【一周靓文】以太坊分叉没那么简单;末日战车ETC涨势能否延续?

火币资讯Опубліковано о 2022-08-13Востаннє оновлено о 2022-08-15

Анотація

ETH 挖矿业的估值约为 190 亿美元,以太坊合并后,算力将流向哪里?

一周靓文,介绍过去一周最值得关注的热点文章,帮助投资者深刻理解市场动态。

1、《详解以太坊硬分叉:风险与机会》

以太坊可能的合并日期将定在2022年9月19日,由此以太坊合并进入了倒计时阶段。合并带来的影响也是最近讨论的热点,其中之一就是关于硬分叉。本篇文章将从三个方面分析以太坊硬分叉的成功可能性:(1)硬分叉的实现;(2)分叉链的价值探寻;(3)各方利益解析。

点击查看

2、《以太坊合并,哪个 PoW 项目获益最大?》

ETH 挖矿业的估值约为 190 亿美元,以太坊合并后,算力将流向哪里?

在加密货币领域,成功的关键往往是遵循当前的叙事。与之匹配的交易项目对投资者来说是最有利可图的策略。以太坊合并是 2022 年底加密领域最重要的故事之一。

一些关于以太坊当前挖矿市场的有趣数据。ETH 占 GPU 可挖矿币日收益的 97%。ETH 挖矿业的估值约为 190 亿美元。在本文中,我们将展示两个使用 PoW 的项目,我们认为它们值得关注。

点击查看

3、《过来人ETC Coop喊话宝二爷:分叉以太坊没那么简单》

根据以太坊官网的消息,网络从工作量证明(PoW)向权益证明(PoS)转变的「合并」(The Marge)计划将在今年的第三或第四季度完成,「客户端开发人员目前正在努力争取在2022年9月19日的截止日期前完成开发,但这可能会根据8月中旬的最终测试网(Goerli)的结果而改变。」

点击查看

4、《末日战车ETC涨势能否延续?》

随着以太坊合并日期确定,Vitalik表态支持POW的矿工可转向ETC以及比特大陆声明对ETC生态构建的支持,ETC的价格应声上涨,相较7月份价格低点已上涨3倍有余。ETC的上涨可以持续吗?以太坊合并是否将为ETC带来基本面上的改善?

点击查看

5、《Bankless分析师:如何在以太坊合并中找到机会?》

随着合并的不断推进,以太坊硬分叉的传言也被讨论的愈演愈烈。以太坊挖矿是一个价值数十亿美元的产业,每个月为矿工创造数亿到数十亿美元的收入。以太坊合并之后,矿工关闭设施,放弃数十亿美元的收入显然是不现实的。为了可以维持业务,他们将选择硬分叉作为以太坊合并的替代方案。

点击查看

Пов'язані матеріали

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 News7 хв тому

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

Foresight News7 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.

marsbit23 хв тому

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

marsbit23 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?

marsbit29 хв тому

Why Do Crypto Projects Keep Changing Their Names?

marsbit29 хв тому

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 News31 хв тому

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

Foresight News31 хв тому

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38 хв тому

Why Do Crypto Projects Always Love Changing Names?

链捕手38 хв тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片