2026-06-08 Понедельник

Новостной центр - Страница 126

Получайте криптоновости и тенденции рынка в режиме реального времени с помощью Новостного центра HTX.

Bitwise: Why Are Top-Tier Capitals Frenziedly Betting on New Public Blockchains? The Answer Lies in These Three Points

Recently, a wave of major funding announcements for new public blockchains like Arc, Canton, and Tempo signals a significant industry shift. This article analyzes the driving forces behind this surge. Firstly, regulatory clarity is a key catalyst. These massive investments, including Circle's Arc ($222M), Digital Asset's Canton ($300M), and Stripe's Tempo ($500M), all followed the US passage of the *Genius Act* in July 2025. This suggests that clear legislation is unlocking institutional capital. The anticipated, broader *Clarity Act* could further accelerate growth, particularly in tokenization and compliant infrastructure. Secondly, built-in privacy is emerging as a critical design feature. Unlike Ethereum or Solana, these new chains natively support confidential transactions. This directly addresses real-world business needs, where public transparency can be a liability for corporate dealings or personal salary data, making privacy a potential killer application. Finally, the entry of traditional giants marks a new competitive phase. These projects are backed by major firms: Arc by Circle, Canton by a consortium including Goldman Sachs and Nasdaq, and Tempo by Stripe with partners like Visa. While crypto-native projects remain strong contenders, this institutional involvement brings substantial capital, execution capability, and operational rigor. In conclusion, the convergence of regulatory progress, demand for privacy, and competition from established financial and tech players is rapidly reshaping the blockchain landscape, pushing innovation and expanding the industry's boundaries.

marsbit05/14 09:20

Bitwise: Why Are Top-Tier Capitals Frenziedly Betting on New Public Blockchains? The Answer Lies in These Three Points

marsbit05/14 09:20

When the Bubble Comes, How to Short "Smartly"?

Title: When the Bubble Comes, How to "Smartly" Short? Author: Campbell (Macro Analyst) Summary: Amid the heated debate over whether the current AI-driven market is in a bubble, analysts are divided. While some, like Dan Niles and Paul Tudor Jones, argue that the AI boom has further to run, Michael Burry warns of similarities to the dot-com bubble. The author explores practical strategies for navigating and potentially shorting a bubble without being crushed by its momentum. Key challenges in shorting a bubble include the exponential risk from parabolic price increases and the high cost of options due to extreme volatility. Instead of directly shorting the bubbly asset, the author proposes three approaches: 1. **Find the "Wedge"**: Identify external factors that could pop the bubble, such as rising interest rates. By betting on trends that could undermine the bubble (e.g., inflation or higher rates), investors can hedge without timing the bubble's collapse. 2. **Short the "Victims"**: Target assets adjacent to the bubble that are highly vulnerable to its burst, such as over-leveraged companies or sectors with "negative convexity." These assets may have cheaper options and suffer disproportionately when the bubble stalls. 3. **Wait for Confirmation**: Exercise discipline and wait for clear signals of a breakdown, including deteriorating fundamentals, exhausted buying sentiment, and decisive breaks in trendlines. Only then should investors take substantial short positions. The author shares their recent actions, including shorting SPX and high-yield bonds while buying short-term put spreads, and emphasizes avoiding direct shorts on vertically rising assets. The core takeaway: Hedge, identify wedges, wait for confirmation, and only then commit heavily.

marsbit05/14 08:57

When the Bubble Comes, How to Short "Smartly"?

