中,都会出现向优质资产的转移。

随着流动性的增加,我对未来6-18个月的预期是我们将进入轮动领域。我们将从增加的流动性中获得一些利益,但只限于特定的叙事和操作。大多数持有人将继续持有他们停滞不前或缓慢流血的代币,直到永远,在比特币往返6位数后回顾并思考:我是不是错过了?

我们不会再有2021年后每个人都联想到"牛市"的那种牛市盛宴了。这是不可能的,因为代币发行者的技能已经成熟(无论是你最喜欢的PF连环诈骗者还是试图从另一个元叙事中提取流动性的风投)。

但是,如何在轮动领域中操作呢?我将在下一篇文章中深入探讨这个问题。

Похожее

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

The article "a16z: AI's 'Amnesia' – Can Continual Learning Cure It?" explores the limitations of current large language models (LLMs), which, like the protagonist in the film *Memento*, are trapped in a perpetual present—unable to form new memories after training. While methods like in-context learning (ICL), retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and external scaffolding (e.g., chat history, prompts) provide temporary solutions, they fail to enable true internalization of new knowledge. The authors argue that compression—the core of learning during training—is halted at deployment, preventing models from generalizing, discovering novel solutions (e.g., mathematical proofs), or handling adversarial scenarios. The piece introduces *continual learning* as a critical research direction to address this, categorizing approaches into three paths: 1. **Context**: Scaling external memory via longer context windows, multi-agent systems, and smarter retrieval. 2. **Modules**: Using pluggable adapters or external memory layers for specialization without full retraining. 3. **Weights**: Enabling parameter updates through sparse training, test-time training, meta-learning, distillation, and reinforcement learning from feedback. Challenges include catastrophic forgetting, safety risks, and auditability, but overcoming these could unlock models that learn iteratively from experience. The conclusion emphasizes that while context-based methods are effective, true breakthroughs require models to compress new information into weights post-deployment, moving from mere retrieval to genuine learning.

marsbit51 мин. назад

a16z: AI's 'Amnesia', Can Continuous Learning Cure It?

marsbit51 мин. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

An individual manipulated a weather sensor at Paris Charles de Gaulle Airport with a portable heat source, causing a Polymarket weather market to settle at 22°C and earning $34,000. This incident highlights a fundamental issue in prediction markets: when a market aims to reflect reality, it also incentivizes participants to influence that reality. Prediction markets operate on two layers: platform rules (what outcome counts as a win) and data sources (what actually happened). While most focus on rules, the real vulnerability lies in the data source. If reality is recorded through a specific source, influencing that source directly affects market settlement. The article categorizes markets by their vulnerability: 1. **Single-point physical data sources** (e.g., weather stations): Easily manipulated through physical interference. 2. **Insider information markets** (e.g., MrBeast video details): Insiders like team members use non-public information to trade. Kalshi fined a剪辑师 $20,000 for insider trading. 3. **Actor-manipulated markets** (e.g., Andrew Tate’s tweet counts): The subject of the market can control the outcome. Evidence suggests Tate’sociated accounts coordinated to profit. 4. **Individual-action markets** (e.g., WNBA disruptions): A single person can execute an event to profit from their pre-placed bets. Kalshi and Polymarket handle these issues differently. Kalshi enforces strict KYC, publicly penalizes insider trading, and reports to regulators. Polymarket, with its anonymous wallet-based system, has historically been more permissive, arguing that insider information improves market accuracy. However, it cooperated with authorities in the "Van Dyke case," where a user traded on classified government information. The core paradox is reflexivity: prediction markets are designed to discover truth, but their financial incentives can distort reality. The more valuable a prediction becomes, the more likely participants are to influence the event itself. The market ceases to be a mirror of reality and instead shapes it.

marsbit1 ч. назад

Can a Hair Dryer Earn $34,000? Deciphering the Reflexivity Paradox in Prediction Markets

marsbit1 ч. назад

Торговля

Спот
Фьючерсы
活动图片