# Ownership İlgili Makaleler

HTX Haber Merkezi, kripto endüstrisindeki piyasa trendleri, proje güncellemeleri, teknoloji gelişmeleri ve düzenleyici politikaları kapsayan "Ownership" hakkında en son makaleleri ve derinlemesine analizleri sunmaktadır.

Understanding Circle Founder's "Agentic Economy" Treatise: Deciphering How the Economic Landscape Will Be Reshaped in the Next Decade

This text summarizes the key points from Jeremy Allaire's treatise "The Agentic Economy." It argues that the convergence of AI agents (driving the cost of thought and work toward zero) and blockchain-based onchain economies (driving transaction costs toward zero) are not separate trends but two facets of a single, emerging economic system. The core premise is that AI agents will decompose traditional corporate functions into automatable skills, managed by an "orchestration layer." This demands a new economic infrastructure built on fully-backed, programmatic stablecoins for fast, final settlement and machine-speed payments. Trust is enabled through an "accountability chain" linking agents to verified real-world identities on public blockchains. The treatise explores how this native global system reshapes credit (through machine underwriting and agent working capital), software pricing (shifting from subscriptions to consumption/pay-per-work), and corporate structure (leading to hybrid "onchain companies"). It frankly addresses significant risks: a potential decline in labor's share of income and dangerous concentration of power at control points like identity layers and dominant currency issuers. The concluding "Civic Vision" argues the solution is not to defend old jobs but to deliberately design for broad ownership of productive capital (agents, models, infrastructure) to distribute prosperity. It acknowledges that achieving this equitable outcome is a political and design challenge, not a technological inevitability.

Odaily星球日报07/15 02:09

Understanding Circle Founder's "Agentic Economy" Treatise: Deciphering How the Economic Landscape Will Be Reshaped in the Next Decade

Odaily星球日报07/15 02:09

Buyback and Burn: Just Empty Promises? The Unbridgeable Rights Gap Between Tokens and Equity

"Token Repurchase and Burn: An Empty Promise? The Unbridgeable Rights Gap Between Tokens and Equity" Holding company stock grants shareholders residual claim rights - a legally enforceable entitlement to remaining assets after all other obligations are paid. This comes with rights like voting, dividends, and a share in sale proceeds. Crypto protocols have long promised token holders similar benefits: governance participation and a share of future growth. However, this narrative is fundamentally flawed and built on voluntary promises, not enforceable legal rights. The core difference is that token holders lack any legally enforceable claim to a protocol's underlying value or revenues. Common mechanisms like using protocol revenue to buy back and burn tokens are purely discretionary; the team can alter or stop the policy at any time. Token holders have no legal recourse. This rights gap becomes critically apparent when protocols introduce traditional equity alongside tokens, as seen with Venice AI's $65M funding round. Equity investors hold legal contracts with rights to company assets and profits, while token holders' benefits depend entirely on the continued goodwill of the protocol's management. The acquisition of Houdini Swap, where equity holders were paid while token holders received nothing, starkly illustrates this disparity. Upcoming legislation like the CLARITY Act threatens to eliminate the regulatory gray area that has allowed this ambiguous "pseudo-equity" narrative. The Act would classify tokens as either digital commodities (regulated by CFTC) or investment contract assets/securities (regulated by SEC). Protocols aiming for the "digital commodity" classification would be explicitly prohibited from granting token holders any legal claim to corporate revenue, profits, or assets. Promising that tokens will appreciate from protocol profits would likely classify them as securities. Projects like Aave are attempting technical solutions, such as its automated, on-chain "Aavenomics 3.0" buyback mechanism. However, this remains code that the governance body could still vote to change, not an immutable legal contract. The industry faces a clear fork: either acknowledge tokens as digital commodities and stop promising economic rights tied to corporate profits, or formally register tokens as securities and bear the associated compliance burden. The decade-long narrative equating tokens with ownership is built on unenforceable promises. The entry of traditional equity investors with real legal rights exposes this foundational weakness, which may unravel with the next major funding deal.

Foresight News07/14 11:03

Buyback and Burn: Just Empty Promises? The Unbridgeable Rights Gap Between Tokens and Equity

Foresight News07/14 11:03

The Token Itself Is an Asset: Three Types of Tokenized Stocks, Which One Suits You?

