ARK狂赚9600万美元后出货,现在能做空Circle了吗?

Odaily星球日报2025-06-20 tarihinde yayınlandı2025-06-20 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

基本面和短期走势是两类东西。

Circle 无疑是 6 月以来加密币股领域最狂热的代表标的,自 6 月 5 日 IPO 至今涨幅超 500% 。

ARK狂赚9600万美元后出货,现在能做空Circle了吗?

6 月 18 日,CRCL 股价创历史新高,市值达 484 亿美元。据 Yahoo 财经网站数据,Circle 当前流通股数约为 3634 万股,占其总股本(Shares outstanding, 2.0255 亿股)的比例为 17.94% 。按 18 日收盘价 199.59 美元计算,对应流通市值约为 72.53 亿美元。

Circle 股价的上涨也同步刺激了 Coinbase 股价跟涨,这是 COIN IPO 以来第一次脱离币价和交易量大涨。

ARK狂赚9600万美元后出货,现在能做空Circle了吗?

伴随着 Circle 股价新高,机构也开始逐渐获利抛售。

ARK 狂赚 9600 万美元,仅仅是利润

据报道,Circle 计划发行 2400 万股,融资 6.24 亿美元,对应目标估值为 67 亿美元。ARK Invest 认购 1.5 亿美元,Larry Fink 所领导的贝莱德投入 6000 万美元,这两家机构合计包揽了本轮募资约 35% 的份额。

6 月 5 日,ARK Invest 在 Circle 上市首日买入了近 450 万股 CRCL,按收盘价计算,总价值约为 3.73 亿美元。

ARK狂赚9600万美元后出货,现在能做空Circle了吗?

6 月 16 日,CRCL 价格突破 160 美元创历史新高之际,Ark Invest 通过旗下三个交易型开放式指数基金合计出售了 342,658 股 Circle Internet Group Inc. 的股票,其中,ARK Innovation ETF(ARKK)减持了 196,367 股,ARK Next Generation Internet ETF(ARKW)减持 92,310 股,ARK Fintech Innovation ETF(ARKF)则减持了 53,981 股;总价值约 5170 万美元。

6 月 17 日,CRCL 股价回升再次突破 160 美元,Ark Invest 的三只 ETF 又抛售了超过 300,000 股 CRCL 股票,产生了 4476 万美元的收入。

ARK狂赚9600万美元后出货,现在能做空Circle了吗?

尽管出售了超过 600,000 股,但 Ark Invest 仍持有近 400 万股 Circle 股票,价值约为 3.71 亿美元,占旗下 ETF 的 6.13%。也就是说,按照目前的股价,ARK 本周的两次抛售仅仅是卖掉了目前的 CRCL 持仓利润。

相关阅读:《加密牛市,全在美股:Circle 从 31 美元到 165 美元的十天

踏空、卖飞,币圈人现在能做空 Circle 吗?

「Circle 市值已经涨到 400 亿美元,它发行的 USDC 也不过 600 亿。」一位资深交易员在社交平台上的感慨,道出了币圈人对 CRCL 这波走势的复杂心态。CRCL 上市以来的狂飙,不仅映照出加密市场的集体情绪,也揭示了不同交易群体间认知与博弈的差异。

熟悉 USDC 运营逻辑的圈内人本应是最早受益者,但在这轮 IPO 行情中却呈现出罕见的分裂——一部分人「捏着鼻子买了」,另一部分人「看懂了逻辑,却嫌估值太贵」,最终错失上涨。而更多传统股民则因信息壁垒和叙事差异,直接冲进 CRCL,多头情绪推动价格一飞冲天。

「没有敢于梭哈 CRCL,也许是很长时间内的遗憾,」加密交易员 yuyue 写道,「在 USDT 正统 IPO 美股(几乎不可能)或 USD1 超越 USDC 并完成 IPO(短期无望)之前,Circle 都会牢牢占据这个叙事的龙头位置。」

「我美股常胜战绩就败在 Circle 这币股上!」推特用户「甜梨」自嘲道,「自从 Circle 上了后方寸大乱,以前玩股的逻辑用不上了,反而得是炒币的逻辑来,玩了他别的股票完全也不能看,一起来就乱。现在美股对我来说乱拳打死老司机了属于」。对甜梨来说,Circle 的基本面并不支持这轮涨幅,短期走势却无法用常规模型解释。