marsbit05/14 08:57

MuleRun CTO: The Moat of Agents Lies in Data Density and User Memory

In a speech titled "Handing AI's Keys to the On-Chain Controllers," MuleRun CTO Shu Junliang discussed the evolution and security of AI Agents in finance and Web3. He outlined six dimensions for a complete AI assistant: dialogue, data input, agent capability, execution environment, user memory, and continuous learning. MuleRun's product integrates these through features like multi-platform IM bots, real-time multi-asset data, smart model routing, cloud sandboxes, persistent user profiles, and a shared knowledge network. Shu emphasized that while AI Agents are advancing from assisting to autonomously executing decisions—potentially enabling individuals to operate like small funds—safety remains paramount. He detailed MuleRun's security measures, including local key handling, isolated sandboxes, full audit trails, and strict permission controls. However, he acknowledged persistent risks like data exposure, model hallucinations, prompt injection, and the "black box" nature of AI decisions, advising manual confirmation for financial operations. He identified key trends: the shift from human-led to Agent-led on-chain interactions requiring infrastructure redesign; the erosion of information advantages replaced by competition in execution speed and strategy; and the balancing effect of Agents, which democratize access but ultimately advantage those with superior judgment. Shu concluded that an Agent's true moat lies in data density and accumulated user memory, not easily replicable technology, and that while Agents will reshape finance and Web3, human oversight over critical decisions must remain.

marsbit05/14 08:50

MuleRun CTO: The Moat of Agents Lies in Data Density and User Memory

marsbit05/14 08:50

Buying BTC is Not as Good as Buying Nasdaq, and This Statement Has an Expiration Date

The article, titled "Investing in Bitcoin Has an Expiration Date", discusses the recent narrative on social media that investing in U.S. tech stocks (like the Nasdaq 100) has been far superior to investing in Bitcoin. This sentiment is fueled by performance comparisons showing the Nasdaq 100 significantly outperforming Bitcoin over a specific five-year window starting in late 2021. However, the author argues that such comparisons are highly sensitive to the chosen timeframe. By shifting the starting point to other key market moments—like the COVID-19 bottom (March 2020), the FTX collapse bottom (November 2022), or the pre-Bitcoin ETF approval period (January 2024)—Bitcoin's returns often match or dramatically exceed those of the Nasdaq 100. The popular Reddit chart essentially cherry-picks a period that started near a Bitcoin cycle high and just before the massive AI-driven rally in tech stocks. The core difference lies in their asset structures. The Nasdaq 100, backed by corporate earnings, exhibits a steadier long-term upward trend. Bitcoin is a highly cyclical asset with extreme volatility, where returns are drastically different depending on where in its bull/bear cycle an investment is made. The article notes Bitcoin often acts like a leveraged version of the S&P 500, magnifying both gains and losses. Currently, Bitcoin is in a "cyclically undervalued zone," having corrected ~37% from its October 2025 peak while the Nasdaq hits new highs. Historically, peak narratives about stocks beating Bitcoin have often coincided with Bitcoin nearing cyclical lows, as seen before its major rally from late 2022. The conclusion is that declaring one asset permanently superior to another is statistically flawed; performance is entirely dependent on timing. The real challenge for investors is not picking the "better" asset, but mastering entry and exit timing.

marsbit05/14 08:34

Buying BTC is Not as Good as Buying Nasdaq, and This Statement Has an Expiration Date

marsbit05/14 08:34

Bezos, Schmidt, Powell Jobs: The Three AI Investment Philosophies of Silicon Valley's Old Money

Jeff Bezos, Eric Schmidt, and Laurene Powell Jobs, three prominent figures from Silicon Valley's "old money," are deploying massive personal fortunes into AI, but with distinctly different investment philosophies reflecting their visions for the future. Eric Schmidt, the former Google CEO, approaches AI as a geopolitical and infrastructural arms race. Through his family office, Hillspire, he invests heavily in defense AI companies, energy infrastructure (like Bolt Data & Energy to power data centers), and space launch capabilities (Relativity Space). For Schmidt, the ultimate AI advantage lies in physical resources—energy, transport, and military application—framing it as a national competition requiring state-level strategy and endurance. Jeff Bezos is building a vertically integrated, full-stack AI empire. His bets span the model layer (via Amazon's massive investment in Anthropic), the application layer (through investments like Perplexity), and now, the physical execution layer. His new venture, Project Prometheus, with $6.2 billion, aims to inject AI into manufacturing, creating a closed loop from AI chips and cloud compute (AWS) to real-world production, potentially for Amazon's own ventures like the Kuiper satellite network. In contrast, Laurene Powell Jobs adopts a more subtle, human-centric approach through her Emerson Collective. Her AI investments focus on specific, positive-impact applications—such as AI for healthcare (Proximie, Atropos Health), education (Curipod), and European AI sovereignty (Mistral AI). A key, high-profile bet was her early backing of Jony Ive's design firm LoveFrom and its spin-off, io, an AI hardware device company later acquired by OpenAI. Her philosophy prioritizes improving human-machine interaction and addressing societal needs over sheer scale or control. These three strategies—Schmidt's focus on state-level infrastructure and security, Bezos's pursuit of end-to-end industrial integration, and Powell Jobs's emphasis on human-centered design and applied solutions—represent fundamentally different wagers on what will define the next decade of AI. While the eventual winner is unknown, the sheer scale of this capital migration from internet-era giants is already reshaping the industry's trajectory.

