作者：0xjacobzhao 在过往Crypto AI系列研报中我们持续强调的观点：当前加密领域最具实际应用价值的场景，主要集中在稳定币支付与DeFi，而Agent是AI产业面向用户的关键界面。因此，在Crypto与AI融合的趋势中，最具价值的两条路径分别是：短期内基于现有成熟DeFi协议（借贷、流动性挖矿等基础策略，以及Swap、Pendle PT、资金费率套利等高级策略）的AgentFi，以及中长期围绕稳定币结算、并依托ACP/AP2/x402/ERC-8004等协议的Agent

Solana 生态收益协议 RateX 公布 RTX 代币经济学，总供应 1 亿枚，44.18% 分配给社区。RateX 将收益产品拆分为本金代币（PT）和收益代币（YT），用户可交易 YT 投机收益率变化，最高支援 10 倍杠杆，该协议已于 2024 年在 Solana 推出。

Robinhood Markets计划收购PT Buana Capital Sekuritas和PT Pedagang Aset Kripto，进军东南亚日益增长的加密货币市场。这一战略举措旨在覆盖印尼超过3,600万名投资者，目前正等待监管批准。

作者：Jonathan Ma，Artemis创始人；翻译：金色财经xiaozou 最近我们采访了Pendle创始人TN Lee。Pendle已成为DeFi领域增长最快的固定收益与收益交易协议之一，其总锁仓价值TVL突破数十亿美元，稳定币占比超流动性的80%。通过将资产拆分为本金代币PT和收益代币YT，Pendle构建了同时满足避险投资者追求确定性收益与风险偏好型交易者追逐积分及超额收益的双边市场。 本文将深入解析Pendle的发展历程、未来机遇以及如何抢占140万亿美元全球固定收益市场的战略布局。 1、您好TN！Pendle成立于2020年。您能否和我们分享一下创业故事？您创立Pend

火星财经消息，11 月 6 日，Solana 生态流动性协议 Kamino 宣布增加 1000 万美元 PT-eUSX 存款容量，eUSX 为 Solstice 旗下流动性质押代币。

火星财经消息，10 月 20 日，Ethena Labs 官方在社交媒体上发文表示，USDe 与 sUSDe 的 PT 代币已在 Aave Plasma 平台上线，每种代币的供应额度均为 2 亿美元。鉴于 USDT 借款利率维持在 4% 左右，Plasma 现已成为用户通过 Aave 获取杠杆化 PT 头寸的最佳链上场所。预计近期将有多轮额度上调。

作者：Jonathan Ma，Artemis创始人；翻译：金色财经xiaozou 最近我们采访了Pendle创始人TN Lee。Pendle已成为DeFi领域增长最快的固定收益与收益交易协议之一，其总锁仓价值TVL突破数十亿美元，稳定币占比超流动性的80%。通过将资产拆分为本金代币PT和收益代币YT，Pendle构建了同时满足避险投资者追求确定性收益与风险偏好型交易者追逐积分及超额收益的双边市场。 本文将深入解析Pendle的发展历程、未来机遇以及如何抢占140万亿美元全球固定收益市场的战略布局。 1、您好TN！Pendle成立于2020年。您能否和我们分享一下创业故事？您创立Pend

PENGU已降低至2美分的支撑位，验证了Ryan PT之前的唱空预测。他建议此次下跌可能是故意的，并将其视为一个潜在的积累机会。关键支撑位已被确定，反弹可能带来显著收益。

Coinbase Markets已宣布将于10月25日早上7:00 PT进行系统升级，期间所有交易功能将暂停最多四小时，以提升性能和用户安全。

去中心化收益代币化协议 Pendle 传出链上钱包遭清空，有人疑似铸造并大量抛售 PT/YT 代币，导致 PENDLE 币价一度大跌。不过官方强调，协议本身并未遭骇，资金仍然安全。 疑似漏洞行为曝光：攻击者大举铸币抛售 Pendle 在 9 月 30 日（周一）透过 X 发布公告指出，一个链上钱包遭到清空，攻击者疑似持续铸造 Pendle 协议中的 Principal Token（PT） 和 Yield Token（YT），并迅速将这些代币抛售获利。 这一行为引发市场警觉，有用户质疑是否协议存在铸币漏洞，或者遭到某种内部操作。 官方澄清：协议未被骇、资金安全无虞 面对社群恐慌，Pen