有交易员将流通市值不足 18% 作为短期暴涨的解释,类比 WLD 当初的极小盘面行情,这也再一次给币圈交易员们一个经验,「基本面和短期走势是两类东西」。

还有人则选择押注 Beta 效应,加密 KOL Taiki 在 Circle 上市前写道:「CRCL 这类公司本质上是稳定币的定价锚,如果它值 100 亿美金,那 ENA、MKR 的估值也得重算。」Taiki 通过加仓 DeFi 蓝筹资产来博取溢出效应。如今 CRCL 一路飞升至 400 亿市值,而 ENA 和 MKR 的表现显然不如 CRCL。

而另一类没有下场的人,理由更简单——太了解了。Deribit 的 Lin 姐曾直言劝家人不要碰 CRCL,她认为「Circle 收入结构单一,早已是红海,BlackRock 的 BUIDL 和 Trump 的 USD1 都会挤压他们的份额。」她的判断并不情绪化,而是源于对稳定币生态的深刻理解。但她也承认「在币圈,知道太多,有时候反而成了负担。」

和币圈交易员对估值、基本面反复推敲不同,美股投资者更愿意听故事。正如加密 KOL Kay 在 X 上所言,买 CRCL 的美股交易员看到的是「大统领国家战略、替代 VISA、嗷嗷猛冲剑指 2000 」而所谓币圈的真实用户看到的则是「合规成本高到没有利润、降息周期很容易亏损、发行量靠大量补贴、合理估值 30-50 。」

此前在 X 平台发文质疑稳定币的实际用途引发市场讨论的 Airwallex 联合创始人兼首席执行官 Jack Zhang 在 X 平台发文表示,「是时候做空 Circle 了。」

但现在,真的是时候吗?

Circle 股票的叙事,并不是给币圈人准备的,一位 Coinbase x Circle maxi Chris 认为觉得 Circle 太贵是币圈人「圈地自萌」,「你以为是币圈革命金融,结果金融业不仅加入了币圈,还把币圈革命了。」

还有人将 Circle 上市视为潜在的牛市顶部信号,类似于 2021 年 Coinbase 上市当天恰好也是比特币上轮牛市的高点。但也有人提出异议:「这轮泡沫程度远不如 2021 年,Altcoin 已被狠狠洗了一轮,BTC.D 还在高位。」

更关键的是,CRCL 是传统 IPO,存在 180 天的内部锁仓期,短期内抛压受限,不像当年 $COIN 那样直接由内部人套现。大量对冲基金在 CRCL 上市首日未能入场,只能在二级市场「追高」。部分做空机构也在承受极高的年化资金费率(超 5% ),难以形成实质性压力。

正如 Arthur Hayes 所言:「你应该做空 Circle 吗?绝对不。你可以不买,但不要做空。情绪溢价是最恐怖的加速量能。」

或许,Circle 的市值并不值得现在就去相信。但它所代表的——一个由 BlackRock、富达、Visa、Coinbase 等共同扶持的稳定币平台,已经跨过了合规红线,进入美股主流市场。它的估值并不来自币圈的共识,而来自股票市场对「金融科技合规平台」的重新定价。

Hayes 认为 Circle 被严重高估了,但价格将继续上涨,因为这次上市标志着本轮稳定币狂热的开始,而非结束。

相关阅读:《Arthur Hayes:稳定币 IPO 是「死局」,但我劝你别做空

在传统支付巨头还未大规模入场、在 USDT 不太可能 IPO、USD1 尚在政策观察期的当下,Circle 可能就是这波叙事的唯一载体。「没有真正的未来,因为新进入者的分销渠道是被关闭的,把这个想法塞进你傻瓜的脑袋里,像交易烫手山芋一样交易这坨屎。但不要做空,这些新股票会让空头亏得血本无归」