marsbit05/14 08:11

Bezos, Schmidt, Powell Jobs: The Three AI Investment Philosophies of Silicon Valley's Old Money

marsbit05/14 08:11

Chinese Young Man's AI Short Goes Viral Abroad! Hollywood Director Searches Online: Wants to Hire Him

A young Chinese creator, Mx-Shell, an amateur filmmaker from Yunnan with no formal film training, has gone viral internationally with his AI-generated short film "Zombie Scavenger." Created independently in about 10 days using the Chinese AI video tool Seedance 2.0 at a minimal cost, the film features a robot cowboy in a post-apocalyptic world. Its unique atomic-punk style and cinematic quality caught the attention of Hollywood. The film initially gained little traction on Chinese platform Bilibili. However, after PJ Ace, founder of LA-based AI studio Genre.ai, shared it on X (formerly Twitter), praising it as "one of the best short films I've seen in recent years," it quickly garnered millions of views overseas. PJ Ace then publicly sought to hire the unknown director, sparking a cross-platform search. The creator, who doesn't speak English, was unaware of the overseas buzz until Chinese internet users relayed the message. Connection was eventually made via a QQ email address shared in Bilibili comments, and Mx-Shell received a job offer from the Hollywood director. The article highlights this as a case of "talent export." It argues that while China's competitive AI tool market lowers technical barriers, true success still relies on individual creativity, aesthetic judgment, and narrative skill—qualities Mx-Shell demonstrated. His story exemplifies how AI tools can empower previously unseen creators with compelling ideas to reach a global audience, even if initial recognition sometimes comes from abroad before reverberating back home.

marsbit05/14 07:33

Chinese Young Man's AI Short Goes Viral Abroad! Hollywood Director Searches Online: Wants to Hire Him

marsbit05/14 07:33

The Real AI Bubble, You Can't Buy It

The article argues that the real "bubble" in the current AI boom is largely invisible and inaccessible to the average investor. Unlike the 2000 dot-com bubble, where overvalued companies were publicly traded, the most significant value surges and financial risks are occurring in private markets. Core AI companies like OpenAI, Anthropic, xAI, and Databricks have seen valuations skyrocket (e.g., OpenAI's from $157B to $852B in 18 months), but these transactions happen through private secondary sales, not public stock exchanges. These opaque markets create an "anxiety exposure," leading public investors to chase indirect proxies like memory chip or utility stocks. The author highlights how AI wealth extraction has been radically front-loaded. Employees and founders can cash out years before a potential IPO through structured secondary sales, "founder-led secondary" deals, and collateralized loans against private equity. Major tech firms also use "acqui-hires" or technology licensing deals (like Google/Character.AI, Microsoft/Inflection AI) to secure talent and tech without full acquisitions, allowing early exits outside of regulatory scrutiny. Furthermore, the AI infrastructure build-out is compared to the 2008 real estate bubble. Massive data center projects are financed through complex, off-balance-sheet structures involving private credit, joint ventures, and asset-backed securities using GPUs as collateral (e.g., CoreWeave's deals). This creates a "shadow borrowing" system where the stability of future AI demand underpins trillions in debt, posing systemic risks if expectations falter. The recent collapse of SaaS company Pluralsight, financed by major private credit firms, is cited as a warning. The conclusion is that the most dangerous part of the AI bubble isn't in plain sight on public markets; by the time the average investor sees it, the critical wealth transfers have already occurred in private, unregulated spaces.

marsbit05/14 07:10

The Real AI Bubble, You Can't Buy It

marsbit05/14 07:10

活动图片