截至 9 月 16 日，全网 DeFi TVL 坚守 1600 亿美元大关，DEX 交易量突破 194 亿美元，环比前一日大增 25%。Solana 与以太坊交易活跃度显著提升，而 Base 因「探索发币」的潜在利好，生态内 DEX 交易量亦大幅上升。另一方面，Pump 协议费用冲至全网第二，Pendle 推出跨链 PT、Ethena 准备启动费用切换，均显示核心协议在功能扩张和收益模型上不断迭代。市场整体震荡整理，部分 DeFi 蓝筹代币走强。

XTZ充值和提现将在2025年9月18日1:00 AM (PT)暂时暂停，以进行协议升级。交易应在此时间之前完成；买卖服务可能会继续，除非资产受到影响。将提供进一步的更新。

Pendle已经从一个小众实验发展成为DeFi蓝筹，通过PT/YT收益分割将固定收益市场链上化，并将其总锁定价值(TVL)从数百万推动至数十亿。 LSDfi 和 LRTfi 将 Pendle 变成了一个收益中心，用户可以对质押和重新质押奖励进行对冲或杠杆，使用

作者：J.A.E, PANews 以PT/YT机制革新链上收益交易的Pendle，正将其版图扩张至万亿美元的衍生品市场。2025年8月6日，其全新产品Boros上线，首次实现永续合约资金费率的链上代币化与对冲，标志着Pendle从“收益管理协议”向“DeFi利率基础设施”的关键战略转型。 过往一年，Pendle实现了爆炸式增长，TVL突破百亿美元，且不再止步于拆分既有收益，而是致力于构建完整的链上收益率曲线。 Nansen曾指出：“Pendle正成为DeFi领域的利率基础设施。”而Boros的诞生，正是实现该野望的一块核心拼图。 Boros核心机制：资金费率的“利率衍生品”市场

原文：shaunda devens，Blockworks Research分析师 编译：Yuliya，PANews 过去20天，Ethena的去中心化稳定币USDe供应量增加了约37亿美元，主要受Pendle-Aave PT-USDe循环策略推动。目前，Pendle锁定了约43亿美元（占USDe总量的60%），Aave存入资金规模约30亿美元。本文将分解PT循环机制、增长动因及潜在风险。

作者：TEDAO 导读： 随着 Ethena 的热度攀升，一条拥挤的套利链正在高速运转：抵押 (e/s) USDe 在 Aave 借出稳定币，买入 Pendle 的 YT/PT 获取收益，部分仓位再将 PT 供回 Aave 循环加杠杆，以此博取 Ethena 积分等外部激励。结果显而易见，Aave 上 PT 的抵押敞口急剧上升，主流稳定币利用率被推至 80%+ 的高位，整个系统对任何风吹草动都变得更加敏感。 本文将深入拆解这条资金链的运转、退出机制，及 Aave 与 Ethena 的风控设计。但理解机制只是第一步，真正的高手进阶在于分析框架的升级。我们往往习惯于用数据分

导读： 随着 Ethena 的热度攀升，一条拥挤的套利链正在高速运转：抵押 (e/s) USDe 在 Aave 借出稳定币，买入 Pendle 的 YT/PT 获取收益，部分仓位再将 PT 供回 Aave 循环加杠杆，以此博取 Ethena 积分等外部激励。结果显而易见，Aave 上 PT 的抵押敞口急剧上升，主流稳定币利用率被推至 80%+ 的高位，整个系统对任何风吹草动都变得更加敏感。 本文将深入拆解这条资金链的运转、退出机制，及 Aave 与 Ethena 的风控设计。但理解机制只是第一步，真正的高手进阶在于分析框架的升级。我们往往习惯于用数据分析工具（如

7月8日，在成功完成全球节点火爆认购后，备受瞩目的Meme社区项目GOUT（狗头）生态正式宣布，其“Phoenix Project凤凰计划”的核心价值代币PT已成功上线，并全面开放普通用户参与质押的通道。这不仅是GOUT生态发展史上的一个决定性里程碑，更标志着其宏大的MemeFi战略，已从理论构想正式进入价值实现的全新阶段。 PT作为凤凰计划的核心代币，其设计从根源上确保了公平，总量2100亿枚PT已100%注入DEX流动性池，无任何团队预留或私募份额，实现了彻底的社区化和去中心化。

