Re-posting the idea from the second half of this post a few months ago https://t.co/5yHyRCsvVV:
(This is very relevant to the options ideas from yesterday)
Question: if we're making a synthetic stable, what should it really be stable WITH RESPECT TO? USD is actually far from the best choice.
---
What do people who want stablecoins ultimately want? They want price stability. They have some future expenses in mind, and they want a guarantee that will be able to pay those expenses. But if crypto grows on top of USD-backed stablecoins, crypto is ultimately not truly decentralized. Furthermore, different people have different types of expenses. There has been lots of thinking about making an "ideal stablecoin" that is based on some decentralized global price index, but what if the real solution is to go a step further, and get rid of the concept of currency altogether?
Here's the idea. You have price indices on all major categories of goods and services that people buy (treating physical goods/services in different regions as different categories), and prediction markets on each category. Each user (individual or business) has a local LLM that understands that user's expenses, and offers the user a personalized basket of prediction market shares, representing "N days of that user's expected future expenses".
Now, we do not need fiat currency at all! People can hold stocks, ETH, or whatever else to grow wealth, and personalized prediction market shares when they want stability.
Wow, what a moment to see that Alphabet is hitting the primary market to raise a whopping 80Bn dollars (consider GOOG raised less than 2Bn at IPO 20+years ago)! While the main focus has been on the unusual scale of the ATM offering alongside Berkshire Hathaway's "signal", I actually think the most interesting feature is what crypto investors already have some unique insights to underwrite: the 15Bn dollars to be raised in the form of a MANDATORY CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED offering-
As I've written about before, the preferred equities market is the "armpit of American securities"; it is has neither the protective features of debt nor the upside potential of equity growth and therefore is generally used sparingly by third tier companies that have some features of adverse selection at play. It's used most commonly by banks for example when they need regulatory relief capital, or by industrials like airlines when they have specific capex needs that are too cyclical for even the most credit oriented, and very rarely ever used by pristine tech companies. In fact, the only time that I can even recall that it was used by the tech sector was in 2008 after the GFC to recapitalize (coincidentally, many will remember the outsized role that Berkshire Hathaway played by trading the security of its name to arbitrage pricing for the favor of rescuing certain banks-- more on that later)
I've also written before that if there is one thing that the crypto industry is very good at, it is inventing novel form factors of instrument specifications regardless of whether the underlying asset exposure is actually crypto native or not: perps, stablecoins, binaries that found product market fit, not necessarily only in tokens, but broadly for the securities market. It is now time to add preferred equities into that mix, for I see a lot of parallels here for what GOOG is doing versus what MSTR has been pursuing for several years now-
The GOOG pref is not particularly cheap. It is approx. 150bps over (and ~100bps richer than its own debt) as a AA+ issuer they could get away with, and also caps some upside participation with basically full downside participation. For many specialists, it is not a very interesting instrument with a clear mandate. However, it signals two bets that GOOG is making: 1) there is going to be a large unfulfilled customer base that want higher yield that is willing to give up the volatility of the underlying growth if there is the perception of asset backed collateral/spend, and 2) Google wants to have access to this temporal dislocation because they are unable to make a termed bet on how the AI bets are going to pay off just yet. It's not unlike how Strategy approached the same market betting on both of those views, just replace AI with Bitcoin with an uncertain timeline for a certain outcome.
On a more long term view, it's an early sign (or warning?) of reimagining what the corporate issuance market will look like when investors ultimately decide that certain "national security strategic companies" are more creditworthy than government spreads themselves in a post-Davos world, where investors are willing to tolerate a give up on the supposed risk free rate that does not allow you to outperform inflation and that the source of inflation may actually be more directly correlated to companies like GOOG that can price that cost of capital more cleanly as the true risk free rate. That is why I think seeing Berkshire Hathaway in this mix is particularly hard hitting; just as it saved the American economy via bailing out the banks in 2008, there is an uncomfortable sense that this, too, feels like a version of preemptive public-priviate financing for a bet the country cannot afford to risk losing. For while financial engineering without leverage is an optimization game, once you introduce leverage (esp unsecured), it becomes a confidence game. What this means is we may likely see a lot of preferred issuances that are now normalized as regular course of business in the future (just as bank bailouts did).
