观点:为什么我认为 MakerDAO 的 MKR 将跑赢大多数资产?

marsbit2025-05-11 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-05-12 tarihinde güncellendi

几个月前的MKR/SKY报告中,我提出回购的重启,将使其在风险调整后的基础上跑赢大多数加密资产。自2月20日宣布回购以来:

  • MKR对比BTC上涨46%,
  • MKR对比ETH上涨70%,
  • MKR成为为数不多的年初至今(YTD)价格上涨的加密货币之一:+24%。

在本次更新中,我将从三个方面讨论为什么我认为这种趋势会继续:

  1. 推出SKY质押机制
  2. 强制SKY代币迁移(>10%的供应将被销毁)
  3. SPK代币的挖矿计划


介绍SKY质押机制

目前,MKR/SKY是一种将所有协议收益用于回购代币的代币。按照当前的回购速度,协议每月回购约1500万美元(每日50万美元),相当于每月回购流通供应量的约1%(在所有加密项目中占比最高)。

回购

4月30日,Rune在论坛发布了一项提案,计划启动SKY质押机制。根据提案,50%的协议收益将分配给SKY质押者,以USDS支付。也就是说,每天约25万美元用于回购,25万美元分配给质押者。

回购

假设33%的SKY供应被质押,质押者预计可以获得7-8%的质押收益率。


强制SKY代币迁移

在同一更新中,还提到将进行从MKR到SKY的强制迁移:

回购

由于MKR是最早的ERC20代币之一(自2017年上线),其中必然存在一些永久丢失的代币。这可能是由于私钥丢失、钱包遗失或持有者去世等原因。通过链上数据分析,我发现了一些“沉睡的MKR代币”,这些代币将不可避免地从供应中被销毁。

回购

我基于合理假设,例如:“如果有23,349枚MKR代币在过去4-5年间没有发生过任何转移,我可以假设其中约90%已经永久丢失,也就是将被销毁。”根据这些假设,我预计大约10万枚MKR将因迁移而被销毁(约占流通供应量的11.4%)。通过参考其他丢失代币案例(如Aragon DAO),我认为这是一个保守估计。

回购

以2023年的Aragon DAO代币($ANT)为例,当时其交易价格低于金库价值。“金库掠夺者”或称RFVooors以低于净资产价值(NAV)的价格购买代币,并要求赎回金库以获取利润。这次行动成功了,随后启动了ANT代币迁移至新代币的流程以赎回金库价值。在这一过程中,大约27%的代币未被迁移,可推断这些代币已永久丢失。

回购

因此,我预计未来几个月或几年内,将有10-20%的MKR被销毁,这将对代币价格形成支撑。此外,这次强制迁移可能促使更多中心化交易所(CEX)上线SKY,这将带来额外的利好。


SPK代币推出

Spark是一个结合借贷市场与链上资产管理的项目,在几乎没有激励措施的情况下,2023年第一季度就实现了4000万美元的收入。他们能够以补贴利率为SKY借入稳定币,从而在链上分配资本。

回购

SPK将是一种“公平启动/挖矿”代币,用户只能通过质押USDS或SKY来挖矿获取(具体经济模型可参考相关文档)。在代币发行的前两年,将分配50%的$SPK激励。如果假设完全稀释估值(FDV)为5亿美元,其中2.5亿美元的价值将分配给SKY/USDS质押者。这不仅为原生代币提供了质押收益,还将促进USDS的增长,而USDS的增长将进一步推动未来更多的回购。

此外,还有其他子DAO(subDAOs)或“星”项目即将上线(如Solana Star、RWA Star等),这些新项目的推出也将进一步助力回购计划。


稳定币法案(Stablecoin Bill)

预计“稳定币法案”(GENIUS ACT)将在7月或8月由特朗普签署。尽管该法案主要针对中心化稳定币发行方(因此对去中心化发行方影响不大),但这一政策叙事可能为MKR/SKY带来积极的市场推动力。据行业专家预测,该法案有望在7月或8月通过。

