一亿美元的空投盛宴!Gnosis 生态准备崛起了吗?

老雅痞2022-03-31 tarihinde yayınlandı2022-03-31 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

本周Gnosis(GNO)价格迅速上涨50%以上,主要原因之一便是CowSwap(COW)代币的发布。

本周Gnosis(GNO)价格迅速上涨50%以上,主要原因之一便是CowSwap(COW)代币的发布。该代币总量10亿枚,空投数量占比10%,在撰写此文时代币价格为1.04$,也就是说这是一笔总量价值超1亿美元的大型空投。根据用户反馈,只要在该协议上交互过一次最少也可领取到108个$cow,可以说非常良心了。下面本文将介绍其具体空投标准以及帮助大家在酸柠檬(我也没领到)的同时了解该项目的优势所在还有其所采用的批量拍卖和巧合需求技术。

空投标准:

CoWPOAP:从测试会话、批量拍卖、CowStars或用户研究会话中获得POAP。并不是所有的POAP都同样有价值。其中一些最特别的是CowStars和用户测试参与者。注意,项目方说的是“授予”而不是“拥有”,因为他们知道这些POAPS存在二级市场,所以只考虑获奖者。

超级交易员:超级交易员是指在以太坊主网(区块13974427之前)或Gnosis链(区块20024195)上进行了至少3次交易,在第一次和最后一次交易之间至少14天,并且至少进行了3次交易的人1K总交易量。(注意,稳定币到稳定币的交易仅按因子0.1)

交易者:交易者是指在以太坊主网(区块13974427之前)或Gnosis链(区块20024195)上至少进行过一次交易,总价值为1000美元或至少进行了5次交易的人。(注意,稳定币到稳定币的交易仅按因子0.1)

GNO持有者:GNO持有者是指在以太坊主网(区块13974427之前)或Gnosis链(区块20024195)上持有至少0.1个GNO的人。他们有资格在主网或GnosisChain上持有GNO,并有资格运行GBC验证器。

CoW协议简介

CoW协议是一种完全无需许可的交易协议,它利用批量拍卖作为其价格发现机制。CoW协议除了在需要时利用所有可用的链上流动性外,还允许批量拍卖通过需求巧合(CoWs)最大化流动性。批次拍卖由协议持续运行,因为负责为批次寻找最佳解决方案的解决方正在竞争解决它。获胜的解决者将是通过拥有最佳CoW、找到最佳流动性来源或将两者结合在一个单一结算中来最大化交易者盈余的解决者。

需求巧合(CoWs)是协议中最具创新性的方面之一,但它们到底是什么?CoW是在所有具有匹配限价的订单之间共享流动性的结算。CoW协议不是AMM或CLOB,而是使用批量拍卖作为促进CoW的核心机制。使用批量拍卖可以为个人交易者带来更好的价格,并在汽油费优化和流动性提供者费用方面节省大量资金。此外,由于批量拍卖统一的清算价格和CoW不需要访问链上流动性,CoW协议能够为用户提供任何其他协议无法实现的MEV保护级别。

CowSwap是第一个建立在CoW协议之上的交易界面。它充当MetaDEX聚合器,为用户提供跨聚合器或AMM的最优惠价格,具体取决于哪一个是批次内交易最具流动性的场所。

CoW协议没有使用中央运营商或恒定功能做市商来确定交易结算,而是使用称为求解器的“一方”,即负责为批量拍卖提供结算解决方案的一方。求解器相互竞争以提交最优的批量结算解决方案,每次求解器提交成功的批量结算解决方案时,协议都会用代币奖励他们,这意味着协议奖励求解器解决批量拍卖优化问题。任何人都可以成为解算者,但要成为解算者,有一定的要求:

要成为求解器,以太坊地址需要以代币的形式存入保证金。资产类型和数量有待GnosisDAO或CowDAO定义。

一旦代币被质押(锁定),GnosisDAO/CowDAO必须投票批准或拒绝将识别求解者的以太坊地址。如果投票成功,求解器以太坊地址将被包含在白名单(验证)求解器合约中。

此外,求解器必须具备技术知识来创建适当的批量结算解决方案,否则会冒着被GnosisDAO/CowDAO罚没的风险。

项目优势

完全无需许可的MetaDEX聚合器,任何人都可以在其上交易任何代币并构建集成;

首次实施促进公平统一清算价格的批量拍卖(第二次迭代);

交易受到不同类型的MEV的保护;

可获得所有链上流动性;找到COW时的最佳价格,至少与最佳DEX聚合器价格一样好所有代币对均可交易,链下订单提交实现无gas交易

公平、去中心化的结算,其中订单匹配的公开竞争取代了中央运营商或恒定功能的做市商。

代币经济学确保求解者相互竞争,为交易者提供最佳的订单结算解决方案,以换取每批拍卖的奖励。

批量拍卖

在CoW协议上,订单是在链下下达的,不会立即执行,而是收集和汇总以分批结算。CoW协议通过开放的求解器竞争来代替中央操作员以进行订单匹配,求解器指的是提交批次订单结算解决方案的组件。一旦批次“关闭订单”意味着它不考虑任何新订单,这些求解器就可以竞争以提供与该关闭批次中的订单匹配的优化解决方案。