This also means there's going to be a fair amount of relative value alpha in this new cohort of securities trading endeavors in a special sits format that new investors won't necessarily know how to navigate. People might not first think that this phenomenon is "crypto alpha" but in fact, it is my own conviction that it is absolutely birthed out of crypto alpha lores. Crypto has always been about capturing the ambiguous risk preference within an asset liability matching framework that investors have long misunderstood their time horizon relative to their own capital formation behavior. Take for example, STRC dropping to <97 this week for what otherwise investors are struggling to decipher the true cost of liquidity.
The opportunity for crypto alpha has never been higher, never been more durable, never been more scalable. In fact, I think its entirely possible that we may see perpetual prefs by some of the best tech companies arrive in the future. It will no longer just be a play thing for DATs, but rather reconfigure the social contract of what "digital credit" might be. It will shock some traditional and institutional investors that have never seen it, but for those of us here who've been following the crypto journey will realize that it was only a matter of time: for crypto's greatest product market fit is the hyperfinancialization of the time preference arbitrage at the intersection of yield and volatility.
I'm excited to have GOOG join us.
Vitalik提出的一个很新奇的思路，用期权为基础构建合成资产代替传统的CDP+Oracle+liquidations的模式。 用在稳定币上很优雅，把ETH拆成了一个稳定币和一个杠杆代币。
P+N=1的数学实现让我联想到了提出AMM的xy=k时刻。
研究如下:
先解释一下这里合成资产指的是，比如你要在链上构建一个稳定币， 去中心化的方式你需要一个Oracle价格，和ETH CDP抵押清算系统，这就是最早MakerDAO的形式。
如果从纯粹性上来说，这套系统还需要依赖一个外部信任就是Oracle，同时需要设计好清算系统，要有足够的风控措施和缓冲机制，否则会出现类似312的情况。
Vitalik的方案看起来更加优雅，用期权为基础取代债务系统，首先就是不会有清算这个风险了，具体来说就是把1 ETH分割成一对互补的合成期权：
P：看跌期权（保护下跌）
N：看涨期权（捕捉上涨）
任何时候都可以用1 ETH拆分成(P, N)，或把(P, N)合并回1 ETH。
数学实现就是 P+N=1。
（这种比较纯粹的实现类似于AMM的xy=k）
那么期权是有到期时间和行权价的，所以Oracle只需要在到期时进行一次报价，不需要实时报价，大大降低了Oracle风险。
如果对期权不太了解，可以简单认为把ETH拆成了两部分，P是跌了就保护你的保险，N是涨了就赚更多的彩票。不管底层的ETH如何波动，两者加起来永远等于1 ，永远不会多也不会少。
举个具体例子，
比如当前ETH=$2500，行权价选择s=$1500。P holder和N holder的关系可以看配图中的曲线。此时你持有1 ETH并拆分成P和N。
假设到期时价格来到x=$1800，会发生什么？
P=min(1,s/x) 取1 ETH和1500/1800 = 0.833 ETH的最小值，也就是0.833 ETH，这0.833 ETH当时的美元价值=1800×0.833≈正好1500美元。
