當埃隆·馬斯克在上次牛市期間半諷刺地支持狗狗幣時，大多數人將其視為一個笑話：一個高調的商人在玩弄可笑的錢。

沒有人再笑了。

如今，有一些真正的機構——從雪崩基金會到富蘭克林鄧普頓——愿意說模因幣是區塊鏈技術的合法用途。

這是 Node 時事通訊的摘錄，該時事通訊是 CoinDesk 及其他領域最關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}} 仍然是領頭羊。

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

富蘭克林鄧普頓數字資產團隊在最近的一份報告中寫道，這些自以為是的笑話在過去一年中“由于其獨特的性質”而廣為流傳。

這家金融巨頭指出，自美國現貨比特幣交易所交易基金 (ETF) 發布以來，2023 年底開始的反彈勢頭才有所增強。

從某種意義上說，模因幣正在達到逃逸速度。

Avalanche 基金會啟動了一項“文化催化劑”計劃，該計劃已開始購買模因幣，以支持其認為“具有文化重要性”的 Web3 項目。

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 的使用日益增長部分歸因于這些代幣的“快速獲利的機會”。

另請參閱：Memecoin 欺詐及其如何威脅以太坊文化 |

觀點

然而，模因幣項目似乎也在竭盡全力自我毀滅。

雖然關于模因幣的傳統觀點是它們“沒有潛在價值”，但越來越多的模因幣創造者正在投入時間和金錢，讓他們的項目脫穎而出。

這是一項有風險的交易。

例如，shiba inu {{SHIB}}，第一個也可能是最知名的 meme 硬幣 dogecoin 的基于以太坊的競爭對手，正在構建一個完整的技術生態系統，包括自己的擴展層 Shibarium、去中心化交易所 ShibaSwap、Shiboshis NFT甚至是數字身份倡議和項目孵化器。

Dogwifhat (WIF) 是對“狗代幣”趨勢的一種演繹，在狗狗吉祥物上添加了一頂粉色無檐小便帽，在過去一個月內上漲了 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，哥倫比亞商學院教授奧斯汀·坎貝爾認為，項目不能只是稱自己為“Dog Co.，并擁有一個 memey 徽標”，并在不與證券監管機構發生沖突的情況下進行合法的商業行為。

但仍有細微差別的空間。

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

僅僅因為代幣類似于證券，或者甚至是根據“投資合同”發行的，并不一定意味著基礎代幣是證券。

這是一個懸而未決的法律問題。

熱點：MEME