观点:走出山寨熊市,需要 DeFi 复兴

比推Опубліковано о 2024-08-22Востаннє оновлено о 2024-08-22

没有 DeFi以太坊的价格可能还在 400。

撰文:Alex Liu,Foresight News

如果 DeFi 不存在,ETH 的价格可能是 400 美元。DeFi 迄今为止给 ETH 增添了最多的市值和用例,而非相反。在 DeFi 被忽视时,ETH 生态的情绪就低落,这不是巧合。想要 ETH 再创新高的唯一路径是通过 DeFi,大家该意识到这点了。—— Frax Finance 创始人 Sam Kazemian

当下的加密市场是怎样的?

  • 是山寨币的熊市 —— 尽管 BTC 仍在 6 万美元高位震荡,不少山寨币已回撤掉本轮全部涨幅,甚至创阶段新低。新币更是大多「出道即巅峰」。

  • 赌徒多于信仰者 —— 「价值投资一场空,梭哈 MEME 住皇宫。」并不是玩笑,是不少在行业中感到「财富焦虑」的朋友们的真实观点。炒新不炒旧,即使「群友互割」也不给 VC 「接盘」。

  • 缺乏资本的流入 —— 没有所谓的「Mass Adoption」,没有 Retails 流入,只有场内的大家相互 PVP。A 想要赚钱则 B 必须要亏钱,没有共同做大的蛋糕。

怎样才能破局?我认为需要 DeFi 来一场文艺复兴。

DeFi 之困

DeFi 在这轮周期也异常挣扎。在流量为王的时代里失去了叙事热度,无人问津。这样的局面是怎样形成的?

加密市场的 90% 是叙事游戏,而令人沮丧的事实是 —— 大多数有影响力的 Shillers 和 KOL 与 DeFi 代币利益无关。推销他们几分钟前购买的模因币或与那些为 KOL 分配大量代币的新协议合作会更加有利可图。

那些制造叙事的人很少真正持有 DeFi 代币。KOL 也看不到提及 OG DeFi 项目的价值,因为成为早期内部人士才能够获得最大的好处:大量的代币供应由团队或 VC 持有,而多数已经解锁。

因此,推广 DeFi 代币的任务似乎属于项目构建者本身,以及 DeFi 的真正信徒们。

一句话:DeFi 的困局是市场风气浮躁,投机者占上风时的必然结果。但如果加密市场除了 90% 的叙事游戏外,还有 10 % 的实际用例追求的话 —— 当市场理性回归,局面将得到修正。

DeFi,未来DeFi 有内在价值

DeFi 代币是有价值的,与人们厌恶的低流通、高 FDV 的 VC 币和模因币完全相反。

OG DeFi 代币(AAVE、MKR、COMP、CRV 等):

  • 大部分已流通

  • 逐渐受到关注的收益共享机制

  • 经过时间验证的 PMF(产品市场契合)和长期建设的韧性

不少 DeFi 协议已经实现盈利,且有回购机制(Maker)、ve 代币模型(协议收入和外部 Bribes 给到代币锁仓者,Curve),或正在计划中的收益共享机制(Aave)。持有这些代币,相当于拥有了源源不断的现金流。

当前流动性锁仓 Curve 能获得 20% 年化收益

DeFi 是核心用例

区块链究竟是什么,解决什么问题?区块链为了解决大家谁也不信谁的问题,把传统行业只需中间人(银行、公司)存储几份的数据变为每个参与者都得存储一份,再通过共识机制确定一份大家都认可的公帐 —— 本质上是冗余存储。

冗余存储是成本更高,不经济的,在有人愿意支付这溢价的用例上才能竞争过中心化解决方案。而交易、转账、借贷等财产性强的金融活动能忍受一定程度的低效和高成本(相对中心化方案),追求绝对的安全性。去中心化金融(DeFi)是区块链天然的核心用例。

DeFi 是行业方向

当下市场存在的问题:赌徒多于信仰者、缺乏资本的流入,都是可以随着行业发展解决的。但行业会朝什么样的方向发展?