N=max(0,1-s/x) 取0 ETH和1-0.833 = 0.167 ETH的最大值，也就是0.167 ETH，美元价值300美元。
两者的和刚好是1800美元，所以P+N=1永远平衡。
所以对于稳定币使用者来说，1 ETH拆分成P和N后，直接卖出N换成P即可。
但其实这里有一个关键问题，就是一旦跌破行权价s，那么P虽然还能拿到完整的1 ETH，但在美元本位上会亏损，那么用户就必须定期的去调整s，用旧P去换新P，让行权价s尽可能安全。这个过程的磨损和滑点都不太可控，用户自己去操作还有可能被MEV。
最后是V神表达了他对目前DeFi处境的观点，他认为DeFi不应该只是传统TradFi的复制品（比如CDP模式其实算是把传统金融的逻辑搬到链上），而应该在架构上彻底不同，即便牺牲一点便利性，换取更高的安全性和去中心化程度，也是更值得的。
可能有点难懂，但我尽可能融入我自己的理解来解释了，我觉得是一个很好的思路，优势是摆脱了对实时Oracle的依赖，即使出问题也有大量的时间可以介入，另外也能够给ETH更多的应用价值。当然具体的可行性还需要跑跑数据和模型来验证。
从视频看，Tom Lee回应了vitalik之前关于以太坊基金会专注于核心CROPS的帖子，他表示：
“以太坊DAT财库公司，包括 Bitmine 和 Sharplink 在内的财库——现在拥有 7% 的以太坊供应量……财库股票本质上是永久从生态系统中移除的供应量，但我们也拥有收益。收益大约为 3%，因此如今这些公共财库正在产生约 5 亿美元的奖励，这就是我们可以用来资助和资助加密生态系统的东西。”
简单来说，以太坊生态以后不用只靠基金会发钱了，现在这些DAT财库公司，可以拿出钱来支持项目、开发者、基础设施。
主要几点：
1. DAT财库公司已经囤了很多 ETH
像 Bitmine（Tom Lee ）和 SharpLink 等上市公司，现在合计持有全网约 7% 的以太坊。这些公司把 ETH 当成“公司财库”长期持有。
2. 他们靠 staking 每年赚不少。把 ETH 质押到以太坊网络上帮忙维护安全，每年能赚约 3% 的收益。目前这些公司加起来，一年能拿到 约 5 亿美元 的以太坊奖励。
3. Tom Lee 认为，这些钱不要全留着，可以拿出一部分来资助以太坊生态（发 grant、支持项目、开发者、L2 等）。
以前主要靠 以太坊基金会（EF） 出钱，现在这些“DAT财库”也可以自己出钱了。
4. Tom Lee 认为以太坊基金会把重点缩小到最核心的事（CROPS：抗审查、开放、隐私、安全）是正确的决定。
因为以太坊现在已经很大了：
• 市值约 2400 亿美元
• 运行 11 年零宕机
• 全球 89 个国家、11500 个节点
• 15000 个开发者
一个基金会管不过来，未来更多事情要靠私营公司去做。
因为这代表以太坊生态的资金模式在进化：从“靠基金会财库”转向“靠市场化的大持有者自己赚钱反哺”。
这才是实现正向循环该做的事情。
作为交易所CEO，我大概每周都会被问到一次：“量子计算是不是马上要破解比特币了？加密行业是不是快走到头了？”
这个问题确实很宏大。刚好周末有点时间，我看了我司的某新加坡Top2学校密码学博士的内部分享，结合 Gemini Deep Research 跑出来的研究，彻头彻尾地盘了一遍。
剥开科幻电影般的焦虑外衣，我把大家的结论提炼成以下几个最核心的维度，跟大伙儿简单汇报一下：
1/ 理论上是“降维打击”，现实中是“不可能的温室”
量子比特的叠加态特性，确实能把破解非对称加密（比如大家熟悉的公钥私钥体系就是用ECC 椭圆曲线加密-一种非对称加密法）的时间从几百年缩短到几分钟。
但现实情况是： 现在的量子计算机基本只能活在极其苛刻的实验室条件下，堪称“不可能的温室”（比如要求是比宇宙深渊还要冷的“绝对零度”），失误率极高，投入产出比差得离谱。距离真正能商用、甚至拿来当黑客工具，中间还差着无数个物理学突破。至少在未来 5 到 10 年内，现有的加密体系是非常安全的。
2/ 真正面临威胁的，是那些“上古沉睡巨鲸”
为什么区块链行业对量子计算格外敏感？因为我们的账本是公开且不可篡改的。
平时大家转账，用到的是数字签名哈希。但像比特币早期的很多地址，公钥早就直接暴露在链上了。一旦量子计算成熟，这些暴露了公钥的“上古沉睡巨鲸地址”就有被直接反推私钥的风险。这种巨量远古资产（比如中本聪的币）如果被盗，确实会对市场生态造成巨大冲击。
3/ 交易所的对策：不要恐慌，也不要瞎折腾
密码学大神 Dan Boneh 有句话总结得特别好：“不恐慌，不匆忙，但也不忽视。”（"Don't panic, don't rush, but don't ignore."）
有很多用户问，既然有隐患，交易所为什么不赶紧全面升级到“抗量子算法”？因为在实际的安全业务中，放弃当下极其可靠、经过时间检验的硬件加密设备，去强行上马一套还没完全成熟的后量子加密方案，这种“强行迁移”带来的系统性 Bug 和安全漏洞风险，要远远大于量子计算机本身的威胁。
总结
天还塌不下来。作为平台，我们的策略是密切盯紧学术界和可靠硬件厂商的后量子加密方案，当时机成熟时稳妥过渡。
至于大家，安心拿好手里的比特币、优质RWA代币，过好周末，别被远在天边的科幻焦虑给割了韭菜。😌
晚安，周一见～
neobanks are being squeezed from two directions.
