Little Bird.BTC

量化交易/Stay hungry, stay foolish

[qinbafrank @qinbafrank]

本周前半周市场应该向好的，自10号以来影响市场的两个主要因素：1、中美博弈预期向好，大概率把相互制裁措施延期。2、上周四两家地区银行信贷暴雷引发的恐慌情绪随着上周五另外五家地区银行财报稳健而缓解。后半周的重点就是9月的cpi、也是四季度影响市场的最主要因素，大逻辑也就是早上推文聊到的

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

如昨天的行情解析，走了第一剧本，目前大饼站上11.11w，第一目标11.3万-11.42w

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

大饼4小时空头减弱，1h和15在多头，2个剧本:选好方向直接拉上去，还是下下蹲再拉？你们猜是哪个？😊

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@qinbafrank @feifan7686 对，就像是一直在炒空气，现在玩家都聪明了，没有能落地的叙事，买单的越来越少了

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

现在的市场和几年前的市场相比已经有了很大的变化，以前加密市场散户居多，现在是机构持仓，机构的钱大量流入，资金量大，山寨币容纳不了这么多资金，而且机构追求的是稳定，山寨的波动大，不小心还会归零，这就导致了大饼这一轮独领风骚！还在等山寨季的散户，若不及时转变思维合理配置怕是要等不上了

[qinbafrank @qinbafrank]

去年和年初都有聊过：山寨币起不来并不仅是流动性问题而是结构性问题，市场变化了投资者认知和心态也变化，大饼、以太、sol、bnb等少数被主流市场接纳、传统资金认可的加密资产，跟其他的大部分山寨就会越来越变成两个市场，未来更加极致的分化。山寨只能追抓局部热点、波段套利，并不合适做趋势投资了，市场的每一次小风险对山寨来说可能都是致命风险。

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@cloakmk 子棋哥就是子棋哥，一次大跌有什么关系，币圈的米就是来了走，走了来，千金散去还复来！只要人在就一切都会回来的！

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

大饼4小时空头减弱，1h和15在多头，2个剧本:选好方向直接拉上去，还是下下蹲再拉？你们猜是哪个？😊

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

一首打油诗，和最近的行情是不是很配！

“盘前摩拳擦掌，盘中抓耳挠腮。
问赚多少了？满屏绿柱无奈。
割肉，割肉，只盼反弹就卖。”

[qinbafrank @qinbafrank]

新一波稳定币的浪潮要来了。近期参议院的稳定币法案表决通过，众议院的稳定币法案也正式提出。稳定币法案应该今年最早通过的加密资产法案，估计年中就能看到。关于稳定币几点思考：
1、在进一步合规化的浪潮下，稳定币有可能深度集成到现有的美元体系之内，换个角度应该也是美元的进化。怀俄明州正在测试自己的稳定币WYST、富达数字资产部门正在测试自己的稳定币、川普家族项目WLFI推出美元挂钩稳定币 USD1等，再加上paypal之前推出的pyusd、robinhood也在计划推出稳定币，能看出来传统的金融巨头和政府都在跑步入场，未来应该会极大冲击usdt和usdc两大巨头，这里面usdt受到的冲击应该是更大的，毕竟usdt还是非合规和半透明的稳定币、从币安最近lanchpool支持usdc、下架了很多小币的usdt交易对就能看出来。

2、从支付体系和清洁算角度看：
当前全球支付体系主要由四大支付系统构成：自动清算所（如ACH）、信用卡网络（如Visa、Mastercard）、国际银行支付系统（如SWIFT、CIPS）以及移动支付系统（如PayPal、支付宝）。这些传统支付系统虽然成熟，但存在着高昂的交易成本（跨境转账平均成本6.35%）、缓慢的结算时间（尤其是周末）以及有限的透明度等问题。

在此背景下，稳定币作为新兴支付方式展现出巨大潜力。23年，稳定币总交易量达到10.8万亿美元，其中实质性交易量超过2.3万亿美元。相比传统支付方式，稳定币提供了更低的交易成本（0.5%-3%）、近乎实时的结算速度，以及基于区块链技术的更高透明度，让稳定币在跨境流通 / 清结算方面的效率远远超越法币的 SWFIT 体系。最新稳定币的年度结算总规模，已经是跟Visa 、master支付网络的 结算规模差不多了。

如果未来越来越多的支付和跨境结算都通过稳定币、这无疑是一个巨大的、高速增长且利润丰厚的市场。

3、美元合规稳定币政治经济上的意义所在：
跟@hazenlee 李兄聊到川普政府积极力推稳定币政策，应该还有更大的政治博弈的层面。链上趋势不可避免，“将一切代币化”——从公开市场的股票到私募市场的股票，再到短期长期国债” 趋势也显现出苗头来。谁把住了稳定币的口子，谁就把住了未来链上资本市场的定价权。

更进一步，美国力推的合规稳定币自然都是锚定美元的，也是美元在链上的进一步扩张。美元的口子在美联储，美元锚定稳定币的口子在财政部或者SEC也有可能是货币监理署、意味着政府机构从联储手里拿走了链上美元的监管权，弯道超车也是另外一种形式对联储削权。

再进一步，链上趋势越来越强，各国加密人群越来越大。现实物理世界中都在用本国货币但是链上都在使用美元稳定币、还不用说现在各种payfi项目都在积极把稳定币引入到各种线下实际消费场景中去，未来很多人可能根本都不碰本国货币通过这些支付项目直接稳定币完成了消费，从这个意义上说，“很多国家在去美元化，但是美元稳定币又在未来把各国人群直接给拉到美元阵营里来” 另一种形式强美元，更加釜底抽薪，这可能川普要确保美元地位最佳途径。之前聊过美元地位强弱和美元指数强弱的差异
https://t.co/d1Wn5Eq04d

还进一步，大量的美元合规稳定币的发行，背后的美元储备最后大部分都成了短期美债购买力，2000多亿美金稳定币量还不够大，如果美元稳定币发行量超过5000亿美金、一万亿美金这个购买力就相当巨大了。

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

Totally agree!

