NFT市场的修昔底德陷阱:OpenSea反击打响手续费战争

Panews2023-02-19 tarihinde yayınlandı2023-02-19 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

坦率地说,现在断言Blur赢得了与OpenSea的地盘争夺战还为时尚早。但随着OpenSea和Blur的地盘争夺战不断升温,NFT市场竞争只会愈演愈烈,或许在这场厮杀结束后,我们能够找到一条最适合NFT创作者和交易者的发展路径。

修昔底德陷阱,由美国哈佛大学教授格雷厄姆·艾利森提出,意思是一个新崛起的大国必然要挑战现存大国,而现存大国也必然来回应这种威胁,这样战争变得不可避免。现在,修昔底德陷阱发生在了NFT市场OpenSea和Blur两大巨头身上。

""

Blur率先亮剑

""

2月15日,Blur原生代币BLUR上线交易,不到24小时交易额就突破了10亿美元,或许是趁着这股强劲势头,Blur开始在NFT版税战争的新篇章中与OpenSea针锋相对。

""

2月16日,即BLUR代币上线一天后,Blur就发布官方公告宣布更新版税政策,其中直截了当的推荐用户屏蔽OpenSea,只要不使用OpenSea即可享受全额版税,Blur还提议OpenSea取消对Blur上NFT项目设置可选版税的设置,如果OpenSea取消该政策,NFT项目将可以同时在两个平台上收取版税。Blur强调目前NFT项目创作者无法同时在Blur和OpenSea上收取版税,只能在OpenSea或Blur两者之一收取全部版税,但不能同时收取。

""

实际上,Blur这次亮剑并非偶然。2022年11月,OpenSea发布公告称,为了在 OpenSea 的平台上强制执行全额创作者费用,在2023年1月2日之后创建NFT智能合约的个人必须采取链上行动以使版税可执行。换句话说,OpenSea要求创作者使用链上工具禁止在不强制创作者版税的市场上销售NFT——这是一个明显针对Blur的举措,因为Blur是一个免版税的平台,创作者不得不禁止他们的NFT在Blur上出售才能在OpenSea上享受全部版税。如果不这样做,OpenSea会自动将这些NFT藏品的版税设置为“可选”,继而影响创作者收入。

""

Blur对OpenSea使用“黑名单”的打压手段提出异议,声称应该由创作者来决定他们的产品在何处销售、以及如何销售——而不是公司,但收效甚微,之后也不得不使用Seaport协议绕过限制。

""

然而,所谓杀敌一千自损八百,OpenSea的如意算盘并没有成功压制住Blur快速发展态势,反而引发了用户倒戈。下图是OpenSea和Blur单周交易额对比,从中可以看出,自2022年12月初(即OpenSea开始限制Blur)以来,OpenSea只有两周的交易额高于Blur,其余时间均处于落后状态。

NFT生态“大反转”?OpenSea认怂了

""

2月18日凌晨,OpenSea发布公告宣布启动限时0手续费交易,并提供最低标准为0.5%的可选版权服务且适用所有非链上强制执行版税的NFT系列,同时还更新了运营商过滤器以允许拥有相同政策的NFT市场可以共同增加市场流动性。

终于,OpenSea低头服软了。

""

OpenSea解释了做出这一决定的原因,据称是因为“NFT 生态系统发生了巨大变化”,用他们的话说:“从2022年10月开始,我们发现交易量和用户开始转向不完全执行创作者收入的NFT市场,而且这种转变仍在急剧加速。我们认为此前的举措可以促进创作者收入的广泛实施,也希望其他人可以提出更具弹性的解决方案,但事情并没有按照我们的预期发展。最近发生的事件——包括 Blur 决定降低创作者的收入(即使是过滤后的NFT藏品)以及迫使创作者在Blur或OpenSea的流动性之间做出的选择——证明我们之前的尝试并没有奏效。”

""

Blur的迅猛发展更是加剧了OpenSea的担忧,据Dune Analytics数据显示,其平台交易额已突破100万枚ETH,达到1,028,378 ETH,按照当前价格计算约合17.5亿美元,销售总量也超过了200万笔,当前达到2,027,752笔,此外Blur平台独立买家数量为109,655个。

Blur大获全胜了吗?