但是,为什么要使用批量拍卖作为DEX的价格发现机制呢?主要是两个原因:

让以太坊中的DeFi空间有机会在同一区块中建立任何代币对的相同价格。

通过将统一清算价格和需求巧合等新经济机制相结合,改进DEX交易价格提供。

即使以太坊交易在同一个区块内同时以原子方式执行,但由于AMM的设计,在同一个区块上交易相同的代币不会获得不同但相同的交易,相同的价格。这是因为恒定函数做市商(CFMM)的设计不允许在一个区块中同时进行交易。为了让CFMM工作,它需要按顺序处理交易,以便池可以知道其中代币的比例是多少,并根据它执行价格的交易。即使该块将具有相同代币对的多笔交易,但每笔交易将获得不同的价格,具体取决于它们与流动性池进行交易的顺序。因此,交易的顺序变得非常重要。

借助利用批量拍卖的CoW协议,以太坊的交易者现在可以为他们在完全相同的区块交易的相同代币对获得相同的价格。矿工重新排序交易毫无意义,利用批量拍卖的CoW协议,以太坊的交易者现在可以为他们在完全相同的区块交易的相同代币对获得相同的价格。

除了能够为批次内发生的交易建立统一的清算价格外,CoW协议批量拍卖价格发现机制还旨在提供其他CFMM无法提供的更好价格。

巧合需求

CoW协议由于使用了批量拍卖,因此针对在批次内的交易以及环形交易中寻找需求的一致性(CoW)进行了优化。

巧合需求可以解释为“两方各自持有对方想要的物品,因此直接交换这些物品的经济现象。这意味着在CoW协议上,当两个或更多交易时,每个人都持有对方想要的资产,他们的订单可以直接在所有人之间进行结算,无需外部做市商或流动性提供者。CowProtocol可以在二维订单簿中创建CoW,也可以在多维订单簿上创建它们。

使用批量拍卖的优点之一是用户不仅可以找到完美的需求巧合匹配,还可以创建环交易。本质上,环交易在所有订单中共享流动性,而不是单个代币对。此功能允许协议为交易者提供更好的价格,因为他们无需等待交易之间的完美匹配,因为他们可以将交易分解成碎片以改善交易结果。环形交易是解决分散流动性的解决方案之一。

总体而言,通过利用为需求巧合量身定制的批量拍卖,CoW协议能够为交易提供更好的价格,因为批量交易会导致更低的价差,并为用户提供更优化的交易管理。

代币效用

COW代币将赋予其持有者在CowDAO内的投票权。CowDAO的主要目的是管理和管理CoW协议生态系统的基本基础设施组件,包括:

系统参数:CowDAO将负责所有系统参数,例如解决方案评分的目标函数和求解器削减条件。

国库控股和协议收入:国库控股的分配、协议收入的分配和对生态系统项目的投资。

质押:激励CoW协议解决者通过获取参与价值来竞争提供最佳解决方案。这可能以交易费、解决方案代币奖励或两者兼而有之的形式出现。求解者可能需要质押COW才能参与解决方案提交。CoW协议用户将能够锁定COW代币以获得交易费用折扣。这为有利于所有CoW交易的代币提供了切实的效用。

费用和奖励:交易者、求解器、前端、开发人员和其他生态系统参与者应始终保持足够的激励,以继续贡献和维护一个强大的生态系统。激励措施可能以批量解决方案奖励、交易者激励、生态系统赠款等形式出现。

数据分析

根据duneanalytics数据显示,当前CowSwap每日交易量在50M-100M美元幅度波动,交易者数量在500-1k左右波动。交易量和交易额主要集中在低频、小额度之上,与Uniswap等知名去中心化交易所相比还有较大差距。

结语

梳理完本文之后,最大的感受就是在区块链行业要要足够的执行力和勤奋。面对新鲜事物要保持足够好奇心,去探究其存在的意义和所要解决的问题是什么。如同本项目CowSwap,其特色便在于允许用户使用点对点结算,从而实现无gas订单买卖Token,或者在提供MEV保护的同时进入任何链上流动性来源。即使从当前数据上来看仍处于早期阶段,但随着1kx和DelphiVentures等投资机构的入局,或许CowSwap也能凭借其独特的技术方法实现属于自己的Defi王国。