"Tokenized Stocks: Three Types, Which One Fits You? For investors outside the US, buying stocks like SpaceX or Nvidia is difficult, requiring brokers, cross-border transfers, and often accredited investor status. Blockchain offers an alternative through tokenized stocks, a term encompassing three distinct products with vastly different ownership, voting, and profit rights. 1. **Full Real Ownership**: Companies like Superstate register native equity directly on-chain (e.g., Solana). Holders are on the official shareholder registry, with full voting rights, dividends, and legal ownership. This offers maximum rights but potentially less DeFi flexibility. 2. **SPV-Backed Tokens (Surrendered Ownership for DeFi Composability)**: Issuers like Backed (xStocks) and Ondo use offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to hold underlying shares 1:1 and issue tracking tokens. Investors get price exposure and dividends (reinvested as more tokens) but hold a claim on the SPV, not direct stock ownership. This enables use as collateral in DeFi protocols (Kamino, Morpho) and 24/7 minting/redemption, but carries SPV counterparty risk (highlighted by the PreStocks collapse). 3. **Perpetual Futures (Pure Price Speculation)**: Platforms like TradeXYZ (on Hyperliquid) and Ostium offer perpetual contracts. These are synthetic derivatives with no underlying stock ownership, using funding rates to track spot prices. They require only a price oracle, allowing extremely fast listing (e.g., SpaceX pre-IPO) and high leverage, attracting speculators. Their trading volume far exceeds tokenized spot products. The core value of tokens is that they don't need to replicate full stock ownership. Most retail investors never vote. Tokenization creates layered financial tools: full equity for institutions, composable tokens for DeFi users, and perpetuals for leveraged traders."

marsbit06/29 09:18

The Token Itself Is an Asset: Three Types of Tokenized Stocks, Which One Suits You?

marsbit06/29 09:18

Tokens as Assets: Which Type of Tokenized Stock Is Right for You?

**Tokenized Stocks: Three Models, Which Suits You?** For investors outside the US, accessing stocks like SpaceX or NVIDIA is often difficult, requiring compliant brokers and cross-border transfers. Blockchain offers an alternative through tokenized stocks, but this term encompasses three distinct models with vastly different ownership, voting rights, and economic benefits. The first model offers full, direct ownership. Platforms like Superstate register shares directly on-chain (e.g., Solana), with holders listed on the official shareholder registry, granting full voting rights, dividends, and legal status. The second model sacrifices direct ownership for DeFi composability. Issuers like Backed and Ondo use offshore Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) to issue tokens 1:1 backed by real shares. Holders gain price exposure and automated dividend accruals (via token balance increases), and tokens can be used as collateral in DeFi protocols. However, this introduces SPV counterparty risk, as seen in the PreStocks collapse. The third model abandons ownership entirely for pure price speculation. Perpetual futures platforms like TradeXYZ (on Hyperliquid) and Ostium create synthetic markets using price oracles and funding rates to track stock prices. They require no underlying shares, enabling rapid listing (e.g., SpaceX pre-IPO) and high leverage, which explains their trading volumes being 4-5x higher than tokenized spot markets. The core insight is that tokens derive value without needing to replicate full stock ownership. Most retail investors rarely exercise voting rights. These three models cater to different needs: direct ownership for institutions, DeFi-composable tokens for on-chain users, and perpetuals for leveraged, speculative traders. Tokenization is not a mere stock substitute but a new class of layered financial instruments.

Foresight News06/29 09:07

Tokens as Assets: Which Type of Tokenized Stock Is Right for You?

Foresight News06/29 09:07

Farewell to Speculation: The Graham Moment of the Crypto Industry

"Farewell to Speculation: The Graham Moment for the Crypto Industry" The article draws a parallel between today's cryptocurrency market and the speculative, unregulated US stock market of the 1920s. That era lacked mandatory corporate disclosure, enabling rampant manipulation and turning stocks into gambling tools. The 1929 crash led to foundational reforms: the Securities Acts of 1933/34 mandated transparent, audited financial reporting, and Benjamin Graham's "Security Analysis" provided a framework for fundamental valuation. Together, they created modern investing, requiring both reliable data and a methodology to value assets. Similarly, the crypto market is currently driven by narratives and speculation. However, it possesses a key advantage: unlike 1920s corporations, blockchain protocols have inherently transparent, on-chain data for revenue, treasury, and activity. The core obstacle is not transparency, but the lack of legal claim to that value. Due to regulatory uncertainty (primarily the Howey Test), most tokens are deliberately stripped of economic rights like profit-sharing to avoid being classified as securities. This creates a paradox where protocols generate revenue, but token holders have no right to it. The turning point, argues the author, is imminent US legislation. The already-passed GENIUS Act provides a framework for stablecoins. The crucial CLARITY Act, currently in advanced legislative stages, aims to clearly categorize digital assets and define their regulatory treatment (SEC vs. CFTC). This would allow developers to legally design tokens with enforceable economic rights, such as profit distribution. If passed, this would enable a shift from speculation to fundamental investment. Analysis would focus on protocol revenue sustainability, network effects, valuation multiples, and the specific rights encoded in a token's contract—mirroring traditional equity analysis. The article notes significant legislative hurdles and timelines (1-3 years for rulemaking post-passage), but emphasizes the direction is set. A deeper challenge remains: building decentralized, legally enforceable governance and ownership structures to protect token holder rights, akin to corporate law. This will be a core development focus. The transformation applies mainly to revenue-generating protocol tokens, not to assets like Bitcoin (digital gold). The article concludes that the industry's question has evolved from "can tokens create value?" to "who gets to allocate that value?". Solving the latter, as in the 1920s, will mark crypto's transition to a legitimate asset class for fundamental investment.

