闪电网络走稳定币这条路算是对了

Odaily星球日报Опубліковано о 2024-07-28Востаннє оновлено о 2024-07-28

Анотація

闪电网络一直想做的都是比特币上的稳定币。

原创 | Odaily星球日报(@OdailyChina

作者|Golem(@web3_golem

闪电网络走稳定币这条路算是对了

7 月 23 日,闪电网络主要软件开发商 Lightning Labs宣布在闪电网络上发布了 Taproot Assets 的重要更新,使闪电网络能够支持除 BTC 以外的多资产转移。用户现在可以在主网上铸造 Taproot Assets,并通过闪电网络进行即时、低费用的资产转移。

Lightning Labs 认为这次更新意义重大,能够帮助将数万亿美元的稳定币市场带入比特币,使美元和世界金融资产比特币化。那么,Lightning Labs 为何执着于在比特币上发展稳定币,其与其他资产发行协议相比又有何优势?下面将探讨这些问题。

闪电网络对稳定币的执着

早在 2022 年 Lightning Labs 就推出了 Taro 协议,旨在将稳定币和其他资产引入比特币和闪电网络,并且在发布协议的博客中强调了拉丁美洲、西非等国家和地区对闪电网络中即时结算的稳定币需求。但因在 2023 年 3 月遭遇版权诉讼风波,遂不得不暂时停止了该项目。

而在 2023 年 10 月 Taproot Assets 在主网的发布正好赶上了比特币生态资产发行协议遍地开花的时刻,因此很多人会以为 Lightning Labs 也只是想凑个热闹,但实际情况是 Taproot Assets 是 Taro 协议的延续,Lightning Labs 想要在比特币上发行稳定币的想法甚至比其他协议都早。

虽然将 Taproot Assets 引入 Nostr 网络的 Nostr Assets 协议确实短暂造成了一波 Taproot Assets 的财富效应。但盲目造就新资产并不是 Lightning Labs 的初衷,稳定币依然是其重点发展方向。Lightning Labs 业务开发主管 Ryan Gentry 在 Taproot Assets 发布博客的开头就写到“相信将看到无数的全球货币作为 Taproot Assets 发行,全球的外汇交易将通过闪电网络即时结算。”

而后 Lightning Labs 也一直在推进稳定币的实验。在 2024 年 5 月,Lightning Labs 首席执行官 Elizabeth Stark 公开宣布已经使用 Taproot Assets 协议在闪电网络上执行了测试交易,并表示在比特币上发布稳定币将促进新的金融用例并将更多人带入货币和数字资产互联网。

截止到现在能在技术上支持在比特币和闪电网络上运行稳定币等多资产,Lightning Labs 实际已经默默开发了两年。

闪电网络在新兴市场中的采用

2021 年中旬,自萨尔瓦多宣布将比特币作为法定货币并发布了基于闪电网络支付的多个相关基础设施后,闪电网络节点和通道数量就迅速增加。截止发稿,闪电网络一共有 13474 个节点,近 5 万个支付通道,通道资金约为 5219 枚比特币(约合 3.47 亿美元)。

闪电网络走稳定币这条路算是对了

闪电网络节点(左)与通道(右)数量,数据源自:bitcoin visuals

由此可看出,闪电网络在 2021 年后的爆炸式增长主要来自于如萨尔瓦多这样的拉丁美洲、西非等金融中介成本高的国家和地区,用户使用比特币和闪电网络进行日常转账交易、商户支付和跨境汇款等更加便利和经济。

在 2021 年之前通过西联汇款公司等传统金融巨头向住在萨尔瓦多进行跨境汇款需要支付昂贵的服务费,仅在 2020 年汇款支付就占了萨尔瓦多 GDP 的 23% ,即大约 59 亿美元,而当把比特币作为汇款资金并使用闪电网络进行跨境汇款时,相比之下服务费近乎为零。