稳定币正在成为市场共识。 Stripe 收购 Bridge 只是开始，Huma 使用稳定币取代银行中介地位，Circle 凭借 USDC 成为 Coinbase 之后的币圈新贵，以上都是对 USDT 的拙劣模仿。 Ethena 后发先至，MakerDAO 改名 Sky 转战生息稳定币，Pendle、Aave 等都在快速的 USDC–PT/YT–USDe

> 加密货币将会再次成为宏观经济的一部分，不再独立于传统市场的波动。 撰文：Musol 前言：仍记得比特币刚火起来的时候，那是一个让人肾上腺素飙升的年代，圈子里的人口口皆是「去中心化革命」，仿佛握着未来的钥匙。可如今又是如何，打开任何加密社群，满屏都是「美联储加息基点几何」、「CPI 数据超预期如何」。 我们曾经憧憬的加密市场怎么就从技术乌托邦堕落成了宏观经济的应声虫？ 一个自诩要颠覆旧世界的资产类别，现在却好似一个没骨气的跟班，天天盯着鲍威尔的嘴讨生活，真是可悲又可笑。 Pt.1.加密市场的宏观色彩由何而来？ 我们都深知，加密市场

作者：@Web3Mario 摘要：在上一篇文章中，我们阐述了利用 AAVE 的 Pendle PT 杠杆收益策略的体现率风险，小伙伴们给出了很多正面反馈，在此感谢大家的支持。由于最近一段时间一直在研究 Pendle 生态的市场机会，所以本周希望继续分享一个对 Pendle 生态的观察，即 YT 杠杆积分策略的真实收益率与风险。总的来说，以 Ethena 为例，Pendle YT 杠杆积分策略目前的潜在回报率可以做到 393%，但仍需注意其中投资风险。 利用 YT 资产的杠杆属性，博弈 Point 的潜在收益率 首先需要先将这个收益策略简单介绍一下，事实上在 2024 年年初，随着

作者：@Web3Mario 摘要：在上一篇文章中，我们阐述了利用AAVE的Pendle PT杠杆收益策略的体现率风险，小伙伴们给出了很多正面反馈，在此感谢大家的支持。由于最近一段时间一直在研究Pendle生态的市场机会，所以本周希望继续分享一个对Pendle生态的观察，即YT杠杆积分策略的真实收益率与风险。总的来说，以Ethena为例，Pendle

> 原文标题：《警惕贴现率风险：AAVE、Pendle、Ethena 的 PT 杠杆收益飞轮的机制和风险》 > 原文作者：@Web3\_Mario 摘要：最近工作略繁忙，因此耽搁了一段时间的更新，现重新恢复周更的频率，也感谢各位挚友的支持。本周发现了在 DeFi 领域有个有趣的策略受到了广泛的关注与讨论，即利用 Ethena 的质押收益凭证 sUSDe 在 Pendle 中的固定收益凭证 PT-sUSDe 为收益来源，并借助 AAVE 借贷协议作为资金来源，进行利率套利，获取杠杆收益。在 X 平台中的一些 DeFi

> AAVE+Pendle+Ethena 的 PT 杠杆挖矿策略并非无风险套利策略，其中 PT 资产的贴现率风险仍然存在，因此参与用户需要客观评估，控制杠杆率，避免爆仓。 撰文：@Web3\_Mario 摘要：最近工作略繁忙，因此耽搁了一段时间的更新，现重新恢复周更的频率，也感谢各位挚友的支持。本周发现了在

印尼通信与数字部暂时吊销了Worldcoin和WorldID服务的运营商注册证书，对PT. Terang Bulan Abadi和PT. Sandina Abadi Nusantara展开调查，因可疑活动。涉案公司未注册为PSE且没有必要证书。部门计划传唤这两家公司调查违规行为。

Pendle宣布推出Community Launch，允许外部协议部署自己的Pendle市场，同时推出了Pendle Prime的专用UI。上周Pendle TVL创历史新高，lvlUSD上线Pendle。Pendle已上线Sonic，提供高APY的池子。当前Top PT APY包括wstkscUSD和wstkscETH。

