8liens:一帮CryptoPunks OG与TreasureDAO的恩怨情仇

区块律动2022-08-14 tarihinde yayınlandı2022-08-14 tarihinde güncellendi

Özet

10000 个 8liens 降落以太坊主网,一帮CryptoPunks OG与TreasureDAO的恩怨情仇。

经过接近 7 个月的等待,10000 个 8liens 终于全体「降落」在了以太坊主网。仅仅 3 天多的时间,8liens 的成交量已突破 3000 ETH,成功刮起了「外星人风暴」。

这场「外星人风暴」经受住了考验且仍未停息。白名单铸造刚开始时,「纸手」们发动了第一次进攻,地板价曾被砸至 0.1 ETH,但很快就回到了 0.2 ETH 上方。公售结束后,「纸手」们再度袭来且更加猛烈,甚至有低于 0.1 ETH 的成交记录。虽然砸得更猛,但修复得居然也更快,只用了大约半个小时,地板价就完成了修复。

目前,8liens 的地板价维持在 0.5 ETH 上方,这样的成功让不少人感到意外——的确,我们很久没有看见这样 Old School 且涨势汹汹的项目了。

玩转 Old School,还得靠背景

有 Token 吗?有游戏吗?有元宇宙吗?8liens 的回答是没有,没有,还是没有。

那有个啥?有 Free Mint,有零版税,有 CC0,没了。8liens 团队对项目的定位,就是「NFT 艺术」

团队还提到,8liens 的灵感来自 CryptoPunks,他们也用实际行动 Respect 了老 OG——团队唯一的收入来源是自留总量 10% 的 8liens,另外还留下了 10% 的总量用于项目发展。此外,团队还计划像 CryptoPunks 那样拥有一个自己的交易市场。

把项目定位弄成如此Old School的「NFT 艺术」,注定了打法只能很硬核——左手「艺术质量」,右手「团队背景」,真的很难再找到第三板斧子了。「艺术质量」比较见仁见智,且 8liens 尚未开图,暂时也无从谈起。但「团队背景」上,8liens 够硬。

8liens 团队的两名顾问 Bharat Krymo 与 NooNe0x.eth 均为著名 NFT 收藏家 6529 的 6529 Capital 的成员,三位创始人 punkvandelay、Debussy.eth 与 Scalynelson 也都是 CryptoPunks 的早期收藏者。CryptoPunks OG 们人脉的威力,从 8liens 的蓝筹率上可见一斑。

不仅如此,目前持仓前三的大户 darren.eth、0x4c0dbe2bfa35c379788d0d5b1d7f2e749945509f 与 0x84e01061fa6b69c1629e3578d988eb20cb73a677(分别持有 109 个、99 个与 68 个)更是连一个 8liens 都没有摆上货架,真的很「钻手」。值得一提的是,Steve Aoki 也买入了 10 个 8liens。

艺术家方面,8liens 的主艺术家 Unstable Kido 来自韩国,2021 年初开始创作 NFT 艺术,其作品在 Foundation 和 OpenSea 上的总成交量超过 250 ETH。此外,有 16 个 1/1 8liens 分别由 16 个不同的艺术家创作,已经揭晓的有 CrypToadz 创始人 gremplin、Bryan Brinkman、Alpha Centauri Kid 与 Hackatao,可谓群星汇聚。

没有如此深厚的背景,几乎不可能把一个 Old School 风格的项目抬到这样的高度。阅读到这里,应该都比较枯燥——无非又是一个「注意力经济」的典型罢了。但有趣的是,8liens 之前的计划是发行在 Arbitrum 上,一直到 7 月底才正式宣布将「外星人」带到以太坊主网。这就牵扯到了 8liens 与 Arbitrum 上著名的 Loot 衍生项目 TreasureDAO 的恩怨情仇。

从 Smoliens 到 8liens,从 Arbitrum 到主网

在文章的开头,提到了「接近 7 个月的等待」,就让我们把时针拨回年初吧。

彼时,Arbitrum 上的王牌 NFT 项目,也就是 TreasureDAO 的 Smol Brains,最高单价超过了 10000 美元,无论是价格还是人气都正处巅峰。Smol Brains 的火爆使一系列以 Smol 作为名称开头的衍生项目如雨后春笋般冒出,这些 Smol 开头的衍生项目借助 Smol Brains 的高人气,很快都度过了难熬的冷启动阶段,快速聚起了流量,8liens 正是其中之一。当时的 8liens,叫 Smoliens。

到了 2 月底,Smol Brains 与 8liens 的「蜜月期」结束了,问题的核心在于二者的发展思路发生了冲突。8liens 想要做的是一个 CryptoPunks 般的项目,零版税且拥有自己的交易市场,这与 TreasureDAO 的发展背道而驰——TreasureDAO 有自己的 NFT 交易市场 Trove,他们扶持衍生项目,让项目进驻 Trove,收取版税进行分配,支撑自身与各衍生项目的发展,版税对 TreasureDAO 来说至关重要。屋漏偏逢连夜雨,Trove 的再次延期上线,也使 8liens 不愿继续等待。

TreasureDAO 觉得受到了背叛,认为 8liens 根本不想参与 TreasureDAO 的建设,双方在一场 AMA 中爆发了激烈的争吵,8liens 不认为自己是 Smol 衍生项目,甚至说出了「我们根本不在乎你们的 Token($Magic)」这样的重话。