闪电网络需要发展稳定币

在过去五年里,稳定币逐渐代替比特币,占据了全球链上交易的 50% 以上。根据 K 33 Research 的数据, 2023 年稳定币的年交易量为 11 万亿美元,预计 2024 年将超过 30 万亿美元,是 Visa 年交易量的两倍多。

闪电网络走稳定币这条路算是对了

来源:Castle Island

全球对稳定币的需求不可否认,而此后的增长将主要由亚非拉等新兴市场推动,Tether 首席执行官 Paolo Ardoino 也在今年 4 月份表示,在有完整银行系统的欧洲和美国,没有人真正需要稳定币。

而在缺乏完善金融系统的发展中国家,人们更需要廉价与即时结算的稳定金融设施,而不是不稳定的资产。闪电网络虽然使用户获得了低费用和低延迟的结算,但随着网络通道数量和容量的不断扩大、应用场景的要求不断增加,比特币本身的波动性而带来的较大交易摩擦已经越来越阻碍比特币和闪电网络在支付、DeFi 等领域的发展,在这样的背景下,闪电网络需要发展稳定币。

闪电网络发展稳定币的优势

稳定币对于比特币生态的重要性不言而喻,其他比特币生态的资产发行协议如 BRC 20、Runes、RGB++等也都在探索如何在比特币生态上发行稳定币并制造 DeFi 飞轮。但搭配闪电网络的 Taproot Assets 却有它们不可比拟的优势。

  • 相关功能完整

基础设施上,所有资产发行者都无需建立自己的路由节点子网络,而都可以使用现有的比特币节点路由,这使得稳定币可以迅速在已经建立的闪电网络支付渠道中应用。并且还同时推出了无需信任和托管的链上 Swap,Taproot Assets 用户和开发人员可以通过 PSBT 原生地将资产兑换为比特币或其他 Taproot Assets,对后续稳定币的链上应用已经提供了支持。

  • 依托现有巨大的用户基数

闪电网络另一大优势在于经历过去几年的迅速增长,其在全球特别是亚非拉等新兴市场已经有了巨大的支付用户基数与合作伙伴。这使闪电网络上的稳定币能够更容易触达到真实的用户,在如钱包、支付软件等合作伙伴的帮助下迅速覆盖应用场景。而其他比特币生态的资产发行协议所发行的稳定币相当于从零开始。

  • 或得到稳定币发行商 Tether 的支持

Tether 是市值排名第三的稳定币 USDT 的发行商,其早在 2022 年就有打算联合 Synonym 一起在闪电网络上发行代币。Tether 首席执行官 Paolo Ardoino 也在社交媒体上支持闪电网络的发展,在 2023 年 10 月 Lightning Labs 发布 Taproot Assets 协议时,他就引用称其为“未来”。Paolo Ardoino 个人 X 账号简介中带有“bitcoin + P2P ”的标签,并在 7 月 21 日发帖提到由 USDT 和闪电网络为P2P AI 代理提供支付支持。

闪电网络走稳定币这条路算是对了

从这些蛛丝马迹中推断,或许 Tether 还一直有在比特币上推出稳定币的想法,并且闪电网络可能会是其首选合作伙伴。

总结

闪电网络诞生时是解决比特币在小额支付上的缺憾,而经过了 5 到 6 年的发展,闪电网络在比特币小额支付中已经算初有成效。而在这过程中,闪电网络的愿景逐渐走向了“要将美元和世界金融资产比特币化”,当人们在日常被鼓励使用比特币时,他们也愿意将比特币网络用于 DeFi 和 NFT 等领域的实践。

去年 10 月份 Lightning Labs 支持在比特币主网上铸造 Taproot Assets,但不支持在闪电网络上进行转移。时隔半年多,今日 Lightning Labs 已经支持在闪电网络上转移 Taproot Assets,距离将稳定币带入比特币生态已经只有一步之遥了。


Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit31 хв тому

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

marsbit31 хв тому

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 News38 хв тому

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

Foresight News38 хв тому

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.

marsbit53 хв тому

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

marsbit53 хв тому

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?

marsbit1 год тому

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片