这轮DeFi项目UNI和CRV等能否破前高?

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

来源:道说区块链

1. Base链的Degen是什么?

Base链的Degen我前面曾经写过一篇文章专门介绍。它原本只是Base链上的一个MEME币,但后来Farcaster上面越来越多的应用开始用它作为消费代币,并且有团队专门用Degen为原生代币开发了基于Base链的第三层网络。

Degen可能未必是Base链上涨幅最大的MEME币,也未必是Base链上现在最热门的MEME币,但它大概率是Base链上现在使用得最广的MEME币。

2. SSV如何?

这个币我在以前的文章中聊过,它也算质押这一大类的项目吧。

质押类项目的商业模式都非常清晰,风险收益也比较容易分析,项目的天花板在哪里也比较容易看得到。

这类项目代币的估值是否合理,或者是否超过了项目的合理范围是很容易估算出来的。这样的项目一旦价格过于离谱很容易被套现、砸盘,所以币价的涨幅很容易顶到天花板。

对这样的项目它们的代币除了短暂的炒作可能会导致价格飙高以外,一旦热潮过后,它们代币的走势大概率就是那种稳步前进的状况,或许会比比特币、以太坊稍微好点,也或许还比不上。

所以这类代币还是更符合大机构的口味、适合大资金参与,对散户而言意义一般。

对我自己参与的质押类项目比如EigenLayer、Ether.Fi等我也是这个看法,要不是这些项目有薅羊毛的机会,我大概率也不会太关注它们。

3. 这轮DeFi表现太差了,UNI、SUSHI、CRV之类的还有破前高的机会吗?

在这轮走势中,经典DeFi项目的代币确实很不尽如人意,不过一些次新的项目比如Pendle表现还是不错的。

不过总体而言,我还是认为DeFi项目代币的价格被压抑了。

DeFi项目是目前所有的细分领域中唯一能实现正营收的细分领域。但可能因为监管方面的障碍,这些项目的营收很难被正大光明地赋能到代币,所以它们代币的价格被严重限制了。

这个问题不解决,整个DeFi生态的代币其上涨空间恐怕都有限。

至于说它们能不能在接下来的牛市中破前高,我就猜不到了。

4. 在司法、财务、合同、档案等方面太多资料需要保存20年以上,去中心化存储在这些领域有多大发展空间?

我认为去中心化存储(尤其是永久存储)有很大的空间。但这个问题中提到的司法、财务、合同等这些材料是否能用到现在的永久存储(比如Arweave),技术上肯定是可以,但在现阶段,使用的障碍恐怕主要还是在成本和操作门槛。

我相信未来类似应用的成本和使用门槛降到足够低时,这个应用一定会爆发。

5. PEPE会不会成为第二个狗狗币或者屎币?

我觉得PEPE想成为第二个屎币可能性不大,因为它缺乏一个强有力的团队建设生态。能不能成为狗狗币那就要看有没有像马斯克这样的人不停地关注它。

如果没有这些条件,PEPE恐怕只能是被蹭热点的项目:大家想起来的时候就蹭一波,忘掉的时候就晾一边。

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.

marsbit16 dk önce

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

marsbit16 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 News23 dk önce

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

Foresight News23 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.

marsbit38 dk önce

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

marsbit38 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?

marsbit45 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit45 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片