危险危险危险!不脱锚就坐以Dai毙?

FastDailyОпубліковано о 2022-08-29Востаннє оновлено о 2022-08-29

Анотація

现阶段超过50%的DAI由USDC抵押,违反了风险规定。并指出,解决的方法可能只有脱锚DAI-USD。

MakerDAO 联合创始人Rune Christensen在本周发布文章《合规之路和去中心化之路:为什么 Maker 别无选择,只能准备自由浮动 DAI》(The Path of Compliance and the Path of Decentralization: Why Maker has no choice but to prepare to free float Dai)。指出现阶段超过50%的DAI由USDC抵押,违反了风险规定。并指出,解决的方法可能只有脱锚DAI-USD。

MakerDAO

根据白皮书介绍:Maker 协议,又称多担保 Dai(MCD)系统,可以让用户使用经过 “Maker 治理(Maker Governance)” 批准的资产作为担保物来生成 Dai 。Maker 治理是由社区组织并运营的一套管理 Maker 协议各方面的流程。Dai 是一种软锚定美元的资产担保型加密货币,其发行是去中心化、一视同仁的。由于波动性低,Dai 能够抵御恶性通货膨胀,并为全球范围内的任意个体提供经济自由和机会。

合规之路和去中心化之路

金融监管趋向于极端时,将所有金融活动分为两个选择:要么你是完全合规的、受监管的银行,要么你是恐怖分子。需要注意的是,这是一种趋势,而不是非黑即白的现实,这意味着显然有很多金融活动没有作为一家完全由政府控制的银行进行监管——但随着时间的推移,这种趋势是一种方式,金融自由将受到侵蚀,只要这种趋势仍然存在,就永远不会增加。

DeFi 证明它值得被视为公共、中立的金融公用事业而不是像银行那样受到监管的新中间立场的机会之窗现在已经关闭,因为 DeFi 未能提供任何真正有价值的东西,从本质上讲,Terra 崩溃的那一刻确实是我们应该意识到我们根本不可能说服公众认为加密应该与其他金融服务区别对待的那一刻。因此,加密不仅没有产生任何有用的东西,而且加密的主流意识围绕着诸如 Terra、Celsius 和其他加密骗局等灾难,这些骗局摧毁了无辜的普通人的信任,加密货币也无法树立正面的形象。

对加密货币的物理打击可以在没有事先通知的情况下发生,即使对于合法、无辜的用户也没有恢复的可能性。这违反了我们用来理解风险加权资产风险的两个核心假设,使威权威胁更加严重。

第一个因素是,任何试图夺取 RWA (风险加权资产(RWA)被用来将银行必须拥有的最低资本数量与银行放贷活动(和其他资产)的风险概况联系起来。银行承担的风险越大,就需要更多的资金来保护储户。)或打击加密货币弱点的尝试,例如黑名单或抵押品冻结,都将提前发出电报,以便让无辜和合法的用户有时间做出反应。当时的想法是,如果我们不遵守他们的监管制度,政府不仅会打击 Maker 并对无辜人民造成广泛伤害,他们还会简单地禁止 Maker 依赖他们的法律制度。结果证明这是错误的,因为在 TC 制裁案中,它一直保密,直到陷阱出现,无辜用户(幸运的是少量)将他们的 USDC 冻结在龙卷风现金智能合约中。

第二个因素是这样一种想法,即假如RWA 抵押品被冻结或没收,无辜的用户也有一些途径可以收回他们的钱,例如电子黄金价值访问计划。

Dai 不能被列入黑名单,因此 Maker 无法选择合规。

Maker必须选择去中心化的道路,这也是 Dai 的意图和目的。就像 Dai 的最初设计一样,选择去中心化的道路意味着为 Dai 可能不得不自由浮动的可能性做准备。原因很简单:去中心化路径意味着将Dai的攻击面限制为物理威胁,特别是RWA 抵押品占总投资组合的百分比。在计划中,Maker在 Eagle Stance 期间将此限制设置为 25%(在应用保险和防御措施之前),这是协议将采用的策略,但目前尚不清楚是否真的会进行镇压。

保证对 RWA 敞口进行硬性限制的唯一方法是允许 Dai 自由流通,因为对 Dai 的过度需求可能无法通过完全去中心化的资产(如 ETH)支持的额外供应来满足。处理这种不平衡并防止挂钩破裂的唯一方法是引入负目标利率,这将导致Dai 的价格从 1 美元自由浮动到较低的汇率,从而推动了 Dai 的需求并增加了 Dai 的供应,因为使用 ETH 等去中心化的金库生成它变得更便宜。