Capcom的Monster Hunter Wilds宣布将游戏的公开测试2的第二周延长24小时，以补偿2月7日在所有平台上经历的PlayStation Network (PSN)中断。开发人员透需了OBT 2第二周的新日期为2月13日晚上7点PT /

1. **Pendle的增长和里程碑**：Pendle团队自2020年成立以来，致力于将固定利率引入DeFi领域，2024年成为其里程碑之年，总锁定价值（TVL）从2.3亿美元增长至44亿美元，日均交易额增长近100倍。 2. **DeFi引擎和市场扩展**：Pendle在5条不同链上推出了近200个多资产、多期限的流动性池，成为新兴赛道和协议的启动引擎，同时PT（本金代币）发展成为一个价值12亿美元的次级经济体。 3. **V2版本升级**：Pendle计划通过V2版本实现根本性改进，包括开放生态协议、动态费用优化和vePENDLE改进，以进一步扩展市场份额。 4. **建造「堡垒」计划**：Pendle的目标是达到万亿级规模，通过「堡垒」计划突破EVM生态的边界，包括向非EVM生态扩展PT、布局传统金融（TradFi）的PT和打造符合Shariah原则的「堡垒」。 5. **Boros新项目**：Pendle构想的Boros项目旨在运用区块链技术实现传统金融领域无法企及的功能，特别是针对资金费率市场，通过Boros，Pendle可以大幅扩展市场覆盖范围，重塑收益领域的可能性。

根据自动驾驶和人工智能方面的进展，摩根士丹利将特斯拉的目标股价上调至430美元，并强调特斯拉在人工智能和机器人技术方面的独特能力。与此同时，TikTok否认将美国业务出售给Elon 老马，引发了对限制外国应用程序的争议。特斯拉的股价于2025年1月14日分别以383.21美元和403.79美元开盘和收盘。

作者：Donovan Choy，Blockworks；编译：白水，金色财经 Pendle Pendle 的存在是因为加密货币想要进行投机。 在 Pendle 的短暂历史中，该团队不断重申其收益交易产品，使用稳定币和 2021 年牛市中臭名昭著的“DeFi 2.0”（Olympus DAO）的叙述，到流动性质押代币、Arbitrum 上的现实世界资产以及 2021 年期间的流动性再质押。 直到 2024 年初，Pendle 的积分爆发，Pendle 才取得令人瞩目的成就，其 TVL 从数百万美元飙升至数十亿美元。 Pendle 的 Principle Tokens (PT) 和