""

坦率地说,现在断言Blur赢得了与OpenSea的地盘争夺战还为时尚早。

""

Blur近期交易额激增很大程度上与其空投BLUR代币有关,是否能够维持更长久的有机增长还不确定。需要注意的是,OpenSea的用户量几乎是Blur的两倍(如下图所示),这意味着他们依然拥有较强的用户基础,更重要的是,OpenSea至今没有发布自己的治理代币或平台币,一旦OpenSea尝试Blur的发币策略,势必给整个NFT市场格局带来影响。

Galaxy研究人员指出,NFT交易者应该密切关注OpenSea和Blur之间正在进行的“争斗”,事实上大多数Blur的头部交易者为了获得空投代币都进行过洗售交易,这表明与OpenSea相比,Blur平台上的交易量可能不是有机的。

""

另一方面,或许是为了给自己留更多退路,Blur的反击策略其实并没有太过激进,因为其更新的版税政策中也提供了不设置屏蔽OpenSea和屏蔽Blur的选项,如果创作者不设置屏蔽,Blur将收取0.5%的版税(卖家也可以选择更高版税),而OpenSea则是可选版税;如果屏蔽Blur或其他零版税/版税可选市场的NFT项目都将在OpenSea上被强制执行版税,但交易和上架仍可以在Blur上进行,需要收取最低0.5%的版税。

""

Galaxy分析师补充称:“很明显,Blur正在利用他们的影响力来迫使OpenSea与他们合作,而不是对他们表现出敌意,时间会证明 Blur 的策略是否会奏效,但无论是在指标还是在产品方面,他们都是迄今为止最成功的OpenSea竞争对手。”

""

此外,Galaxy研究人员在周五的一份最新报告中还指出:“关于Blur,有两个关键问题需要关注。首先,也是最重要的是Blur可以保留多少市场份额,因为他们的BLUR代币具有流动性。其次是交易量,短期内预计Blur交易量不会出现严重下降,因为他们的代币激励计划第二季将至少再持续30天,但这种模式能否长期奏效值得观察。”

""

总之,随着OpenSea和Blur的地盘争夺战不断升温,NFT市场竞争只会愈演愈烈,或许在这场厮杀结束后,我们能够找到一条最适合NFT创作者和交易者的发展路径。

İlgili Okumalar

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

Facing massive paper losses exceeding $90 billion each amidst a sharp market downturn, "Digital Asset Treasury" (DAT) giants Strategy and Bitmine find themselves in a precarious position, but with different underlying risks. Strategy, heavily invested in Bitcoin (BTC), faces significant financial strain. Its strategy relies heavily on debt, including convertible notes and preferred stock (STRC) requiring substantial dividend payments. With its cash reserves dwindling and BTC offering no staking yield for cash flow, Strategy's high leverage makes it vulnerable. A continued price decline could force asset sales to meet obligations, potentially creating a negative feedback loop. Its market value has already fallen sharply. In contrast, Bitmine, an Ethereum (ETH) holder, appears on firmer financial ground. It primarily funds its purchases through equity offerings (like ATM programs), avoiding debt pressure. It also generates income by staking a large portion of its ETH holdings. While not immune to market drops and shareholder dilution concerns, Bitmine maintains more flexibility, recently announcing a new preferred share offering to raise further capital. The core divergence lies in their financing: Bitmine uses equity (investor money), while Strategy uses debt (borrowed money). Consequently, Bitmine currently faces less immediate liquidity pressure than Strategy, which must navigate the dual challenge of servicing debt/dividends and a declining core asset (BTC) price.

marsbit5 dk önce

Both Suffer Massive Losses Exceeding $90 Billion, Which Is in Greater Peril: Strategy or Bitmine?

marsbit5 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

AI Bubble: Where It Really Is and Who's Swimming Naked This analysis dissects the AI industry not as a single entity but as a five-layer pyramid, arguing that bubbles are concentrated in specific tiers, not uniformly distributed. **Key Distinction from the 2000 Dot-com Bubble:** Unlike 2000, where companies had stock prices before revenue, today's leading AI players have massive, contract-backed revenue driving their valuations. Core infrastructure demand is real, with every GPU running at full capacity for paying customers. **The Five-Layer Pyramid & Bubble Assessment:** * **L0 (Fab/Manufacturing) & Top L4 (Leading AI Apps): NO BUBBLE.** Companies like TSMC, NVIDIA, major cloud providers (Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon), and top AI labs have real revenues and orders. Supply is tightly constrained by TSMC's disciplined capacity control and physical limits like power/land for data centers, preventing a supply glut. * **L1 (Memory): BATTLEGROUND.** Sky-high HBM margins could signal a new structural cycle or a classic "boom before bust." The oligopoly of three major players may enforce supply discipline, making this a high-stakes bet. * **L2 (Interconnect/Optical Modules): BUBBLE TERRITORY.** Companies like Lumentum and AAOI have seen stock surges (4-10x) far outpacing revenue growth. This hardware segment has lower physical barriers to expansion than fabs, allowing speculation. It mirrors the 2000 bubble's epicenter—optics. * **L3 (Infrastructure/"GPU Landlords"): VULNERABLE.** GPU leasing companies profit from the current compute shortage but own no long-term moat. Their business model relies on a temporary bottleneck that will ease as big tech expands and new tech (e.g., potential space-based data centers) emerges. * **L4 Long Tail (VC-backed Startups): STRONG BUBBLE SIGNALS.** VC funding concentration in AI is twice that of the 1999 peak. Many startups with little revenue use the valuation logic of successful giants to justify their own, creating high risk of a "valuation crunch" when funding dries up. **Critical Risks to Monitor:** 1. **GPU Depreciation & Accounting:** Companies extending the assumed useful life of GPUs artificially boost profits. The true economic life depends on future generational leaps from NVIDIA. 2. **"GPU Credit" & Off-Balance-Sheet Leverage:** Emerging structures where shell companies borrow to buy GPUs and lease them out (with chipmakers sometimes investing) move debt off major balance sheets. This echoes the "vendor financing" of 2000 and the securitization risks of 2008, though currently small-scale. 3. **TSMC Abandoning Caution:** If the primary supply bottleneck (TSMC's conservative capacity planning) breaks, runaway supply could trigger a bust. 4. **Algorithmic Efficiency Breakthrough:** A major leap in software efficiency could drastically reduce the need for raw compute hardware, undermining the investment thesis. **Conclusion:** The AI boom is expensive and has frothy areas, but its core is underpinned by real demand and physical supply constraints. The bubble risk is layered: most present in optical components, GPU leasing, and the long-tail startup ecosystem, while the foundational chip manufacturing and leading application layers remain relatively solid—for now.

