NDV

《Infini 创始人 Christian：解构加密发卡底层商业模式》（作者 @Christianeth）Fintech 发卡链路、返现区间与成本：美国实体卡 1%-1.2%净返现为常态，地区不同，虚拟卡与信用条件差异大。高 cashback 多为烧钱补贴，创业者要评估合规成本、渠道成本与留存价值，避免单纯以返现驱动。 阅读全文：wublock123.com/articles/artic…

回复一下各位担心晚到+“超募”就抽不到的同学： 1. 还是抽签比较重要，要先命中位数排序。我们抽签是根据 BTC 的十位数、个位数、十分位、千分位的价格。我相信这个应该是地球上最难被操纵的数字，所以我们绝对公平。 2. 一个票能拿到3个lucky digit+有邀请3个人认购100美金以上基本就可以保证抽到了，时间顺序只占20%的权重

关于 Saylor 接下来会怎么走，补一条历史视角——因为想判断他的下一步，得先知道他经历过什么。 先纠正一个流传很广的误解：Saylor 没破过产。他经历的是更刺激的东西。 2000 年 3 月，审计师逼 MicroStrategy 重述财报，原先报告的盈利一夜变成亏损，股价一天从 $226 砸到 $86，他个人一天蒸发约 60 亿美元，创下当时的纪录。SEC 指控、和解、不承认过错。到 2002 年，公司只值约 4,000 万美元，较峰值缩水约 98%。 但有两件事值得记住：公司没死，他用二十年把它重建了起来；而且整个崩盘和指控过程里，他靠 Class B 超级投票权，一股没丢掉控制权。 第二次接近归零是 2022 年。那是他唯一一次用抵押贷款——Silvergate 那笔 2 亿美元、拿 BTC 抵押的钱——BTC 跌到 $21k 附近时触发了追保恐慌。他扛了过去，2023 年折价约两成提前还清，然后做了一件很说明问题的事：彻底戒掉抵押和保证金，转向无抵押长久期债，再到今天的永续优先股。 把这两次叠起来，Saylor 的行为非常清楚：控制权不可让渡（所以今天的优先股几乎没有投票权）；绝不做被强制的卖方，并主动拆掉一切能逼他出手的结构（先去掉抵押、再去掉到期日）；快速和解、控制叙事、向前看，不在损失里纠缠；对债权人按时履约以保住市场准入，但只给他们求偿顺序、不给治理权。 一句话：他一生都在用结构，消灭别人对他的决策权。 但永续优先股是把双刃剑。它干掉了追保和到期风险，却引入了一个他的控制权管不住的新东西——累积的现金股息，加上一只对信心极度敏感、已经跌破面值的 STRC。治理可以剥夺，现金不能无限推迟。这是他”无强制卖方”信条的顶点，也是一个更隐蔽的逼仓机制的起点。 于是有两种推演。 老剧本（2000 式）：死守仓位、加倍下注叙事、用控制权硬扛，把痛苦往资本结构下层推。具体就是把”绝不卖币”当教条死守，即便跑道只剩半年；继续用越来越贵的条款发 STRC 护盘；动用投票权和求偿瀑布，保住高级求偿和自己的控制权，让最 junior 的 STRD 和普通股去吸收伤害。这条路的风险是：如果 BTC 继续跌，他最终仍会被逼成他拒绝当的那个强制卖方——只是更晚、更乱、更狠，更初级优先股和小股东被碾，而他依然保住控制权。 进化剧本：提前主动去杠杆（折价回购 2029 可转债，长得就是这个样子）；愿意做不受欢迎但审慎的事——有节奏、提前告知地卖一小部分 BTC，锁定股息覆盖、拉长跑道，把”绝不卖”当指引而非自杀契约；放慢在惩罚性利率上继续叠加现金义务；为长期 机构化运作提升可信度，牺牲短期估值——就像他 2002 年接受一家只值 4,000 万的小公司、再用二十年重建那样。这条路的风险更微妙：学费并不免费。哪怕是有序、克制的卖币，也会击穿整个股权溢价赖以存在的”绝不卖”品牌。最理性的那一步，恰恰会引爆 mNAV 叙事。可能根本就没有一个好的结果 最有意思的一点：那笔 2029 回购，两种剧本都能解释。进化版本是趁还能动手时提前去杠杆；“老剧本”的读法是花光仅有的现金去守住仓位、而不是先保住近端义务——这正是 2000 式的为仓位和叙事加倍下注。同一个动作，指向相反的两个人。 所以别盯着这一步，看下一步：如果接下来是有序、提前沟通的卖币加上放慢发行，他在走情景二；如果是死扛不卖加上不计成本猛发 STRC，他在重演情景一。 我长期依然乐观。但短期，这大概是 25 年来，他第一次面对一个控制权解决不了的约束。拭目以待。 @Rubywang