* * * * * If the SEC were a sports team measured by its “win” rate, it would be a runaway champ. But that win-loss record suffered a mild hit — and its first ever loss in an “ICO” case — one that refers to the controversial method of crowd fundraising and that borrows from the public company “IPO” or initial public offering. A federal judge denied the SEC a preliminary injunction against Blockvest after he granted a temporary restraining order on the same issue. We chat with Amit Singh, attorney and shareholder in Stradling’s corporate and securities practice group about the SEC’s fresh loss. His take? They’ll be out for blood, next. **For those not in the know, share the legal background leading up to this case.** In October of this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed a complaint against Blockvest LLC and its founder, Reginald Buddy Ringgold III. According to the complaint, Blockvest falsely claimed its planned December initial coin offering was “registered” and “approved” by the SEC and created a fake regulatory agency, the Blockchain Exchange Commission, which included a phony logo that was nearly identical to that of the SEC. The SEC also alleged Blockvest conducted pre-sales of its digital token, BLV, ahead of the ICO and raised more than $2.5 million. The SEC’s complaint alleged violations of the anti-fraud provisions of the Securities Exchange and the Securities Act and violations of the Securities Act’s prohibitions against the offer and sale of unregistered securities in the absence of an exemption from the registration requirements. U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel issued a temporary restraining order “freezing assets, prohibiting the destruction of documents, granting expedited discovery, requiring accounting and order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted” on October 5, 2018. On Tuesday, November 27, in the SEC’s first loss in stopping an ICO, judge Gonzalo Curiel stated that the SEC had not shown at this stage of the case that the BLV tokens were securities under the Howey Test, a decades-old test established by the U.S. Supreme Court for determining whether certain transactions are investment contracts and thus securities. If the tokens weren’t securities, all the SEC’s other allegations automatically fail Under the Howey Test, a transaction is an investment contract (or security) if: – It is an investment of money; – There is an expectation of profits from the investment; – The investment of money is in a common enterprise; and – Any profit comes from the efforts of a promoter or third party Later cases have expanded the term “money” in the Howey Test to include investment assets other than money. The judge said that the SEC failed to show investors had an expectation of profits. “While defendants claim that they had an expectation in Blockvest’s future business, no evidence is provided to support the test investors’ expectation of profits,” the judge wrote. Blockvest argued that the pre-ICO money came from 32 “test investors” and said the BLV tokens were only designed for testing its platform. It presented statements from several investors who said they either did not buy BLV tokens or rely on any representations that the SEC has alleged are false. The SEC responded by noting that various individuals wrote “Blockvest” or “coins” on their checks and were provided with a Blockvest ICO white paper describing the project and the terms of the ICO. Judge Curiel said that evidence, by itself, wasn’t enough: “Merely writing ‘Blockvest or coins’ on their checks is not sufficient to demonstrate what promotional materials or economic inducements these purchasers were presented with prior to their investments. Accordingly, plaintiff has not demonstrated that ‘securities’ were sold to [these] individuals.” **Won’t the case proceed? Why is the denial of an injunction important here?** This does not mean that the SEC cannot pursue an action against the defendants Rather it just means that the SEC didn’t meet the high burden required to receive a preliminary injunction of proving “(1) a prima facie case of previous violations of federal securities laws, and (2) a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated.” The court determined that, at this stage, without full discovery and disputed issues of material facts, the Court could not decide whether the BLV token were securities. Since the SEC didn’t meet its burden of proving the tokens were securities in the first place, it couldn’t have shown that there was a previous violation of the federal securities laws So, the first prong was not met Further, the defendants agreed to stop the ICO and provide 30 days’ prior notice to the SEC if they intend to move forward with the ICO So, the court determined that there was not a reasonable likelihood that the wrong will be repeated As a result, the SEC’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied. Nonetheless, this is an important case as it is the first time the SEC went after an ICO issuer and the issuer pushed back and won (if only temporarily) It reminds us that, though most people think of the SEC as judge and jury in securities actions, that isn’t the case Ultimately, an issuer that pushes back may have a chance if it has the wherewithal to fight and if it has good arguments However, this does not mean that the SEC is done with them and we may very well see this case continue. **Won’t media coverage of this case ultimately impair Blockvest’s ability to raise funds — its ultimate goal?** That may very well be the case. Unfortunately, unsophisticated investors could ultimately merely remember the Blockvest name and decide that it must be a good investment since they’ve heard of it (ala PT Barnum – “I don’t care what the newspapers say about me as long as they spell my name right.”). But I may be too cynical (hopefully I am). In any case, I would be surprised if Blockvest attempts to pursue an ICO without either registering the tokens or utilizing an exemption from the registration requirements. They clearly have a target on their back, so the SEC would love another crack at them I’m sure. Plus, even though a preliminary injunction was denied here, the SEC still got what it wanted as Blockvest agreed not to pursue the ICO without giving the SEC 30 days’ prior notice of its intent to do so. So, the investing public was ultimately protected. **What is the SEC’s current stance on what constitutes a security based on this case?** The SEC will still point to the Howey Test Further, as stated in recent speeches by Hinman and others, the SEC seems to be focused not only on the utility of any tokens (i.e., they can be used on the platform for which they were created), but also on decentralization (that the efforts of the promoters are no longer required to maintain the value/utility of the tokens/platform). However, the court in this case looked at the investment of money prong differently than has historically been the case Normally, the investment of money prong is assumed with little analysis as any consideration is considered “money” for purposes of the test But this case looked at the investment not from the purchaser’s subjective intent when committing funds, but instead based the analysis on what was offered to prospective purchasers and what information they relied on So, issuers are well advised to be very careful in how they advertise an offering. Further, the expectation of profits prong wasn’t met because, according to Blockvest, these were just test investors So, it wasn’t clear these folks invested for a profit The tokens were never even used or sold outside the platform. **Where does the Ninth Circuit sit in regards to what is a security?** The Ninth Circuit follows the Howey Test. However, the common enterprise element has received extensive and varied analysis in the federal circuit courts For example, while all circuits accept “horizontal” commonality as satisfying the common enterprise prong of the Howey Test, a minority of circuits (including the ninth) also accept “vertical” commonality in this analysis. Horizontal commonality involves the pooling of assets, profits and risks in a unitary enterprise, while vertical commonality requires that profits of investors be “interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment or of third parties” (narrow verticality), or “that the well-being of all investors be dependent upon the promoter’s expertise” (broad commonality). SEC v. SG Ltd., 265 F.3d 42, 49 (1st Cir. 2001). The Ninth Circuit is the only one to accept the narrow vertical approach (though it also accepts horizontal commonality), which finds a common enterprise if there is a correlation between the fortunes of an investor and a promoter.” Sec. & Exch. Comm’n v. Eurobond Exchange, Ltd., 13 F.3d 1334, 1339 (9th Cir., 1994). Under this approach a common enterprise is a venture “in which the ‘fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment….'” Investors’ funds need not be pooled; rather the fortunes of the investors must be linked with those of the promoters, which suffices to establish vertical commonality. So, a common enterprise exists if a direct correlation has been established between success or failure of the promoter’s efforts and success or failure of the investment. **Which Federal Circuits might offer an equal or even bigger split with the SEC?** I wouldn’t really say that any courts split with the SEC as the SEC’s decisions take precedent over any decisions of those courts. However, there is a split among the circuits as described above with respect to what type of commonality is sufficient to find a common enterprise. **What impact could the outcome of this case have on ICOs at large?** This case may embolden companies who have already conducted ICOs to push back on any SEC actions that they might not otherwise fight as it shows that the SEC will always have to meet the burden of proving all factors of the Howey Test are met before the SEC has jurisdiction over the offering in the first place. **Has the Supreme Court addressed anything crypto, crypto related, or analogous?** The only case I know of where the Supreme court has addressed crypto currencies is Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States. That was a case about whether stock counts as “money remuneration” The dissent in that case talked about how our concept of money has changed over time and said that perhaps “one day employees will be paid in bitcoin or some other type of cryptocurrency.” This goes against the IRS’s position that cryptocurrencies are property and should be taxed as such But, it was just a passing comment in the dissent. So, it has no precedential value. But, it may embolden someone to fight the IRS’s position.