marsbit18 dk önce

Where the AI Bubble Really Is: Which Layer of Players Are Naked

marsbit18 dk önce

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

"Standing in the Light: Understanding the Optical Module and CPO Industry Chain" This article analyzes the critical role of optical communication technology, specifically optical modules and Co-Packaged Optics (CPO), as the "nervous system" for modern AI data centers. With exponential growth in AI computational demands (e.g., NVIDIA's Vera Rubin architecture), traditional electrical interconnects using copper cables face severe bottlenecks in bandwidth, power consumption, and signal integrity over distance. The core function of an optical module is to act as a "translator," converting electrical signals from chips into optical signals for transmission over fiber (and vice-versa). Key internal components include lasers, modulators, photodetectors, drivers, and DSP chips. The industry is currently transitioning from 800G to 1.6T modules. However, the future lies in CPO. This next-generation technology integrates the optical engine directly with the switch ASIC/XPU on the same package substrate, drastically reducing power consumption (by ~3.5x according to NVIDIA), overcoming bandwidth density limits, and minimizing signal attenuation compared to traditional pluggable modules. Key challenges for CPO include advanced packaging capacity (dominated by TSMC), thermal management, repairability, and standardization. The article details the broader technology landscape, including Near-Packaged Optics (NPO, a pragmatic intermediate step), Linear-drive Pluggable Optics (LPO), Optical I/O (OIO for chip-level integration), and Optical Circuit Switches (OCS). A comprehensive CPO industry chain is mapped, highlighting shifting power dynamics: * **Architecture Definers:** NVIDIA, Broadcom, and Marvell now hold greater influence. * **Advanced Packaging & Manufacturing:** TSMC is central; Fabrinet is a key EMS player. * **Lasers ("The Heart"):** A strategic bottleneck. EML lasers are led by Lumentum and Coherent (both receiving major NVIDIA investments). CW lasers, favored for CPO/silicon photonics, see strong Chinese players like Source Photonics and Sicoya. * **Silicon Photonics Chips:** The mainstream path for CPO engines, with key players like Broadcom, Intel, Marvell, and China's Accelink. * **Fiber Connectivity Components:** A major new, high-growth market created by CPO, including Fiber Array Units (FAU), Polarization-Maintaining Fiber (PMF), and MPO connectors. Companies like Tianfu Communication and US Conec are leaders. * **Fiber & Cable:** Experiencing a super-cycle (e.g., Corning, Yangtze Optical Fiber). * **PCB/Substrates:** Requiring advanced materials (e.g., Shengyi Tech). * **DSP & SerDes:** Functions are integrated into switch ASICs in the CPO era (e.g., Broadcom, Astera Labs). * **Optical Module Makers:** Transitioning from standalone module suppliers to providers of optical engines and NPO/LPO solutions while riding the current pluggable boom (e.g., Zhongji Innolight, Eoptolink). The investment timeline is segmented: Short-term (2026-2027) features the "last feast" for pluggable modules and CPO's initial rollout. Medium-term (2027-2029) will see CPO expand and NPO peak. Long-term (2029-2032+) involves CPO/OIO penetration into intra-rack scaling. In conclusion, optical interconnects are fundamental to AI infrastructure. The competitive landscape sees US firms leading in architecture and high-end chips, TSMC in advanced packaging, and Chinese firms holding strong positions in modules, connectivity components, CW lasers, and fiber/cable. The future belongs to companies that can navigate the technological shift from "selling shovels" (modules) to "building highways" (CPO/OIO infrastructure).

marsbit28 dk önce

Standing in the Light: A Comprehensive Guide to the Optical Module and CPO Supply Chain

marsbit28 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片