İlgili Okumalar

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

Glue Finance founder argues that Ethereum's current price underperformance, despite high on-chain activity, stems from its incomplete state and lingering dependency on central stewards like the Ethereum Foundation. The core thesis is that the market is discounting ETH not for lack of use, but because the protocol remains a "machine under construction." Key unresolved issues include centralized L2 sequencers with limited escape hatches, state bloat, vulnerable public mempools, and the looming quantum computing threat. This perpetual "work-in-progress" status forces reliance on a small group of maintainers, undermining the network's promise of credible neutrality and immutability. The author, a self-described Ethereum maximalist, rejects two flawed paths: a "wartime mode" of centralizing for speed (surrendering Ethereum's unique value) or merely replacing the Foundation with another governing entity. The only solution is to complete and then "freeze" the protocol's neutral core through a focused "Manhattan Project" dubbed "Lean Ethereum." This project aims to bundle critical upgrades—consensus layer overhaul, massive scaling via ZK-proofs, quantum resistance, and statelessness—into a decisive push to finalize the base layer. Once the core rules are cryptographically solidified and beyond anyone's control (passing the "walk-away test"), Ethereum would shed its dependency discount and earn a "rigidity premium" for its credible neutrality and programmability, potentially surpassing Bitcoin's valuation. The race is between completing this hardening and the risks of protocol capture or stagnation.

链捕手2 dk önce

Glue Finance Founder: ETH Has Entered a Phase of Non-Consensus, an Inflection Point Is Approaching

链捕手2 dk önce

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

According to an analysis published by ZeroDrift on June 22, 2026, attackers have stolen approximately $16.9 million over 40 days from five deprecated but still operational smart contracts across various blockchains. The primary issue is not a specific vulnerability but the incomplete decommissioning of legacy contracts. These "zombie contracts" often retain economic value, operational permissions, and callable functions, making them prime targets long after teams cease active development. The most significant loss occurred at DxSale, where an old locker contract lost about $7.3 million due to a forgotten control path becoming accessible again. Other affected projects include TrustedVolumes (~$5.87M), Raydium's legacy AMM pool (~$1.34M), Aztec Connect (~$2.28M), and Huma Finance V1 pool (~$101k). These incidents involved diverse systems—RFQ settlement, credit pools, liquidity lockers, AMMs—demonstrating the widespread nature of the risk. The analysis highlights that automated tools are lowering the cost for attackers to systematically scan for these long-tail targets, which have public code and weaker monitoring. In contrast, defensive practices for contract retirement remain underdeveloped. While the DeFi industry has mature audit processes for new deployments, it lacks strict protocols for securely sunsetting old contracts, which only become truly "retired" after all funds, permissions, authorizations, and trust assumptions are removed.

marsbit59 dk önce

Hackers Steal Nearly $17 Million in 40 Days as 'Zombie Contracts' Become Their ATMs

marsbit59 dk önce

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

"The Old Titans' Valuation Collapse: The Death of an Era's Valuation Framework" Between Alibaba's 2014 NYSE debut at $93.89 and its 2026 price of ~$95, twelve years have passed with zero price appreciation. This stagnation symbolizes a wholesale valuation reset for an entire generation of Chinese internet assets. Companies like Tencent, Pinduoduo, Meituan, Bilibili, and Kuaishou have seen catastrophic declines of 80-98% from their peaks. The core question arises: what framework now prices these companies, or has the framework itself expired? The valuation logic for Chinese internet stocks followed a clear "anchor-setting and anchor-removing" process. From 2014-2017, the dominant narrative was "US comparable discounting" – applying a growth premium and governance discount to US peers' multiples. This anchor loosened with the 2018 US-China trade war and the VIE structure risk, then was violently uprooted by the 2020-2021 regulatory crackdowns (Ant Group, Didi, anti-monopoly fines). The 2022 delisting panic and subsequent 2025-2026 geopolitical shocks (US military lists, AI espionage accusations) completed the demolition. The old "US对标打折" model is dead. However, this is not solely a China story. A structural mirror exists in US "old titan" stocks ("老登股"). In 2026, even Microsoft – with robust fundamentals – saw its PE compress from a 34x median to 22x, its worst performer status among the "Magnificent Seven" driven by a $190 billion annual AI capex crushing free cash flow. The core dilemma is universal: legacy platform giants, whether Alibaba or Microsoft, are spending colossal sums to chase an AI paradigm that may颠覆 their own high-margin, user/subscription-based business models. They have shifted from "companies defining the future" to "companies needing to prove they won't be淘汰ed by the future." This phenomenon of a dying valuation坐标系 has a historical precedent: post-1989 Japan. After its bubble burst, the "Japan premium" narrative ("most efficient manufacturing + perpetual growth") collapsed. A 25-year valuation vacuum ensued until Warren Buffett provided a new language in the 2010s: "low valuation + high dividend + governance reform." China's internet sector is now in a similar vacuum six years into its reset. While different from Japan's deflationary context, the parallel is clear: the old macro assumption of "deep integration with global capital" is falsified, but a new pricing framework is absent. Potential "new languages" for Chinese internet valuations are contradictory. AI transformation requires gutting profitable core businesses (e.g., Alibaba's ad-driven e-commerce) for an unproven consumption-based model, risking a Microsoft-like cash flow crunch. Alternatively, shareholder returns (buybacks/dividends) could build a floor, following Buffett's Japanese playbook, but current scales are insufficient to form a standalone anchor. The current state mirrors mid-1990s Japan: the old framework is dead, the new one unborn. The market waits in a vacuum for a重新定义ing force – a person, event, or proven business model shift – to answer "why buy." This may only be the middle phase of a prolonged re-rating.