一、引言 随着技术的进步和市场的适应，DeFi有望进一步改变传统的金融市场结构，为市场参与者提供更高效、更安全、更透明的交易选项。本篇Bing Ventures研究展望了DeFi技术在未来可能持续的影响，尤其是在提高市场包容性、降低交易成本和增强市场效率方面的潜在贡献，尤其关注Pendle和盘前交易（Premarket）方面的案例。 Pendle通过Token化的方式将传统的利率交易和金融衍生品引入区块链，创新了分离本金和收益的金融产品，如PT和YT。通过这种方式，Pendle不仅提供了灵活的利率交易方式，还促进了DeFi市场的流动性和效率。Pendle的技术实践将本金代币和收益代币分开

波场创始人孙宇晨购买Pendle PT代币，使用基于收益交易协议的低风险套利获得了近20%年化报酬率，这引起了社群的广泛关注。该协议通过将生息代币打包成SY代币，再将SY拆分为PT和YT两个组成部分，来产生收益。购买PT可以在到期时赎回标的资产，并可随时出售。借币买PT以获得稳定收益的保本策略可以规避价格风险。

作者：雨中狂睡 从收入预期的角度来看，YT 极有可能跟随 GLP APR 的上涨，迎来一波反弹，然后回归正常水平（高于当下），这也是我所认为的机会。 当下 Pendle GLP YT 的价格是否存在一些机会？ 在接下来的内容中，我将从以下两个角度分析该资产机会的逻辑： Pendle PT YT 的运行机制 GLP 的 APR 低迷的原因和是否存在触底反弹的数据支撑 Pendle PT YT 的运行机制 特定时间区间内的原资产（币本位本金 + 币本位收益）价值=PT+YT PT 代表本金，YT 代表收益。因为在最初的时候，原资产在特定时间内的价值已经固定，因此 PT 和 YT...