Foresight News06/23 08:16

Farewell to Speculation: The Graham Moment of the Crypto Industry

Foresight News06/23 08:16

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

The sudden shutdown of Claude Mythos this week starkly highlights a critical, often overlooked risk for founders: when your core capability relies entirely on someone else's platform, your fate is not in your own hands. The key question becomes: who truly owns the intelligence your product depends on? For years, the debate around open-source models focused on cost. Now, the evidence is clear: fine-tuned open-source models can achieve frontier-level quality for specific, mission-critical tasks at a fraction of the cost. However, the deeper issue is control. Relying on a third-party API is like renting; it works until the landlord changes the rules, raises the rent, or asks you to leave—as Mythos experienced. The lesson is not to stop using frontier models—they are incredible infrastructure. The goal is ownership. Ownership means starting with a powerful open-source model and shaping it around what makes your company unique: your data, workflows, domain expertise, and definition of "good." Over time, the model becomes less generic and more reflective of your business, creating durable value. The optimistic conclusion is that AI's future doesn't hinge on one superior model. There is no single frontier. The frontier includes proprietary models, models fine-tuned on company-specific knowledge, specialized models for narrow problems, and intelligent routers orchestrating model ensembles. The most interesting development is not models getting smarter, but intelligence becoming increasingly customizable. The winning companies will be those that transform intelligence into a unique, owned asset. Looking ahead, the vision is not one model dominating all, but many teams owning the part of the frontier that matters most to them.

marsbit06/16 02:10

The Shutdown of Claude Mythos Revealed the True Cost of Renting AI to Me

marsbit06/16 02:10

Pantera Partner: In the Age of Agents, Blockchain is the Inevitable Answer for AI

Summary: AI and blockchain are converging around four key pillars: payment settlement, identity systems, open systems, and resource aggregation, with commercial projects already emerging in each area. The two technologies are fundamentally complementary: AI enables infinite supply (content, agents), while blockchain establishes scarcity and verifiable ownership. AI agents generate content and services, and blockchain handles the verification and value settlement. A significant valuation mismatch exists, with leading AI companies historically overvalued compared to crypto assets, despite their deep underlying integration. The emergence of autonomous AI agents—which require assets, value transfer, and large-scale coordination—creates a need for a non-human-centric financial infrastructure. Blockchain, with its programmability, 24/7 access, and low-trust settlement, is the only suitable foundation. AI agents will not use traditional bank accounts or payment rails; they will transact using stablecoins and on-chain systems. Examples include OpenFX, which settles hundreds of billions in forex trades on-chain for AI agents, and Alchemy, a core development platform. For human identity verification in an age of AI-generated content, projects like World (Worldcoin) use blockchain-based biometric verification, while TransCrypts focuses on self-sovereign identity and verifiable credentials. The current divergence presents a unique investment opportunity. AI valuations are highly elevated, while crypto assets trade at a significant discount, even though the future smart agent economy will be built on blockchain infrastructure. The fusion of AI and blockchain is not a future trend but an ongoing reality, creating a prime environment for entrepreneurs in areas like agent-native finance, decentralized identity, and on-chain AI coordination.

marsbit06/02 13:12

Pantera Partner: In the Age of Agents, Blockchain is the Inevitable Answer for AI

marsbit06/02 13:12

AI Competition's New Battlefield: Long-term Memory Becomes the Pain Point, How Users Can Secure Their Own Context Ownership

A new front is emerging in the AI competition: user ownership of long-term memory and context. As AI models like ChatGPT evolve from chat tools into persistent digital assistants that learn user preferences and workflows, a critical question arises: who owns this accumulated "memory"? Currently, this personalized data is siloed within each platform (e.g., OpenAI, Anthropic, Google), creating a fragmented experience when users switch models. The article highlights ZetaChain's strategic pivot from blockchain interoperability to addressing this AI "memory" challenge. Its new focus is on building a "Private Memory Layer" and an "AI Consumer Layer." Through its consumer product Anuma, ZetaChain aims to give users encrypted, portable memory that can be used across different AI models. This system also envisions programmable, auditable permissions for AI agents and a framework where user knowledge can be monetized as shareable assets. Ultimately, ZetaChain's transformation reflects a broader infrastructure shift. The future bottleneck is less about raw model capability and more about continuous context, user-controlled identity, and permission management across multiple collaborating AI agents. The company's ZETA token is being repositioned as an "AI infrastructure token" to facilitate access, payments, and permissions within this proposed ecosystem. The core narrative advocates for returning control of personal context and AI relationships to users, rather than leaving them locked within proprietary platforms.

marsbit06/02 04:30

AI Competition's New Battlefield: Long-term Memory Becomes the Pain Point, How Users Can Secure Their Own Context Ownership

marsbit06/02 04:30

活动图片