İlgili Okumalar

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor Alchemy

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor "Alchemy" On July 27, 2026, a memory chip maker from Hefei made history by surpassing the market capitalization of Industrial and Commercial Bank of China on its Shanghai Stock Exchange debut. This marks the culmination of Hefei's two-decade industrial transformation, often summarized in three strategic leaps: "Screen, Chip, Vehicle." The journey began in 2008 with a bold investment in BOE, establishing China's first 6th-generation LCD panel line. The second leap was the "Project 506" in 2016, which gave birth to ChangXin Memory Technologies (CXMT). With initial backing of 14.4 billion RMB from Hefei's state-owned investment platform, CXMT aimed to break into the global DRAM market, then over 95% controlled by three overseas giants. CXMT achieved a breakthrough in 2019 by producing China's first 8GB DDR4 DRAM chip, employing "generational leapfrog" R&D to catch up. After years of significant losses, the company turned profitable in 2025. A dramatic surge followed in 2026, driven by AI-driven demand and full capacity utilization, propelling CXMT to become the world's fourth-largest DRAM manufacturer. CXMT's success is not isolated. It anchors a dense, localized semiconductor ecosystem in Hefei. Within its vicinity are numerous supporting companies for equipment, materials, and packaging & testing. This cluster has fueled the regional economy, with Hefei's integrated circuit industry output growing over sevenfold between 2016 and 2025. The ripple effects extend beyond high-tech, revitalizing local communities with new businesses and services catering to the influx of workers. For individuals, Hefei offers competitive tech salaries at a significantly lower cost of living compared to major coastal cities, along with improved amenities and shorter commutes. Hefei's story demonstrates two decades of focused, long-term industrial policy, transforming the city from a provincial capital into a trillion-RMB GDP "Double Ten-Thousand" city (10 million people, 1 trillion RMB GDP). It shows how persistence in strategic sectors—turning sand into chips—can redefine a city's economic destiny.

marsbit11 dk önce

From Sand to Chips: Hefei's Semiconductor Alchemy

marsbit11 dk önce

Some Go Bankrupt, Others Go Shopping: The Counter-Cyclical Acquisition Logic of MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken

During a period of market stress where multiple crypto firms filed for bankruptcy or shut down, three major companies—MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken—pursued strategic acquisitions to strengthen their positions. Their divergent strategies reflect differing dependencies on key unresolved industry questions: which trading platforms, public blockchains, and stablecoins will ultimately dominate. MoonPay, operating at the fiat-crypto gateway, acquired Glide to expand its capabilities in token swaps, cross-chain operations, and financial reconciliation. Its business model is not tied to any single blockchain or stablecoin, allowing it to profit from user activity across various platforms. Circle, facing competitive pressure from the new Open Dollar Standard (OUSD) which could erode its core revenue from USDC reserve interest, acquired nearly a thousand patents from IBM. This move aims to build a competitive moat around USDC by enhancing its enterprise infrastructure, banking integrations, and compliance tools, shifting competition beyond mere interest yields. Kraken acquired Magic Labs' wallet-as-a-service business to deepen its integrated trading platform. The goal is to create a seamless "universal account" where users can trade crypto, stocks, and tokenized assets without leaving Kraken's ecosystem, while also bolstering its own layer-2 blockchain, Ink. These acquisitions highlight a trend where leading firms are consolidating core infrastructure not just for immediate profits, but to secure their futures amid ongoing industry consolidation and uncertainty. The competitive battleground is shifting from basic infrastructure access to superior product integration and ecosystem scale.

marsbit17 dk önce

Some Go Bankrupt, Others Go Shopping: The Counter-Cyclical Acquisition Logic of MoonPay, Circle, and Kraken

marsbit17 dk önce

The Permanent Underclass: No One Can Answer That 17-Year-Old Child

The article "The Permanent Underclass: No One Has an Answer for That 17-Year-Old" explores the concept of a "permanent underclass" emerging in a future where AI can perform most cognitive and physical labor. This theory, gaining traction in tech circles, suggests that as AI reduces the need for human workers, wages lose importance, and wealth increasingly flows to those who own AI models, compute, and data. The core issue is not temporary poverty but the potential breakdown of the traditional ladder of upward mobility—through labor, bargaining, and asset accumulation—making "underclass" a permanent status. The piece highlights a poignant question posed by researcher Jasmine Sun to AI lab personnel: What advice would you give a typical 17-year-old facing this future? Most had no answer, acknowledging the frightening transition ahead. However, while struggling to advise others, many in the AI field are securing their own positions, shifting from research or policy into labs to gain equity and stand on the "capital" side. This creates a vicious cycle: the more people believe labor's bargaining power is vanishing, the fewer work to rebuild it, accelerating its decline. Common personal survival strategies—learning AI skills, acquiring AI company equity, or pivoting to hands-on, in-person work—are analyzed. The author argues these are largely stopgaps, accessible mainly to the privileged, and may collectively undermine labor's overall position. The fundamental question shifts from "how not to fall behind" to "why must one's survival depend on being needed by capital?" The article concludes that the real solution is not individual adaptation but building a new societal "negotiating table"—new laws, forms of collective bargaining, or redistribution mechanisms (like taxes or public funds) to ensure the wealth AI creates is shared, especially with those displaced. It contrasts tentative institutional responses in China with a potential regulatory vacuum in the US, warning that without such frameworks being established before public frustration boils over, social unrest could follow. The 17-year-old’s dilemma underscores a systemic failure: the architects of this future are buying personal insurance but offering no collective answers.

marsbit26 dk önce

The Permanent Underclass: No One Can Answer That 17-Year-Old Child

marsbit26 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片