# Institutional的所有文章

在 HTX 新闻中心浏览与「Institutional」相关的最新资讯与深度分析。潘盖市场趋势、项目动态、技术进展及监管政策,提供权威的加密行业洞察。

Pharos Network Completes $44 Million Series A Funding, Total Funding Reaches $52 Million, Accelerating the Scalable Development of the On-Chain Economy

Pharos Network, a Layer 1 blockchain designed for institutional financial applications, has raised $44 million in Series A funding, bringing its total funding to $52 million. The round was co-led by undisclosed major institutions, including a top Asian private equity fund, a listed new energy company, and a licensed Hong Kong institution. Other strategic investors include Sumitomo Corporation (via a subsidiary), SNZ, Chainlink, and Flow Traders. The funds will accelerate the development of its on-chain real-world asset (RWA) infrastructure in Asia and globally. Pharos aims to integrate $50 trillion in RWA, traditional finance (TradFi), and cross-chain capital into a modular on-chain economy. The network uses a deeply parallel execution architecture with built-in compliance modules tailored for real-time, asset-backed financial applications. The company recently partnered with energy giant GCL to launch an RWA pilot project backed by energy assets. Its Atlantic Ocean testnet is already operational, supporting millions of users and hundreds of millions of addresses, demonstrating its capacity for high-frequency, high-value asset transfers in preparation for mainnet launch. Pharos was co-founded by ex-Ant Group core management, including CEO Wish Wu, and previously raised an $8 million seed round in November 2024.

marsbit6小时前

Pharos Network Completes $44 Million Series A Funding, Total Funding Reaches $52 Million, Accelerating the Scalable Development of the On-Chain Economy

marsbit6小时前

Chaos Labs Exits, Who Will Take Over Aave's Risk?

Chaos Labs, the core risk management provider for Aave V2 and V3 markets, has announced its decision to terminate its partnership with Aave. Despite Aave Labs increasing the budget to $5 million to retain them, Chaos Labs chose to leave due to fundamental disagreements on how risk should be managed. Key reasons for the departure include: the loss of core Aave contributors increasing operational risk, the expanded scope and complexity introduced by Aave V4 (which requires rebuilding risk infrastructure from scratch), and the fact that Chaos Labs operated at a financial loss even with increased budgets. They estimate that proper risk management for both V3 and V4 should cost at least $8 million annually (≈5.6% of protocol revenue), closer to traditional banking standards, rather than the previous 2%. Chaos Labs emphasized that Aave’s reputation and institutional adoption rely heavily on its risk management track record. They also highlighted unquantified costs like legal liability and operational security risks. The exit occurs as Aave plans its V4 upgrade and expands into institutional markets. Chaos Labs warns that migrating to V4 while maintaining V3 will double, not halve, the workload, and that accumulated operational experience cannot be easily transferred. The decision reflects a principled stance: Chaos Labs only attaches its name to work that meets its high-risk standards, even at significant financial sacrifice.

marsbit昨天 03:36

Chaos Labs Exits, Who Will Take Over Aave's Risk?

marsbit昨天 03:36

Data Research: How Big Is the Liquidity Gap Between Hyperliquid and CME Crude Oil?

This analysis compares the liquidity and market structure of Hyperliquid's xyz:CL perpetual crude oil contract with CME's CLJ6 futures contract over a three-week period from late February to mid-March 2026. Key findings reveal a significant liquidity gap: Hyperliquid's average depth is less than 1% of CME's, with a 125x difference at the ±2 bps level. The median trade size on Hyperliquid ($543) is 166x smaller than on CME ($90,450), reflecting its crypto-native retail user base. For a $1M order, estimated slippage on Hyperliquid (15.4 bps) is approximately 20x higher than on CME (0.79 bps), indicating it currently lacks the capacity for institutional-sized orders. However, a notable trend emerged during weekends when CME is closed. Hyperliquid's weekend trading volume grew significantly over the three observed weekends, from $31M to over $1B, and the average trade size increased, suggesting use by traders seeking exposure or hedging ahead of Monday's open. While an initial "discovery boundary" mechanism limited price discovery on the first weekend, subsequent weekends showed Hyperliquid's price increasingly converged with CME's Monday opening price, demonstrating its evolving price discovery capabilities. The report concludes that while Hyperliquid's absolute liquidity metrics are not comparable to CME, its growing weekend activity shows promise. However, high transaction costs for large orders remain a major barrier to attracting institutional participants.

Odaily星球日报前天 02:50

Data Research: How Big Is the Liquidity Gap Between Hyperliquid and CME Crude Oil?

Odaily星球日报前天 02:50

活动图片