當(dāng)埃隆·馬斯克在上次牛市期間半諷刺地支持狗狗幣時(shí)，大多數(shù)人將其視為一個(gè)笑話：一個(gè)高調(diào)的商人在玩弄可笑的錢。

沒有人再笑了。

如今，有一些真正的機(jī)構(gòu)——從雪崩基金會(huì)到富蘭克林鄧普頓——愿意說模因幣是區(qū)塊鏈技術(shù)的合法用途。

這是 Node 時(shí)事通訊的摘錄，該時(shí)事通訊是 CoinDesk 及其他領(lǐng)域最關(guān)鍵的加密貨幣新聞的每日綜述。

您可以在此處訂閱以獲取完整的新聞通訊。

Solana 上有dogwifhat {{WIF}}、sillycat (SILLYCAT) 和popcat (POPCAT)。

在以太坊上，{{DOGE}} 仍然是領(lǐng)頭羊。

然后是新興領(lǐng)域“PoliFi”（政治金融的縮寫），其代幣包括 MAGA (TRUMP)、jeo boden (BODEN) 和 elizabath whoren (WHOREN)。

富蘭克林鄧普頓數(shù)字資產(chǎn)團(tuán)隊(duì)在最近的一份報(bào)告中寫道，這些自以為是的笑話在過去一年中“由于其獨(dú)特的性質(zhì)”而廣為流傳。

這家金融巨頭指出，自美國(guó)現(xiàn)貨比特幣交易所交易基金 (ETF) 發(fā)布以來，2023 年底開始的反彈勢(shì)頭才有所增強(qiáng)。

從某種意義上說，模因幣正在達(dá)到逃逸速度。

Avalanche 基金會(huì)啟動(dòng)了一項(xiàng)“文化催化劑”計(jì)劃，該計(jì)劃已開始購買模因幣，以支持其認(rèn)為“具有文化重要性”的 Web3 項(xiàng)目。

富蘭克林鄧普頓（Franklin Templeton）（曾一度在 Twitter 上炫耀比特幣愛好者的激光眼睛）將以太坊和 Solana 的使用日益增長(zhǎng)部分歸因于這些代幣的“快速獲利的機(jī)會(huì)”。

另請(qǐng)參閱：Memecoin 欺詐及其如何威脅以太坊文化 |

觀點(diǎn)

然而，模因幣項(xiàng)目似乎也在竭盡全力自我毀滅。

雖然關(guān)于模因幣的傳統(tǒng)觀點(diǎn)是它們“沒有潛在價(jià)值”，但越來越多的模因幣創(chuàng)造者正在投入時(shí)間和金錢，讓他們的項(xiàng)目脫穎而出。

這是一項(xiàng)有風(fēng)險(xiǎn)的交易。

例如，shiba inu {{SHIB}}，第一個(gè)也可能是最知名的 meme 硬幣 dogecoin 的基于以太坊的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手，正在構(gòu)建一個(gè)完整的技術(shù)生態(tài)系統(tǒng)，包括自己的擴(kuò)展層 Shibarium、去中心化交易所 ShibaSwap、Shiboshis NFT甚至是數(shù)字身份倡議和項(xiàng)目孵化器。

Dogwifhat (WIF) 是對(duì)“狗代幣”趨勢(shì)的一種演繹，在狗狗吉祥物上添加了一頂粉色無檐小便帽，在過去一個(gè)月內(nèi)上漲了 600% 以上，籌集了超過 600,000 美元的 {{USDC}} 資金用于在洛杉磯的 Sphere 大型項(xiàng)目。

Whether these projects are aware of it or not, by looking to develop or market their tokens, they could be raising the ire of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). It’s not really a laughing matter, considering the SEC has been more than willing to make an example of under-the-radar projects to make a point.

“Advertising would theoretically make it more likely for a court to find that an investment is a security, because ‘marketing’ is a factor in the application of the Howey test,” U.S. law professor Brian L. Frye told CoinDesk in a direct message, referring to the test the SEC deploys to determine whether an asset is a security.

Neeraj Agrawal, director of communications at Coin Center, a lobby group, echoed that point and cast doubt on an argument many meme coin projects like to project, that these are “community led” initiatives.

“Remember a lot of these meme coins are not decentralized in any real way. They may ride on a decentralized network, but it wouldn't surprise me to learn the contract itself is controlled by a couple of people,” Agrawal said. The basic definition of a security is whether there is “a team in control of this thing that is promising to do things that will increase the value of the thing,” he added.

Projects can certainly decentralize over time and gain stakeholders. Messari researcher Ally Zach wrote a guide (“Navigating the Memecoin Mania”) that tracks three critical metrics: “the rate of change in the number of holders, the ratio of new to returning daily buyers and the types of buyers.”

In particular, there is a “critical threshold” of 3,000 holders that tends to indicate a project is gaining traction. The next phase, characterized by the number of new buyers exceeding existing traders, typically sees holder counts jump to 10,000 and the involvement of whales without extreme market swings.

Dogecoin, launched in 2013 (and since renounced by its creator), is fairly well distributed, and its development activities are essential for keeping the network safe to use. While the biggest DOGE holder owns over 22% of the token’s circulating supply, there are also nearly 7 million dogecoin holding addresses (compared to 9 million wallets that hold solana {{SOL}}).

See also: The One Word That Defines Ethereum's Goals | Opinion

While there is a not-for-profit Dogecoin Foundation that coordinates development, the project benefited from launching during the proof-of-work era, which enabled a number of people to earn tokens by mining at home. Today’s breed of meme coins are dominated by a few large bagholders who got in early.

Likewise, the argument that these are nihilist jokes or acts of performance art, or that there’s no real expectation of profit, isn’t much of a legal cover.

“The likelihood of profit may be low or nonexistent, but people are still buying them at least in part because of the possibility they'll become popular & increase in value,” Frye said.

盡管如此，哥倫比亞商學(xué)院教授奧斯汀·坎貝爾認(rèn)為，項(xiàng)目不能只是稱自己為“Dog Co.，并擁有一個(gè) memey 徽標(biāo)”，并在不與證券監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)發(fā)生沖突的情況下進(jìn)行合法的商業(yè)行為。

但仍有細(xì)微差別的空間。

“美國(guó)證券交易委員會(huì)關(guān)于為什么這些東西是證券的理論顯然是站不住腳的（例如，僅僅購買產(chǎn)品是不夠的），”他說。

僅僅因?yàn)榇鷰蓬愃朴谧C券，或者甚至是根據(jù)“投資合同”發(fā)行的，并不一定意味著基礎(chǔ)代幣是證券。

這是一個(gè)懸而未決的法律問題。

熱點(diǎn)：MEME