[Andrew Ng @AndrewYNg]

I continue to be alarmed at the progress of proposed California regulation SB 1047 and the attack it represents on open source and more broadly on AI innovation. As I wrote previously, this proposed law makes a fundamental mistake of regulating AI technology instead of AI applications, and thus would fail to make AI meaningfully safer. I’d like to explain why the specific mechanisms of SB 1047 are so pernicious to open source.

To be clear, there are routes that regulators should pursue to improve safety. For example, I would welcome outlawing nonconsensual deepfake pornography, standardizing watermarking and fingerprinting to identify generated content, and investing more in red teaming and other safety research. Unfortunately, the proposed bill pursues a less beneficial and more harmful path.

SB 1047’s purported goal is to ensure safety of AI models. It puts in place complex reporting requirements for developers who fine-tune models or develop models that cost more than $100 million to train. It is a vague, ambiguous law that imposes significant penalties for violations, creating a huge gray zone in which developers can’t be sure how to avoid breaking the law. This will paralyze many teams.

You can read the latest draft of the law online. I’ve read through it carefully, and I find it ambiguous and very hard to follow.

Developers who try to navigate the law’s complex requirements face what feels like a huge personal risk. It requires that developers submit, under penalty of perjury, a certification of compliance with the requirements of the law. But when the requirements are complex, hard to understand, and can even shift according to the whims of an unelected body (more on this below), how do we ensure we are in compliance?

For example, the certification must include many different sections. One is an analysis of “the nature and magnitude of critical harms … the model might reasonably cause or enable.” But given that even leading AI researchers aren’t sure what harms models might cause or enable, how is a team of developers supposed to figure this out and declare — under penalty of perjury — that they meet this requirement?

Further, some developers will be required to implement “protections to prevent … misuse of, or unsafe post-training modifications of, the covered model and all covered model derivatives … that are appropriate in light of the risks associated with the covered model, including from advanced persistent threats or other sophisticated actors.” Even leading AI researchers don’t agree on how best to “protect” AI models against these supposed risks, or what would be “appropriate.” So how are developers supposed to figure out how to comply with this requirement?

This creates a scary situation for developers. Committing perjury could lead to fines and even jail time. Some developers will have to hire expensive lawyers or consultants to advise them on how to comply with these requirements. (I am not a lawyer and am not giving legal advice, but one way to try to avoid perjury is to show that you are relying on expert advice, to demonstrate that you had no intent to lie.) Others will simply refrain from releasing cutting-edge AI products.

If this law passes, the fear of a trial by a jury — leading to a verdict that can be very unpredictable and with significant penalties in the event of a conviction — will be very real. What if someone releases a model today after taking what they genuinely felt were reasonable safeguards, but a few years later, when views on AI technology might have shifted, some aggressive prosecutor manages to convince a jury that whatever they did was not, in hindsight, “reasonable”?

Reasonableness is ambiguous and its legal interpretation can depend on case law, jury instructions, and common facts, among other things. This makes it very hard to ensure that what a developer does today will be deemed reasonable by a future jury. (For more on this, see Context Fund’s analysis of SB 1047. [URLs in article linked to below.])

One highly placed lawyer in the California government who studied this law carefully told me they found it hard to understand. I invite you to read it and judge for yourself — if you find the requirements clear, you might have a brilliant future as a lawyer!

Adding to the ambiguity, the bill would create a Frontier Model Division (FMD) with a five-person board that has the power to dictate standards to developers. This small board would be a great target for lobbying and regulatory capture. (Bill Gurley has a great video on regulatory capture.) The unelected FMD can levy fees on developers to cover its costs. It can arbitrarily change the computation threshold at which fine-tuning a model becomes subject to its oversight. This can lead to even small teams being required to hire an auditor to check for compliance with an ambiguous safety standard.

These provisions don’t ensure that AI is safe. They create regulatory uncertainty, and more opportunities for vested interests wishing to stifle open-source to lobby for shifts in the requirements that raise the cost of compliance. This would lock out many teams that don’t have a revenue stream — specifically, many open-source contributors — that would let them pay for lobbyists, auditors, and lawyers to help ensure they comply with these ambiguous and unreasonable requirements.

Open source is a wonderful force that is bringing knowledge and tools to many people, and is a key pillar of AI innovation. I am dismayed at the concerted attacks on it. Make no mistake, there is a fight in California right now for the future health of open source. I am committed to doing what I can to preserve open source, but I don’t assume that the pro-open source side will prevail. I hope you will join me in speaking out against SB 1047 and other laws that threaten to stifle open source.

[Original text (with links): https://t.co/whAndl5C2g ]

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@laoyu123123 Alpha还拿着呢

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 落袋为安

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@ITrader007 👍

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 😒

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 被套了

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 是呢 这个妖币

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@Amy6Tina 不明觉厉

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 这发的谁啊？可别换风格，我是纯交易员

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 搬小板凳坐等🏕

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@skipperfund 报名

[Little Bird.BTC @BeginnerNan]

@BTC521 拉起来啦