INJ行情迅猛飙升 错过入手时机的投资者或将迎来熊市抄底机会

金色财经2024-07-08 tarihinde yayınlandı2024-07-08 tarihinde güncellendi

INJ(Injective Protocol)自今年年初以来已经经历了近10倍的涨幅。我之前多次考虑入手,但遗憾地错过了机会。现在币价已经处于相对高位,荡漾行情让我更加谨慎,不敢去追涨。如果市场进入熊市,可能会给INJ带来大幅度的回调,这将成为我的现货抄底列表中的一员。

关于INJ的K线图,显示出一种强烈的看涨形态,即将触及14一线,之后有可能继续上涨至20一线,甚至突破创下新高。或许我们在这个币上错失了一些机会。特别是在2022年底,买家和卖家争夺控制权导致的长期盘整后,INJ在2023年展现出强劲的价格走势。

INJ是专为构建下一代DeFi应用程序而设计的区块链,拥有开放性和互操作性的特征。该协议支持多种金融应用,包括去中心化的现货和衍生品交易、预测市场以及借贷协议等。与此同时,INJ具备多区块链兼容性,可与以太坊、支持IBC的区块链以及Solana等多种区块链进行无缝集成。

Injective引入了零Gas费交易,为用户提供了更便捷的交易体验。其生态系统涵盖了100多个项目和超过150,000名社区成员,并得到了许多领先投资者的支持,其中包括币安、Pantera Capital、Jump加密货币和Mark Cuban等。

INJ币的价格历史显示,该币在2021年4月30日达到历史最高点,价格为25.01美元,而在2020年11月3日达到历史最低点,价格为0.6557美元。尽管总供应量为100,000,000枚INJ,但目前流通中的INJ代币数量为83,755,556枚。

最近,INJ与Google展开合作,这对INJ的发展可能带来积极影响,特别是通过与Google Cloud的Analytics Hub进行合作,提供更广泛的数据交互,将为DeFi应用和机构交易策略等各种用例提供更大的潜力。这类合作有助于推动区块链技术在更广泛的商业

INJ的生态系统不仅包括去中心化交易所Helix DEX,还包括由Exotic Markets推出的第一个期权基础设施协议。这种多元化的生态系统可以为用户提供更广泛的金融服务和工具。此外,INJ的质押总额已经超过4亿美元,显示出该项目受到了广泛的关注和支持。

尽管INJ在各方面表现强劲,但仍然存在一些疑问。随着加密市场的不断演变,人们关心着INJ能否保持其强劲的势头。市场波动性较大,因此是否会出现大幅回调,为抄底提供机会是一个需要关注的问题。此外,INJ与Google的合作是否能为其带来更多的增长机会也是一个关键的因素,这取决于合作的深度和产生的实际效果。

İlgili Okumalar

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton has filed to launch two ETFs that embed a "default configuration" logic into Bitcoin investment, aiming to tap into massive pension fund flows. These "Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETFs" will initially hold 95% equities and 5% Bitcoin, automatically reinvesting stock dividends to buy Bitcoin. However, a quarterly rebalancing rule forces selling of Bitcoin if its allocation exceeds 5%, capping its maximum holding at 20%. While the product cleverly circumvents advisor reluctance and compliance hurdles by labeling itself as a U.S. equity product, its actual Bitcoin buying power is minimal. Given low dividend yields (e.g., ~1% for broad market indices), annual Bitcoin purchases from a fund the size of Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF would be a mere $3.6 million—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. Crucially, during bull markets, the fund becomes a programmed, passive *seller* of Bitcoin, potentially creating sustained sell pressure if many similar funds emerge. The strategy leverages investor inertia and automatic enrollment, similar to the success of target-date funds in 401(k) plans. It also uses an offshore Cayman subsidiary for holding Bitcoin and raises a tax complication where investors must pay taxes on dividends they never receive as cash. Although recent U.S. regulatory changes allow crypto in retirement plans, widespread adoption as a default option faces legal hurdles. The core premise remains: the system doesn't need to convince anyone to buy Bitcoin actively; it simply relies on people doing nothing.