marsbit1 saat önce

Valuation Rout of Old Titans: The Demise of a Generation's Asset Valuation Framework

marsbit1 saat önce

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Title: STRC Deeply Discounted, mNAV Falls Below Break-even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Redefined The recent volatility in MSTR and STRC highlights the need to reassess the core business model of Bitcoin reserve companies. These entities function more like leveraged, single-asset banks rather than software/tech firms. Consequently, they should be valued using banking metrics, not based on their total Bitcoin holdings. The key valuation metric is mNAV (market net asset value), akin to a price-to-book ratio. It compares the company's market capitalization to the equity value of its Bitcoin holdings after deducting all senior debt and preferred equity (like STRC). As of June 24, Strategy's mNAV was 1.10x. The focus should be on "net Bitcoin per share" (the Bitcoin claim per share after senior claims) and its growth rate, equivalent to a bank's book value and return on assets. Given STRC's 19% discount to its $100 par value (yielding 14.2%), issuing new MSTR equity at the current price to buy more Bitcoin is inefficient. It slightly dilutes the widely watched "total Bitcoin per share" metric while providing minimal improvement to the more critical "net Bitcoin per share." The article analyzes four potential uses for $1 billion in new equity: 1. **Buy Bitcoin:** Least effective. Improves net Bitcoin per share only marginally while diluting total Bitcoin per share. 2. **Repurchase STRC:** Most effective for balance sheet repair. The discount creates immediate value, increasing net Bitcoin per share by 1.0%, reducing debt burden, and lowering future dividend obligations. 3. **Boost Cash Reserves:** Dramatically improves the "cash coverage ratio" for STRC dividends from 9.8 months to 16.8 months, a crucial liquidity metric in a tightening funding environment. 4. **50/50 Split (STRC buyback & cash):** A balanced approach improving all key metrics. Strategy's own Q1 report indicates its internal break-even mNAV for profitable equity issuance to buy Bitcoin is 1.22x. With the current mNAV at 1.10x, such a move would be value-destructive. The core assumptions of its previous expansion model—issuing STRC at par and maintaining ample dividend coverage—have broken down. The recommended path is to use new capital to optimize core financial health: repurchasing discounted STRC and/or bolstering cash reserves. This would repair the balance sheet, signal liquidity strength, support STRC's price, lower its yield, and potentially reopen the par-value issuance channel. The current STRC discount represents a low-cost capital opportunity to restart this positive cycle. Bitcoin reserve companies must be evaluated as banks, focusing on book value, leverage, and liquidity resilience.

Foresight News1 saat önce

STRC Trading at Significant Discount, mNAV Falls Below Break-Even, Strategy's Valuation Logic Has Been Rewritten

Foresight News1 saat önce

İşlemler

Spot
活动图片