觀點文章觀點不同，不代表「WEB3+」立場
技術驅動價格（是嗎？
每當新技術的消息傳出時，市場往往認為新技術會帶動需求，進而推高某些幣的價格，並拉低其他幣的價格。
例如，有人說今年將是「質押年」。 EigenLayer 推出後，Restake 應用如雨後春筍般湧現。 市場認為以太坊質押量會增加，因此以太幣的購買動機會增加，價格必然會上漲。
然而，從供需曲線變化和基本經濟學的角度來看科技對貨幣價格的影響還有另一種視角，例如這篇EIP1559文章。 由於協議變化也與貨幣發行密切相關，因此我們需要從更長遠的角度了解區塊鏈領域的新技術如何塑造價格均衡。
EIP4844範例
一旦供需曲線移動，基本面的影響就更強、更持久。 例如，新推出的EIP4844預計將以太坊交易的數據成本降低90-99%，並且計算成本由於Layer 2而變得非常低，這使得交易費用顯著降低，變得更加實惠和容易使用。
照理說，較低的交易費用將促進以太坊使用量的增加。 隨著需求的增加，貨幣價格應該會上漲； 然而，最初燃燒的交易費用是以太坊通貨緊縮的根源。 交易費用的大幅降低意味著以太坊銷毀量變低，從而導致貨幣流通量增加。 此時，以太坊的供給曲線朝著以太坊的方向。 如果向右移動，貨幣價格將隨著供應增加而下跌。
然而，基本面的影響可能更為深遠。 畢竟EIP4844將使交易成本變得非常低，並且可能會大大增加使用以太坊的人數，使得網路收益超過低手續費的損失。 因此，大多數人仍然認為EIP4844對該協議有利。 影響是正面的。 更準確地說，較低的手續費將使以太坊的供應曲線向右移動。 然而，如果使用以太坊的人數大幅增加，需求曲線更加向右移動，那麼價格反而會上漲。
How does this dynamic relationship between supply and demand achieve equilibrium? No one can say for sure. The update started working after it went online and stirred up the market. We may see prices fall or rise due to changes in supply and demand. This does not conflict with short-term topics stimulating currency prices, but long-term market changes are obviously more worthy of our attention.
Examples of Restaking
Restaking, another popular theme, is also very suitable to illustrate how new technologies can rewrite the balance of supply and demand in the long term.
Now that Ethereum PoS validators can use the same collateral to earn additional income, we can all observe a significant increase in demand for Ethereum in the market. People buy ether, lock it up as collateral, and then remortgage the same collateral to make additional profits. This is a typical credit creation model in the traditional financial world.
You don’t need to understand complex monetary theory, just think about the following narrative to understand: the economic incentives of remortgage encourage more people to buy Ethereum as collateral, the demand for Ethereum will of course increase, and lock-up will make the currency circulate. reduce. The demand increases, the supply decreases, and the currency price rises like this. It seems very logical and fully consistent with the rational inference of economics, but is it really that simple?
There are some blind spots that need to be clarified first. Once you pledge your assets, you cannot immediately respond to market fluctuations during the lock-up period, and your collateral can both run nodes and help run Oracle (or any application), so no matter where you do it If something bad happens, the same deposit will be cut off, so it will create immeasurable risks. The market is now generally optimistic about Restaking, partly due to the cryptocurrency bull market, and there is no need to worry about the liquidity problem of large amounts of locked positions for the time being.
In addition, on the surface, the economic incentives of Restaking will stimulate the rise of currency prices, but Restaking is bad news for monetary policy.
Because the mining reward formula of Ethereum PoS is different from PoW. PoW is a fixed output. If there are n people mining, each person will get 1/n; PoS is an unfixed number of mines, and there is a smoothing between mining nodes and mining rewards. The root sign relationship of:
This design is to prevent the impact of the pledge amount on income from being too drastic. The problem is that PoS mining rewards will increase with the number of nodes, and the economic incentives of Restaking will increase the willingness to pledge and stakers will also increase.
Assume that before the emergence of Restaking, the original supply and demand balance point was 4% PoS interest, and Restaking provides an additional 2% interest, which will increase the number of stakers and reduce the original mining interest. The new equilibrium point may be 3% (PoS) + 2% (Restaking), and players who re-stake can earn a total of 5% interest. However, Ethereum is accelerating money printing due to the increase in nodes, which leads to inflation.
Simply looking at personal benefits has indeed increased, but looking at the overall environment, the result of inflation is a decline in currency prices. At this time, players who re-stake hold more Ethereum coins, but the total value of assets may depreciate. Players who re-stake without playing are even more unlucky. They do not earn coins but follow inflation, so this way to add more Ethereum to PoS nodes. The technology of profit is actually harmful to the monetary policy of the underlying protocol.
Looking forward to the market outlook
Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that Restaking has indeed created a large number of new applications (and corresponding new "value"?), but the process also inevitably brings over-collateralization to the chain that does not contribute to security, as well as accompanying additional inflationary pressure. To this end, protocol developers are actively developing the concept of minimum viable issuance (minimum viable issuance amount), and there are several plans under discussion to reduce inflation and restrict ETH from entering PoS staking.
When we look at EIP4844 or Restaking, what the market should consider is not just whether the demand for Ethereum will increase and whether the currency price will rise, because if the supply and demand curves move at the same time, the impact of new technology on currency prices is still unknown, but the news will drive The short-term incentives are too good, so let’s buy some more ETH.
Opinion articles present diverse opinions and do not represent the position of "WEB3+"
This article is reproduced with permission from: Ping Chen
Review editor: Gao Jingyuan
More coverageBitcoin L2 and DePIN are both on the list! Bankless has selected 12 of the hottest crypto narratives in 2024. Let’s take a look at them.Binance CEO personally visits Taiwan! Led a global team to visit the High People’s Procuratorate to exchange ideas on the prevention and control of virtual asset crimes