最近 MSTR 这件事值得拆开讲一讲，因为它已经不只是一家公司的事了。 先说资本层面的好消息。5 月中旬，Strategy 用大约 13.8 亿美元现金、以约 8% 的折价，回购了 15 亿美元面值的 2029 年零息可转债，把可转债总额从 82 亿压到 67 亿。市场第一反应是”防御”“被迫”，但只看资本结构，这其实是一笔很干净的操作——他回购的是转股价约 $672、在 MSTR 现价 ~$159 下几乎不可能转股的深度价外债。这批债迟早会从”涨上去自动转股、被动去杠杆”变成”到期要还现金”的负担。现在用折价提前清掉，等于消灭了一块未来的现金墙，还顺手做出了账面收益。从负债管理的角度，这是加分项。 但代价在另一条线上：做完这笔之后，现金储备只剩 8.71 亿，对应约 16–17 亿/年的优先股股息义务，只够覆盖大概半年——而此前他给自己定的目标是 24 个月。 这就引出第二层。把缓冲花掉、而不是攥在手里，本身就是一种隐含表态：Saylor 大概率认为 BTC 离底不远，所以他宁可现在去回购便宜的债，也不愿让现金闲置。这在任何时候都是一种下注，只不过这次他下得偏大。直接后果是卖币压力被动抬升了——Polymarket 上”年内卖 BTC”的概率已经从 55% 跳到 84%，链上也确实看到 BTC 往 Coinbase 搬。只留 6 个月的子弹，等于在告诉市场”必要时我会动用其他来源”，而最现成的那个来源，就是币本身。 往长一点看，我觉得现在是一个偏混沌的阶段，原因有两个。 第一，币价本身的趋势不清晰。$73k–77k 这一带来回震荡，方向还没给出来，大家都在等一个确认。 第二，这点我觉得更重要：MSTR 已经大到它自己的”反身性”足以反过来影响币价了。843,738 枚 BTC，接近全部供给的 4%。当一家公司大到这个程度，“它如何运营自己的资本结构”就不再是公司内部的事，而变成了整个市场的一个新变量。最直接的体现是 mNAV：现在大约 0.94x，已经跌破 1.0x。这意味着那个”溢价增发股票 → 买币 → 每股 BTC 上升 → 股价再涨”的飞轮，基本转不动了。管理层自己划的线是 1.22x——高于它，卖股买币是增厚的；低于它，卖币偿债反而更划算。现在离那条线还差得远。 所以结论其实挺朴素的：我长期依然乐观，BTC 和这套数字资产储备的底层逻辑，我不觉得被证伪了。但短期，当一个叙事所有人在同一时间都在讨论时，压力一定不小。现在这一批公司的债务几乎全处于浮亏状态，像 BMNR（BitMine，ETH 那一侧）之类的更夸张，杠杆和稀释都被放得更大。资本市场的叙事，正在一步步从”给这类公司溢价”，转向”重新给它们定价”。 这不是死亡螺旋的预言，更像是一次范式切换的开始：从无限增发买币的成长故事，切到精细管理资本结构的存续故事。这两个故事的估值方式，完全不同。 拭目以待。

BTC rips into $74–75k with ETF inflows back on the tape, but the quieter part is how little coin is actually sitting on-exchange after all the treasury hoovering. People are treating “more inflow = higher price” as linear, because the visible float is thin enough that even modest spot demand can gap it. That only works until one of the concentrated holders decides to distribute or an AP/OTC desk sources size back onto venues, and suddenly the same thinness shows up as air on the bid. How much of this rally is real demand versus just a temporary supply vacuum? #Bitcoin #MarketStructure #Liquidity news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-etfs-p…

SEC and CFTC signing an MOU reads like “less fragmentation,” so people are leaning into it as instant clarity for risk and listings. But it’s still two statutes and two tests, and coordination can just turn into a tighter dual‑compliance checklist that slows marginal tokens/products while the flow concentrates in regulated wrappers. That story only holds if we actually get harmonized guidance that survives the first hard classification fight and the first enforcement sweep that hits both sides at once. #SEC #CFTC #CryptoRegulation coindesk.com/policy/2026/03…

MSTR just put another $1.28B to work for ~18k BTC, taking the stack to ~739k, and the market keeps treating it like a one-way spot liquidity drain. But this only works cleanly while the buys are effectively subsidized by an open equity window—ATM/common dilution and perpetual coupons are real friction, and they tighten fast when tape turns. If that cost of capital backs up, the “always buying” cadence becomes a lot less mechanical. #BTC #MSTR #CryptoMarkets cointelegraph.com/news/michael-s…?