这可能是一个很难接受的现实,但不幸的是,没有办法绕过它。Dunning-Kruger 试图在无法获得与美元挂钩的 RWA 抵押品的情况下保证与 1 美元挂钩,这只会以更糟糕的痛苦和灾难告终,例如 Terra 崩盘。所以Maker唯一的选择就是做好准备,尽一切可能让它成为Maker能够生存的过渡,如果Maker真的打对了牌,它最终可能会成为Maker一直在等待的机会。

唯一的选择是通过将 RWA 暴露于总抵押品的最大固定百分比来限制攻击面——这需要从美元自由浮动。

Endgame Plan 提供了两种有效的工具来处理这个问题:MetaDAO和 Protocol Owned Vault。

MetaDAO:

最重要的可用工具是 MetaDAO。让人们接受自由浮动价格和递减率,使他们随着时间的推移以美元计价贬值的唯一方法是什么?你必须给他们别的东西作为回报。

事实证明,虽然权力下放几乎只有缺点,但人们真正关心的是一个切实的好处。这不仅仅是任何好处,而是首先将大多数人带入加密领域的最强大的东西:创建代币的能力。正如 Endgame Plan 帖子中所描述的,区块链代币的创建是迄今为止最强大的元工程形式,事实上它是如此强大,以至于政府也认识到了这种力量,并努力关闭并控制它。

使用去中心化货币,创建由token管理的去中心化企业运营的去中心化经济成为可能,并且无论当局多么愿意,它都不能被关闭或控制——只要你有一个真实的,实际上支撑它的去中心化货币。

Protocol Owned Vault:

另一个主要工具是 Protocol Owned Vault - 让 Maker 自己积累大量杠杆质押 ETH 的策略,从而成为完全去中心化、超额抵押 Dai 的净发行人。这有两大优势:首先,它允许 Maker 利用自然 Dai 需求产生的负利率,而 MetaDAO 收益农业的存在实际上会加剧这种情况(尽管如此,它必须存在,因为它提供了基本的核心理由为什么 Dai 如果不与美元挂钩,它甚至还有任何意义)。

应该很容易看出,对每年收益率超过 5% 的资产拥有大量杠杆敞口,然后拥有大量本身可以产生的债务(例如由于负利率,每年 5% 使其以美元计算随着时间的推移而自动下降。

其次,更重要的是,拥有一个协议拥有的保险库可以让制造商更直接地控制和影响负利率的允许程度,帮助稳定自由浮动的Dai,并保护用户免受不确定性,即随机受到极端负利率的打击,因为一些需求或供应冲击。基本上,如果利率足够低,Maker就可以介入,允许协议拥有的保险库采取非常高的杠杆,以首先稳定利率,使其不再下降,但同时也收获了负利率债务的巨大收益潜力。

Пов'язані матеріали

STRC 跌破面值,比特币财库实验进入下半场

The price of STRC, Strategy's dividend-paying preferred stock, has fallen below its $100 face value, triggering a re-evaluation of the "bitcoin treasury" corporate model. This highlights a critical tension: the company's asset base consists of high-volatility, non-cash-flow-generating Bitcoin, while its capital structure requires continuous cash payouts for dividends and interest. The decline of STRC signals that market pressure is shifting from asset price volatility to the pricing of the company's financing tools. Strategy's core model involves a three-step conversion: turning equity into Bitcoin exposure, converting Bitcoin holdings into capital market credit, and packaging non-yielding BTC into cash-paying securities like STRC. While Strategy holds a massive 847,363 BTC, the focus is now on cash flow mismatches. The company faces annual preferred stock dividend obligations of approximately $1.7 billion, far exceeding the cash flow from its legacy software business. Its ability to meet these obligations relies on continued access to capital markets. The market is now scrutinizing which of three potential costs becomes untenable first: rising dividend costs to attract investors, dilution costs from issuing more common stock, or the reputational cost of selling BTC—a move contrary to its "hodl" narrative. For the broader crypto market, a constrained Strategy means the potential loss of a predictable, narrative-driven marginal buyer for Bitcoin. The STRC discount serves as a reminder that the longevity of such models depends not just on Bitcoin's price, but also on financing windows, cash reserves, and investor willingness to pay a "trust premium" for the structure.