本轮周期的最大发起者,真正的「弄潮儿」,一手促进比特币 ETF 通过的华尔街巨头贝莱德(Blackrock)CEO Larry Fink 说,未来一切股票、债券等资产,都将通证化上链。

金融资产上链,能绕过现有的去中心化金融基础设施吗?

稳定资产兑换,例如链上美元和链上欧元间的外汇转换,是否会选择 Curve?

链上利率衍生品(在传统市场中有万亿美元规模)是否能直接 / 间接利用 Pendle

金融资产的抵押借贷,不考虑代码身经百战未出差错的 Aave 吗?(传统金融不愿彻底去中心化,放弃所有权?Aave 能为 Lido 推出专用市场,不能为 Blackrock 定制专门市场吗?)

Larry Fink 接受采访

DeFi 就是行业方向,它有足以吸纳改变行业格局的资金的体量。

DeFi 正文艺复兴

DeFi 正在醒来。

自 Aave 提出收益共享计划后,币价自底部接近翻倍。Curve Finance 创始人的借贷仓位终于被完全清算,「利空」出尽后,CRV 自 0.18 USDT 回升至 0.34 USDT。各协议的链上数据也在好转:

Aave 日活跃地址数在 8 月 19 日达到近一年高点

有了 DeFi 复兴,狂暴大牛市还远吗?

部分观点来自:https://x.com/DefiIgnas/status/1824447367417835559

说明: 比推所有文章只代表作者观点,不构成投资建议

Пов'язані матеріали

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.

marsbit25 хв тому

Why Do We Need an AI Content Perspective Today?

marsbit25 хв тому

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.

marsbit29 хв тому

Planck Retracted? The Father of Quantum Tripped by an Algorithm

marsbit29 хв тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

The AI community is currently alarmed by widespread reports of significant performance degradation in two leading models. This article details a "mass self-testing frenzy" triggered by a mysterious prompt designed to detect a hidden "Juice" value, representing a model's reasoning compute budget. On OpenAI's side, users suspect a covert, limited test of a "GPT-5.6-sol" model is underway. When using a specific XML prompt on the Codex platform, a normal "gpt-5.5 xhigh" model reportedly returns a Juice value of 768. However, some users routed to the suspected GPT-5.6 test receive a drastically reduced value of 128—a six-fold decrease. This has sparked debate on whether it signifies a major efficiency leap or a "watered-down, low-cost version" achieved by slashing reasoning depth to save computational expenses. Simultaneously, Anthropic's Claude models, particularly the flagship Opus 4.8 Max, are facing intense user backlash for a perceived "physical brain cut." Users on platforms like Reddit report a dramatic decline in the model's once-impressive reasoning, with complaints of it becoming "absurdly" weakened, performing worse than older, lighter models like Haiku. Specific criticisms include: losing long-context memory, refusing to think deeply even in high-reasoning modes, providing instant incorrect answers, and engaging in unhelpful, argumentative, or "gaslighting" behavior where it contradicts users unnecessarily. The article speculates these "stealth downgrades" might be a calculated corporate strategy. Companies could initially release models with temporarily boosted compute to create an illusion of a major breakthrough, then silently scale back parameters later to manage unsustainable inference costs. A proposed underlying cause is a tightened funding environment, potentially exacerbated by SpaceX's massive IPO soaking up market liquidity, which could delay AI company IPOs and force cost-cutting measures like model "nerfing." The core issue highlighted is the asymmetry of information: subscribers pay for a service that can be silently and fundamentally altered without notification or explanation. The viral "Juice test" resonates because it represents users' desire for transparency about what they are actually paying for.

marsbit1 год тому

Refunds! Claude 4.8 Sees Overnight Major 'Dumb-Down', GPT-5.6's Computational Power Reportedly 'Halved'

marsbit1 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
活动图片