Atkins blessing the CLARITY Act is being traded like the last green light before the real money shows up. That only works if the statute lands with clean, executable definitions and the agencies don’t drag the fight into multi-quarter rulemaking and sequencing. Momentum can get priced long before text, committee calendars, and implementation dates are knowable, and that gap is where positioning gets noisy. Until we see actual language and a credible path from passage to usable rails, what are people really long here? #CLARITYAct #SEC #CryptoRegulation news.bitcoin.com/sec-chair-alig…

Kraken getting a limited master account at the KC Fed is being traded like “crypto has Fed plumbing now,” but it’s still just settlement access, not a backstop. People are implicitly pricing smoother fiat movement as lower counterparty/liquidity risk across the stack. That breaks down fast if stress hits and there’s no IOR or discount window to lean on, so everyone still has to source funding the old way. The real test is whether this stays a contained pilot or starts behaving like a scalable bridge in messy markets. #Fedwire #Kraken #MarketStructure coindesk.com/news-analysis/…

Meta floating a stablecoin payments relaunch for FB/IG/WhatsApp in H2’26 sounds like “distribution finally meets rails,” especially with third-party providers taking the infra risk and a new wallet to capture the UX. But this only works if the source story is real and specific enough to price—vendor names, jurisdiction, settlement model, and what “native wallet” actually means legally. Until we see primary docs or on-record details, this is just narrative optionality that can evaporate the moment compliance or platform policy gets pinned down. #stablecoins #payments

明天发布重大更新🥹它回来了

White House doing a third crypto sit-down into a “stablecoin yield” deadline is already trading like a deal is forming, but we’re all leaning on vibes without a clean factual anchor. That matters because people will position around whether yield gets carved out, capped, or effectively banned under a market-structure wrapper. This only works if the actual text, agencies, and timelines line up with what’s being implied in the room, and not just what’s getting repeated on CT. Until we see something verifiable, the whole thing can flip from momentum to air-pocket fast. #stablecoins #regulation

Figure rolling out FGRD and upsizing a $150m raise is trading on the idea that “stock, but onchain with T+0” is immediately bankable and liquid. That only works if the legal wrapper, transfer restrictions, and venue access are clean enough that real buyers can actually circulate it, not just subscribe to an offering and sit. If secondary liquidity is gated or fragmented, you end up with instant finality on a market that can’t really clear size, and the story turns into a custody/compliance product instead of a trading product. Until we see where it actually trades and who can touch it, it’s hard to know what’s real here. #Tokenization #RWA #MarketStructure

BlackRock “entering DeFi” reads like the next leg of institutional adoption, so people naturally map it to sticky inflows and deeper onchain liquidity. But without a primary-source anchor, this can just be a sentiment trade where social volume gets mistaken for actual balance sheet risk moving. It only works if we see real onchain footprints—size, cadence, counterparties—not just partnerships, pilots, or integration language. Until then, the market is mostly trading ambiguity, and that tends to behave very differently when the tape turns. #DeFi #Institutions #CryptoMarkets

SEC went up to the Hill talking “alignment” on a federal crypto oversight framework, and the market wants to hear that as a path to cleaner rules and lower compliance drag. But that only works if there’s an actual legislative backbone and agencies don’t keep filling the gaps with enforcement and overlapping definitions. Until we see where lines get drawn on custody, broker/dealer status, and what counts as a security vs commodity, “modernized oversight” is just a nicer wrapper on the same uncertainty. And it gets messy fast if Congress moves slowly while the rulebook keeps changing in real time. #SEC #CryptoRegulation #MarketStructure

HK now talking margin financing + perps for pro clients, and a small set of stablecoin licenses, and everyone’s reading it as “more leverage + better rails = more real money flow.” That only works if the stablecoin regime actually expands convertibility and banking capacity rather than bottlenecking it into a few issuers with conservative limits. This breaks down when redemptions/mints get throttled, balance sheets pull lines, and you end up with wider basis and venue fragmentation instead of smooth arbitrage. Until we see who gets licensed and what their mint/redemption windows look like in stress, the market impact stays a little theoretical. #HongKong #Stablecoins #CryptoDerivatives

MicroStrategy confirms ongoing Bitcoin accumulation: ~$3.5B added in past two weeks after brief pause. Corporate treasury conviction remains firm, amplifying leverage to upside while elevating tail-risk exposure in volatile regimes. Constructive for institutional narratives around Bitcoin as strategic reserve asset. #DigitalAssets #Institutional #Bitcoin

$MSTR will remain in MSCI indexes.

文章回顾 | 动察专访NDV创始合伙人Jason Huang：深挖 Upbit 赴美上市 x.com/BeatingOfficia…