from the top, fintechs are pursuing bank charters to capture the economics they used to rent from sponsor banks: deposits, net interest income, payment access, and regulatory legitimacy.
from the bottom, stablecoins and public blockchains are rebuilding parts of the financial stack as open, programmable rails.
the result is compression.
the fat app thesis worked here, with the old neobank model being mostly a distribution layer:
- app + brand + customer relationship
- no balance sheet
- no direct rail access
- no deposit economics
the winning playbook is to own the economics. banking value does not accrue primarily to ux. it accrues to monetizable control points across store > move > grow > borrow money, such as:
- deposits
- credit
- settlement
- compliance
- liquidity
- customer trust
a neobank without these is just a frontend with rented economics.
this is why charters matter. a charter turns a neobank from a customer-acquisition machine into a balance-sheet business.
but charters are only half the story.
stablecoins attack the same stack from below by making settlement global, programmable, and cheaper. they weaken the monopoly of gated rails like ach, swift, and correspondent banking.
so the winning model is hybrid financial infrastructure: a mix of tradfi + crypto.
- regulated balance sheet where trust is required
- blockchain rails where speed and programmability matter
- defi protocols where financial products can be composed
- consumer apps where the relationship is owned
the future neobank is therefore not just a bank app.
most fintechs monetize only one layer. the trillion-dollar neobank captures all four.
this creates clear winners and losers.
winners:
- chartered fintechs
- crypto exchanges with distribution
- wallets that become financial apps
- defi protocols with real integrations
- stablecoin rails embedded into consumer finance
losers:
- middleware-dependent neobanks
- remittance firms relying on fx spreads
- wallets with no monetization
- banks with legacy ux
- defi protocols with no distribution
financial infrastructure is becoming more modular at the backend, but more consolidated at the frontend.
users will not care whether yield comes from a bank deposit, tokenized t-bills, @aave, @Morpho, or a stablecoin vault.
they will care about one thing if the app can be trusted to help them store, move, earn, borrow, and spend money better than their bank.
that is the endgame.
the bank account becomes a wallet.
the wallet becomes a bank.
the winner owns the interface between regulated finance and permissionless rails.
everything else is rented infrastructure.
关于以太坊，Sharplink CEO表达了一个观点，就是市场叙事和机构采用应该由生态玩家来主导，包括他们自己。（EF专注技术就够了）。
我十分赞同，甚至应该更早启动这个计划。
第一件事，我强烈建议你率先复兴CDP稳定币，只接受ETH作为抵押品。