İlgili Okumalar

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

In May, Meta imposed internal restrictions on its engineers regarding the use of Claude Code and Codex, two widely used AI programming tools. Despite being a major client, Meta's guidelines, still in effect, prohibit these external models from being used for specific tasks to prevent potential "escalations with partners." The core concern is "distillation"—the risk that outputs from Claude or Codex could inadvertently contaminate the training data and evaluation processes for Meta's in-house AI coding assistant, MetaCode. If MetaCode is trained or evaluated using data generated by these external models, it risks learning their capabilities rather than developing its own, blurring the line of intellectual origin. The restrictions are precise: engineers cannot use the external models to generate test questions, debug source code, or suggest test cases. AI-generated content is also barred from environments accessible to MetaCode. However, AI can still assist with peripheral tasks like workflow setup and code organization, provided all outputs are manually reviewed. This caution reflects a broader industry dilemma. While distillation is a common technique, using a competitor's model output for training raises legal and ethical questions about the ownership of derived capabilities. Contractual terms from companies like OpenAI and Anthropic explicitly forbid using their outputs to build competing products, putting enforcement power in the hands of rivals. The move is also financially motivated, as Meta seeks to reduce its hefty internal AI spending, estimated in the billions this year. Meta's policy illustrates the delicate balance companies must strike: leveraging powerful external AI tools while safeguarding the integrity and independence of their own AI development. As AI systems increasingly help build other AIs, distinguishing the origin of capabilities becomes a fundamental challenge for the entire industry.

marsbit1 saat önce

You Use Claude and Codex Every Day, but Meta Has Restricted Internal Use

marsbit1 saat önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

The article "Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?" explores the complex and often contentious integration of AI into the cultural and creative industries, particularly film and television. It begins with the cancellation of Amazon's AI-generated animation "Punky Duck," highlighting the ethical debates surrounding AI content. AI's rapid advancement is transforming video production, enabling cost-effective, full-length AI films (e.g., "RAPHAEL," "Dreams of Violets") while sparking industry resistance over issues like "synthetic actors." The core debate has shifted from whether to use AI to how to use it responsibly. The article analyzes why AI's entry into film is uniquely unsettling. It distinguishes between "cultural fast food" (short-form, fast-paced content like micro-dramas) and "cultural main courses" (traditional, long-form film/TV). AI currently excels at the former, matching its fragmented narratives, shallow emotional needs, and free-to-consumer models. However, venturing into the latter challenges the human-centric essence of storytelling—creativity, emotional depth, and the unique value of human labor and experience. While AI can generate massive volumes of content and lower costs, it risks devaluing human creativity, leading to homogenized output, and creating unfair competition through potential intellectual property infringement. Its efficiency also amplifies content safety risks, making preemptive governance crucial. To counter these risks, the article proposes establishing clear boundaries guided by a human-centered AI content perspective. It outlines four principles: 1) Amplify, rather than displace, human creative space; 2) Respect and protect human creative output; 3) Ensure human creative control and responsibility remain paramount; and 4) Guarantee transparency and traceability in AI creation. The conclusion emphasizes that humans must act as the "helmsmen" of technology, steering AI development to enhance, not replace, the core human values at the heart of cultural expression.

marsbit2 saat önce

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit2 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

The recent discovery that two articles (published in 1940 and 1942) by Max Planck, the Nobel laureate and founder of quantum theory, are marked as "retracted" on Springer's digital platform highlights a curious clash between historical publishing practices and modern automated systems. An investigation suggests these retractions are algorithmic errors, not due to fraud or misconduct. The papers, philosophical reflections on science published in *Die Naturwissenschaften*, were likely flagged by the platform's systems. One article, a republished lecture, may have been mistaken for duplicate publication. Another, sharing a title with a prior article by a different author (a common practice for continuing debates at the time), may have triggered a similar automated check. The digital versions have even been replaced with blank pages, contrary to normal practice of preserving retracted texts. This incident underscores how contemporary digital infrastructure, built around concepts like "self-plagiarism" and strict copyright, can misclassify and obscure legitimate historical scholarly communication. It serves as a warning that digital archives are not neutral mirrors of the past but are filtered by platform rules, potentially distorting the scientific record. As AI systems increasingly rely on such databases, such erroneous metadata could propagate, affecting how future tools interpret and access historical knowledge.

marsbit2 saat önce

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit2 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片