此后,双方彻底分道扬镳,Smoliens 改名为了如今的名字——8liens。再接着,市场风云变幻,进入了熊市。TreasureDAO 在 6 月终于上线了 Trove,但表现不尽如人意,至今市场总成交量在 160 ETH 左右。NFT 价格不复年初的辉煌,Token 更是从最高点的 6 美元跌到了如今 1 美元以下。8liens 则是陷入了长时间的沉寂,除了在 Twitter 放放预览图,几乎没有新闻。

一直到 7 月底,8liens 团队终于在 Discord 透露,他们认为 Arbitrum「还不够成熟」,决定将项目转向主网发行。如今,8liens 的地板价已经超过了 Smol Brains。虽然发展思路上的差异导致的分开是必然,但人总愿意去想「假如」——如果在另一个平行时空里,Smoliens 留在了 TreasureDAO 生态内,上架了 Trove 市场,那么二者会共创辉煌吗?

「想假如,是最空虚的痛」... 还是各自安好,各自前行吧。

结语

在 8liens 的社区中,我发现了一些与这个项目的调性一样,很 Old School 的持有者——他们单纯地喜欢这个像素风的「外星人」,通过写故事等方式早早拿到了白名单,在铸造后笑看价格起起落落,岿然不动。

习惯了冲,习惯了「纸」,最初收藏一个喜欢的小图片当头像的那份喜悦和感动还在吗?不管「外星人」 的故事还能有多长,惟愿它们能够多带回这样一点「痴」,这样一点「傻」...

İlgili Okumalar

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 News6 dk önce

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

Foresight News6 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.

marsbit22 dk önce

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

marsbit22 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?

marsbit28 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit28 dk önce

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Franklin Templeton filed for two ETFs on June 18 that embed a "default option" logic into Bitcoin investing. These funds—the Franklin US Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF and the Franklin US Innovative Equity Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment Index ETF—aim to automatically allocate a portion of investor dividends to Bitcoin, initially with a 95% stock and 5% Bitcoin allocation. The mechanism is designed for financial advisors, not retail investors. By packaging Bitcoin exposure within a standard equity fund label, advisors can bypass internal compliance restrictions against direct cryptocurrency allocation for their clients. Dividends from the stock holdings are automatically used to buy Bitcoin via spot ETFs, futures, or options. However, the structure imposes strict rebalancing rules: if Bitcoin's allocation exceeds 5%, it is trimmed back to 4.5% quarterly, with a hard cap of 20%. This means the fund becomes a systematic seller during Bitcoin price rallies. Realistically, the potential buying pressure is minimal. Based on dividend yields (approximately 1.05% for broad market, 0.52% for innovative equity), the annual inflow into Bitcoin would be a tiny fraction of the fund's assets. For comparison, Franklin's existing Bitcoin ETF ($359 million AUM) would generate only about $3.6 million in annual Bitcoin purchases—negligible against Bitcoin's daily trading volume. The innovative equity fund, heavily weighted in low-dividend stocks like Nvidia, would have even weaker buying power. The product utilizes an offshore Cayman subsidiary to hold Bitcoin, a common compliance tactic for commodity exposure in mutual funds. A key drawback for investors is the tax liability: they must pay taxes on dividends that are automatically converted into Bitcoin, requiring out-of-pocket cash for a gain they never directly receive. For the strategy to scale significantly, such funds would need to become a default or near-default option in retirement plans like 401(k)s. Recent regulatory moves, including a Trump executive order and a Department of Labor proposal offering fiduciary safe harbors for including crypto assets, could pave the way. However, widespread employer adoption likely awaits further legal clarity. Ultimately, the fund's model leverages investor inertia and automated systems, rather than convincing anyone to actively choose Bitcoin. While it creates a new, albeit small, structural buyer, its rebalancing rules also establish a built-in "selling ceiling" that could dampen price upside if similar products proliferate.

Foresight News30 dk önce

A Trillion-Dollar Entry Point for Pension Funds? Franklin's Bitcoin Dividend Reinvestment ETFs Come with a Built-In Selling Pressure Ceiling

Foresight News30 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

This article explores why cryptocurrency projects frequently change their names, a practice uncommon in traditional businesses where brand equity is a core asset. Over 16% of crypto projects have reportedly rebranded, often for strategic, marketing, or defensive reasons. The primary explanation is the weak user loyalty in crypto; many users are investors, airdrop hunters, or narrative traders, not traditional consumers. When a project's token price falls, its narrative fades, or it faces scandals/hacks, its old name becomes a liability laden with negative history rather than brand value. Therefore, frequent rebranding aims to shed this historical baggage. Name changes can be a marketing strategy to align with new business directions (e.g., Matic to Polygon), capitalize on trending narratives (e.g., adding "AI" or "Multiverse"), or distance from past failures like security breaches (e.g., Anyswap to Multichain). However, the most concerning aspect often involves a simultaneous token migration or swap. This process can serve as a "liquidity reset": it wipes historical price charts, potentially eases market manipulation, and is sometimes used to introduce new tokenomics that dilute existing holders' value through hidden inflation. The article concludes that while legitimate strategic pivots can justify a rebrand, many crypto name changes are less about building a new future and more about escaping the past—erasing bad memories, failed narratives, and dissatisfied communities. The key questions for any rebranding project are: what genuine new value or strategy does it bring, how has the tokenomics changed, and what part of its history is it trying to make users forget?

链捕手37 dk önce

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手37 dk önce

İşlemler

Spot
Futures
活动图片