原因以下几点：
1. 稳定币夺走了ETH的交易媒介属性， 在上个周期，ETH在链上dex中是多数新资产LP的首选，在NFT市场中扮演着计价单位的角色，这个时候它具有真正的货币属性，而随着稳定币的大规模上链，以及美国政府的推动，稳定币已经取代了ETH的交易媒介属性，而CDP是让稳定币与ETH价值形成联系的最佳方式。我相信在ETH应用场景上，这是仅次于ETH Staking的一个大需求。
2. 市场需要一个去中心化稳定币，Circle、Tether的强制手段、监管压力已经让人们开始感到担心，虽然我承认市场需要USDC、USDT，它们也能在某种程度上保护一部分用户。但去中心化稳定币作为一种补充必需存在，用户需要它。
3. 目前市面上虽然有一些去中心化稳定币，比如BOLD，但它们缺少资金和扩展能力，这需要Sharplink这样的组织来推动它，或者直接收购这类项目也是一个选择。
4. CDP稳定币最大的优势是，在未来它可以扩展到任意货币，而不局限在美元稳定币，这在灵活性上要强于中心化稳定币，不管未来如何发展，做这个动作都是确定性很强，极难犯错的。
最近，@XLayerOfficial 和 @Uniswap 、@flapdotsh 搞个 Hooks黑客松，明摆着OKX觉得Hooks叙事有机会，想伺机推波助澜一下。那么，该怎么看待Hooks叙事的进一步发酵机会？我来谈几点看法：
1）上一轮DeFi Summer本质上是围绕AMM流动池构建的Swap交易+LP聚合挖矿的套娃模式，但由于流动性非常被动且同质化，导致DeFi到最后变成了围绕流动性补贴和卷APY的困局，遇到市场流动性枯竭期几乎无解。
Hooks Summer也随着uPEG、SLOP、SATO这类创意MEME项目的爆火成了热议的话题，为什么市场会如此看好？甚至都冠以了Hooks Summer的预期。根本原因在于Hooks也是挂载于AMM池生命周期上的自定义智能合约插件，它可以让DeFi的流动性池变成可自由“插拔”的扩展层，也会延展出很多不亚于LP挖矿之类的可玩性预期。
所以，暂且不论Hooks能不能形成Summer之势，该叙事自被发掘初就带着DeFi 2.0的影子，预期上会给沉闷的DeFi行业带来不一样的东西；
2）Hooks这套叙事要想真正落地，对DeFi基础设施会有进一步的严苛要求。逻辑不复杂，Hooks为AMM赋予了更自由的可编程性，但代价是加上了不少复杂的智能合约回调、链上状态查询和动态计算等逻辑，这要单纯在以太坊主网，要增加额外的Gas消耗，用户的接受程度肯定会高。
但是像Xlayer这类急需要新叙事和话题的EVM兼容链就不一样了，Hooks在主网上呈现短板的高Gas和低TPS就都不是问题了，而Hooks的可玩性却能给链带来不少创新奇迹和可能，所以OKX很敏锐地看到了Hooks叙事的潜在机会，自然跟着主推一波。
3）事实上，Xlayer并没有直接在本链上做孤岛创新玩法，而是基于XLayer + Uniswap + Flap的三方联动，Uniswap V4提供底层协议和安全标准，确保Hooks玩法原汁原味，Xlayer相当于一个低成本的执行层，而Flap作为一个模块化资产的发射器，一键实现各类高度定制化Tokenomics资产的发行，比如，买卖税、创作者自动分润等等；
这样做，不至于让Hooks叙事仅仅只是一个被消费的新话题，而是真真切切成为一个有潜在爆发机会新链上叙事，既有底层协议技术规范，又有流动性和流量扶持，还能低门槛发行资产。
东风已经到位了，就看下一步该怎么发酵了。
以上。
之所以看好Hooks Summer的潜力，其实还有一个关键点，借Hooks为钩子，延展出来的跨界应用玩法简直太丰富了，着实拓展了当前DeFi的可玩性边界，尤其是和Ai Agent、预测市场、GameFi甚至RWAFi等都有组合机会。一起静观其变吧！
Alts can still pump despite bearish market and lack of new inflows.
But this comes at the expense of outflows from BTC and ETH.
As more crypto natives get disillusioned with ETH and sell it, like Bankless's David Hoffman, they rotate to alts with revenue or PMF narratives behind them.
The beauty is that selling $1m of $ETH and buying $1m of $ZEC or $NEAR has disproportionate price impact.
Small cap, big move. I think this is what has been happening in crypto recently.
And if select alts create new rags to riches stories, that brings attention back to crypto.
Which could attract new capital and eventually flow back to ETH and BTC.
This rotation is a healthy self-correcting mechanism. An alt season could actually lead to a bull run for majors.
Those who were during DeFi summer will remember that at first only alts were pumping while ETH was stagnant.
Only when the DeFi summer created FOMO beyond crypto circles is when the full blown out bull run started.
So there's not enough inflows to pump the whole market now.
We just need a few alts to continue outperforming to keep degen spirits alive.