marsbit10 dk önce

Trillion-Dollar Pension Fund Entry? Franklin Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETF Comes with a Built-in Selling Pressure Ceiling

marsbit10 dk önce

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Major Bull Loses $15 Billion On June 25th, Bitcoin fell below $60,000, hitting a low of $58,030—its lowest level since October 2024. The sell-off triggered over $1 billion in leveraged liquidations in 24 hours, with longs accounting for $788 million. This marks a more than 53% decline from the October 2025 all-time high of $126,198. A critical factor in the downturn is the weakening position of MicroStrategy, the largest corporate Bitcoin holder. With 847,363 BTC at an average cost of $75,651, the company now faces over $14.6 billion in unrealized losses. Its core financing flywheel—raising capital to buy Bitcoin—is stalling. Its variable-rate preferred shares (STRC), a key fundraising tool, have fallen 25% below their $100 target. This raises doubts about its ability to continue providing steady institutional demand for Bitcoin. Simultaneously, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs are experiencing significant outflows, with a single-day net outflow of $469 million on June 24th. This represents the most severe sustained capital flight since their launch. The macroeconomic backdrop remains restrictive, with persistent inflation delaying expected Fed rate cuts. Analysts note a shift in capital allocation, with institutional funds moving away from crypto towards AI infrastructure stocks. Immediate pressure comes from approximately $10 billion worth of Bitcoin options expiring on June 26th, which could increase market volatility. The combined effect of these factors—eroding core demand pillars, macro headwinds, and capital rotation—has decisively broken the $60,000 support level.

Foresight News16 dk önce

Bitcoin Hits 20-Month Low as Largest Bull Suffers $15 Billion Paper Loss

Foresight News16 dk önce

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

The article analyzes whether the STRC (a perpetual preferred stock issued by MicroStrategy) presents a buying opportunity after its price fell below its $100 par value to around $80, offering a seemingly high yield of 13-15%. The core argument is that STRC's discount reflects market skepticism about the sustainability of MicroStrategy's capital structure model, not just temporary panic. This model relies on issuing securities (like STRC) to raise funds to buy more Bitcoin, a "flywheel" that works in a bull market. The recent small sale of BTC to fund dividends, while minor, broke the psychological "never sell" anchor and signaled potential strain. Key risks identified are not a traditional Ponzi collapse but a potential breakdown in the financing narrative: 1) If Bitcoin enters a deep bear market, crushing MicroStrategy's stock premium (mNAV), its ability to raise cheap capital weakens. 2) If STRC remains deeply discounted, it signifies permanently higher funding costs. 3) The high cash dividend yield represents a significant ongoing expense. 4) If selling BTC to pay dividends becomes routine, the bullish narrative reverses. The conclusion is that STRC is not a risk-free high-yield asset. It is a high-coupon bet on whether MicroStrategy's BTC treasury financing model can withstand a bear market. Buying it is a wager that the market will continue to believe in and fund this structure at acceptable costs. The current price asks if this cycle's "casualty" might be a BTC treasury company's融资 model itself.

marsbit32 dk önce

STRC Falls Below $80, Can Conservative Investors Still Buy the Dip?

marsbit32 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

**Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Names?** In the crypto world, changing a project's name is common—over 16% of projects have done so, including major ones like Polygon (formerly Matic Network). This contrasts sharply with traditional businesses, which fiercely protect brand equity. The core reason is that in crypto, brand loyalty is often weak. Users are frequently investors, airdrop hunters, or yield seekers, not traditional consumers. A name associated with price crashes, hacks, or failed narratives becomes a liability, not an asset. Renaming can be a strategic reset to shed this baggage. Name changes serve as a potent marketing tool. They can signal a genuine pivot in strategy or scope (e.g., EthSign dropping "Eth" as it expanded). However, they are often used to "narrative surf," rebranding to align with hot trends like AI, RWA, or the metaverse (e.g., Elrond → MultiversX). Critically, renaming is also a PR tactic to distance a project from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap → Multichain). The most significant risk emerges when a name change is coupled with a token migration or swap. This process can allow projects to reset exchange price charts, erase visible historical downtrends, and create an illusion of a fresh start. It often facilitates liquidity resets, where low float can be exploited for pumps. More alarmingly, migrations sometimes mask overhauls to tokenomics, introducing substantial new token supply through "ecosystem funds" or "node rewards," effectively diluting existing holders. The fundamental issue isn't renaming itself, which can be valid for strategic evolution. The problem is when it functions as an escape from history—a way to avoid accountability for past mistakes, failed promises, and poor performance. When a project announces a rebrand, the critical questions are: What tangible new capability or strategy does it represent? Has the tokenomics changed? And what part of its past is it most trying to make users forget?

marsbit38 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit38 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片