marsbit27 хв тому

STRC 跌破面值,比特币财库实验进入下半场

marsbit27 хв тому

Standard Chartered Bank’s 50-Fold Fantasy: Predicting AAVE to Reach $3,500

Standard Chartered Bank has issued an optimistic research report predicting that the AAVE token could surge 50-fold to $3,500 by 2030. This forecast is based on the projection that the total value locked (TVL) in DeFi will grow 37x to approximately $2.7 trillion, driven by stablecoin expansion and the tokenization of real-world assets (RWA). The bank's model links Aave's potential valuation directly to its protocol revenue, which is primarily driven by net interest margins. The report highlights Aave's current dominant position, noting it captures over 80% of the net earnings ("protocol retained earnings") in the lending sector while holding only about half of its TVL. It also points to the recent launch of the Aave V4 architecture and a healthy revenue stream of $142 million in 2025 as positive fundamentals. Grayscale's separate analysis, applying traditional valuation metrics like DCF, concluded AAVE is currently undervalued. However, the article notes significant challenges. Aave's peer-to-pool lending model suffers from inherent capital inefficiency, with an estimated $52 million annual "deadweight loss" due to idle funds needed for liquidity buffers. This structural flaw was exposed during the April KelpDAO exploit, which locked a WETH pool at 100% utilization for days. Emerging protocols like Morpho, with more efficient point-to-point models, are cited as growing competitive threats. In summary, while institutional forecasts paint a macro picture of massive growth fueled by RWA adoption, Aave's path forward hinges on addressing its core structural limitations and competitive pressures within the evolving DeFi lending landscape.

链捕手1 год тому

Standard Chartered Bank’s 50-Fold Fantasy: Predicting AAVE to Reach $3,500

链捕手1 год тому

Tidal Investment: We Remain Bullish on the AI Industry Chain, But the Reasons Have Changed

Tidal Investment remains optimistic about the AI industry chain, but the rationale has shifted. The market narrative has changed. While recent large-scale IPOs (e.g., SpaceX) and major fundraising plans by tech giants like Alphabet and Meta have caused some nervousness, this isn't a sign of an AI peak. The focus has moved from the initial question of AI's viability to the sustainability of massive investment cycles. The key players—primarily the major cloud providers—are not slowing down; their capital expenditure (Capex) guidance for 2026 has been increased across the board (e.g., Alphabet to $180B, Amazon to $200B). This investment cycle is proving resilient and difficult to stop. Unlike traditional hardware cycles, current AI Capex is distributed across multiple physical layers—computing, memory, networking, and critically, power infrastructure. Bottlenecks are shifting from chips to elements like electricity, transformers, and cooling systems, which have much longer lead times and cannot be easily pre-built like fiber optics during the dot-com bubble. Supply chain data (e.g., Eaton's 240% YoY data center orders) confirms this broad-based, project-driven expansion. Market concerns are acknowledged but viewed differently. First, while Capex growth currently outpaces revenue growth, raising ROI questions, this mirrors the early scaling phase of cloud computing itself. A change in view would require concrete signals like downward Capex revisions or missed AI product targets, which haven't materialized by mid-2026. Second, comparisons to the 2000 dot-com bust are flawed. That crash was driven by a massive, parallel oversupply of cheap capacity (fiber). The current cycle faces *supply constraints* in critical, capital-intensive physical infrastructure that cannot be overbuilt as easily. In conclusion, the wave of fundraising reflects the next, more complex act of the AI story. Physical bottlenecks and sustained high Capex plans suggest this is not the finale but an ongoing, capital-intensive build-out phase. The script has changed, but the play is far from over.

marsbit2 год тому

Tidal Investment: We Remain Bullish on the AI Industry Chain, But the Reasons Have Changed

marsbit2 год тому

Tidal Investment: We Remain Bullish on the AI Industry Chain, But for Different Reasons Now

Tidal Investments remains optimistic about the AI industry chain, but the rationale has shifted. The market is concerned about massive concurrent fundraising by tech giants like SpaceX, OpenAI, Alphabet, and Meta, fearing an AI peak. However, the authors argue this signals the next act of AI development, not its end. Capital expenditure (Capex) from major cloud providers (Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, Microsoft, Oracle) continues to surge aggressively into 2026. This investment cycle is more resilient than past hardware cycles due to its scale and complexity. Bottlenecks have shifted from chips to critical physical infrastructure like power grids, transformers, cooling, and data center construction—areas with long lead times and limited capacity for rapid expansion. Supply chain data (e.g., Eaton's orders) confirms substantial, tangible progress. Key market concerns are addressed: 1. **ROI vs. Capex Growth**: While Capex growth outpaces revenue, the authors note cloud giants have historically overcome similar phases through scale. The cycle will only be in danger if Capex guidance is cut, orders are canceled, or AI product demand falters—none of which are currently observed. 2. **Comparison to the 2000 Dot-com Bubble**: Unlike the telecom bubble, where cheap, oversupplied fiber crashed prices, AI infrastructure (especially power) is constrained, customized, and subject to lengthy approvals, making a similar supply glut and crash unlikely. In conclusion, the wave of fundraising reflects the immense, ongoing capital needs for AI's next phase, constrained by slow-moving physical bottlenecks. The AI cycle is not over; the script has simply changed.

链捕手2 год тому

Tidal Investment: We Remain Bullish on the AI Industry Chain, But for Different Reasons Now

链捕手2 год тому

Торгівля

Спот
Ф'ючерси
活动图片