所有的硬件都在涨，所有的软件都在跌，市场也把区块链归类为软件了吗……能不能细致分一下，POW机制的归类为硬件，POS机制的归类为软件。🙈🙈🙈
Morpho的新东西，Midnight固定利率、固定期限借贷，直观感觉像Pendle的借贷改版。研究如下
它与传统借贷模型(aave)最大的区别就是，没有利率曲线了，利率是交易出来的，这块跟Pendle的思路比较类似，比如说如果一个到期可兑付1 USDC的unit，现在以0.95 USDC成交，那么利率就是1/0.95-1≈5.26%。
也就是说，买方现在支付0.95 USDC，到期拿回1 USDC，收益就是固定的。另外基于这个可交易的原理，买卖双方都不需要等待期限到期，可以通过二级市场退出。
跟Pendle的区别是什么呢，Pendle本质上是基于一种收益资产的拆分，它的大前提是这个资产必须能产生收益，或者积分。这样就能够形成PT和YT的组合。
Pendle是交易未来收益。
Midnight没有这个要求，它底层是处理一种借贷关系，它有对应Pendle PT的部分，但是没有类似YT的东西，它的需求来自于有人想借钱，有人想放贷，双方通过固定价格成交，形成固定利率借贷关系。
Midnight是交易未来债权/债务。
Pendle我们都知道是通过自己的AMM来交易，Midnight则是报价机制，maker发布报价，taker找到报价后提交到合约。有一个很有趣的设计是它有一个callback机制，maker可以在offer中设置callback，不提前锁定资金，可以继续把资金放在Morpho上，只有当这个offer被执行时，callback才会被调用，把你的资金从Morpho市场中提取，转移过来完成固定利率交易。这对于资金利用效率非常友好。
它与现有的借贷逻辑都不一样，我觉得如果这个东西能跑通，有机会带来增量市场。
Jeff Sprecher, CEO of ICE (owner of the NYSE), on Hyperliquid:
“This Hyperliquid that we’re talking - f you haven’t heard about it, it’s bigger than NASDAQ, okay?”
“We’re not freaked out about it. We’re actually talking to these people and learning about it.”
hyperliquid
Every religion must deal with apostates. This week we brought on @trustlessstate and @MaxResnick to explain their newfound Ethereum atheism.
David: ETH the asset will neither grow nor shrink from here.
Max: Ethereum has cast out the "go fast" technologists, and only the "go slow" people are left.
Me: I guess I'm now the Satya Nadella of ETH 🤓
上一轮周期操作对了八次错了一次，但往往那一次代价是巨大的，不过大家不用过于担心都是上一轮利润回撤。这次反弹结束后全力准备好抄底新一轮操作，并且一半以上时间和精力投研AI股和投资(寻找大神学习中)，乐观者永远选择相信趋势，只有相信才不会恐慌加密低点和AI高位。
Full list of protocols that paid their holders >$1M in revenue in the last 30 days ↓
1. @CantonNetwork: $63.75M
2. @HyperliquidX: $53.79M
3. @trondao: $31.64M
4. @edgeX_exchange: $19.4M
5. @Pumpfun: $17.55M
6. @ethereum: $7.19M
7. @chainlink: $4.6M
8. @AerodromeFi : $4.19M
9. @OREsupply: $2.94M
10. @Uniswap: $2.87M
11. @Lighter_xyz: $2.1M
12. @PancakeSwap: $2.09M
13. @JupiterExchange: $2.08M
14. @solana: $1.71M
15. @helium: $1.4M
16. @SkyEcosystem: $1.11M
Just 16 names out of 644 protocols listed on
@DefiLlama.
Just in case you were wondering why nobody holds alts anymore.
Wrong anchor.
Manuel is a legend in smart contract security, so when he issues a PSA to exit DeFi because AI agents make it fundamentally unsafe, people listen. But his conclusion anchors on the wrong premise.
Credit card fraud was once considered an existential threat to digital commerce. The industry didn’t solve it by eliminating fraud - that was never possible. They won by engineering the per-incident blast radius down to what the system could absorb: $0 cardholder liability, tokenization, real-time detection, and issuer insurance. Trillions flow through card networks daily on top of a permanent attack surface because they anchored on containment, not elimination.
History repeats this pattern across aviation, the early internet, and traditional banking. Each was once labeled doomed or fundamentally unsafe. Each won, not by becoming error-free, but by iterating until the system could absorb the failures it couldn't prevent.
Yes, AI has lowered the cost of attack. That's real. But as many have noted, AI is just as available to defenders. Auditors, security researchers, whitehats, and protocol teams are using the same tools. And as @StaniKulechov pointed out, DeFi has made generational progress on the defense side: better risk engines and lending market structures, formal verification, oracle improvements, cap management, circuit breakers, automated monitoring, SOC2-grade opsec. None of this existed at scale a few cycles ago. The ecosystem has been building the right infrastructure to guard against attacks, similar to what credit card industry has gone through.
AI is not our enemy; hackers are. The anchor isn't "bug-free". It's "no single bug drains the protocol."
If you design every system with the assumption that a vulnerability will exist, you stop trying to build an unbreachable wall and start engineering the blast radius down to what the network can safely absorb.
The real PSA isn't to exit DeFi. It's to build it right.
DeFi will win.
看了下目前支持链上美股及 RWA 的 Perp 平台，除了 Hyperliquid 领先之外，其他重点布局的平台还有 GRVT、Aster、Lighter、edgeX 等。
目前整体交易量格局（DefiLlama Perps 排行）：
Hyperliquid（含 trade. xyz）：稳居第一，领先优势明显。
第二梯队竞争激烈（数据每天波动较大）：
目前看Aster，Lighter，GRVT三家差距不是很大。
在 RWA/代币化美股 Perp 细分领域，GRVT 布局较早，上链美股不少（除七大之外，其它也不少），是除 Hyperliquid 之外最具竞争力的平台之一，常在整体排行中位居前几名。
总结来说，Hyperliquid 的规模和流动性优势依然显著，GRVT 是目前 RWA Perp 赛道里代表性的追赶者。不过，但第二梯队（Aster、Lighter、GRVT、edgeX）之间的排名每天都会有明显变化，受行情和活动影响较大。
📉Bitwise 这组数据挺有意思：比特币和美国科技股之间的估值差距，已经创下历史新高。
bitcoin:native 当前 MVRV 只有 1.42，只高于历史 36% 的时间；
反过来看纳指 100，P/B 几乎已经超过历史 99% 的时间。
当然，MVRV 和 P/B 不是同一个估值口径，一个看链上成本和市值，一个看股价和账面净资产，不能粗暴拿来直接对比。但这个差距本身很能说明问题：
科技股现在价格里已经塞进了大量 AI、降息、盈利扩张和长期增长预期，而 BTC 这边，虽然 ETF 已经把机构通道打开了，但链上估值还没进入极端亢奋区。
Bitwise 的判断是，下半年美股科技股可能会先比比特币现货 ETF 出现调整，再传导到 Crypto 市场，因此下半年 BTC 还有补涨空间。
With David’s gone time for me to admit “Eth is money” is the correct thesis
Just not how most people think
All assets will be tokenized
People will hold whatever assets they most value (the most decentralized money is infinite forms of money competing)
No need for a single unit of account if you have a low cost, efficient way to exchange any asset 24/7
Uniswap on Ethereum is the best decentralized money system and it’s still the early days 🦄
Why Ethereum voluntarily killed its own revenue (The Amazon Effect in crypto)
Right now, a lot of people are criticizing Ethereum: network fees have dropped significantly, token burns have decreased, and ETH has once again become slightly inflationary (~0.5%).
It looks like the developers shot themselves in the foot. Why would they deliberately kill the network’s revenue?
To understand this, let’s look at it through the lens of traditional business strategy. Remember Amazon in its early years? The company operated at zero or even negative margins for years, aggressively cutting prices and destroying its own short-term profits. Why? To capture market share and achieve economies of scale. The same strategy is now being used by the Chinese auto giant BYD.
The law of scale in both Web2 and Web3 is simple: It’s better to earn $0.01 from 1 billion transactions than $50 from 100,000!
If Ethereum had kept fees at $20–$50, it would have turned into an exclusive club for whales. All retail users, game developers, SocialFi projects, and mass-market DeFi would have permanently moved to Solana, BNB Chain, or Aptos. Ethereum would have lost the war for users.
That’s why @VitalikButerin and the @ethereumfndn made a deliberate strategic shift:
1. The base layer is becoming a global settlement layer for large capital, Wall Street, ETFs, and tokenized real-world assets (RWA). Institutions care about maximum security, not cheap fees.
2. Layer 2 networks (Base, Arbitrum, etc.) take on all retail and mass-market applications. Fees there are now extremely low - precisely because L1 made wholesale data posting much cheaper.
The reduction in Ethereum’s fees is an investment in building an infrastructure monopoly. Ethereum sacrificed short-term token deflation in order to maintain its status as the world’s leading blockchain.
In the long term (investment horizon), the bet is that activity on L2s will grow so much that even these tiny wholesale fees will eventually make ETH deflationary again.
The market often thinks in terms of one or two weeks. That’s why we see hype cycles around coins like ZEC or NEAR. But hype always ends, and capital eventually returns to reliable assets - and right now, that’s still only Bitcoin and Ethereum!
日历
6 月 5 日
暂无重要事件
