自《华人预测市场应向何方探索》一文后，预测市场在全球登堂入室，真正进入主流视野。参考比特币和稳定币，加密产品在取得 PMF 后会被市场认定为新赛道，得到持续资金注入。 得益于预测市场天然的平台垄断效应，围绕其进行周边服务成为圈内共识，以将其培养成捕捉圈外生态的天然培养皿，从而构筑本体—周边—外围的层级生态。 在上文描绘预测市场基本格局和方向后，我们来尝试解析其现有周边服务，在仿盘、工具、返佣外，还有什么方向可支撑高市值的周边业务形态。 早熟的预测市场 > > The world may end, but progress marches on. > > > 预测市场是确定性

来源：Fortune；编译：金色财经 大型科技公司继续谨慎地涉足加密货币领域。 最新的例子是视频平台YouTube允许其上的内容创作者选择以PayPal稳定币PYUSD接收收入分成。PayPal加密货币负责人梅·扎巴内赫（May Zabaneh）向《财富》杂志证实了这一安排，并补充说该功能已上线，但目前仅适用于美国用户。 拥有 YouTube 的谷歌发言人证实，该视频网站已开始使用 PayPal 稳定币PYUSD向创作者支付报酬，但拒绝进一步置评。 YouTube 已经是 PayPal 的现有客户，并使用这家金融科技巨头的支付服务，该服务可帮助大型企业向零工人员和承包商支付款项。

文章作者：May P、Janus R 文章来源：CoinFound 关于 CoinFound: CoinFound 是一家面向机构与专业投资者的 TradFi Crypto 数据科技公司，提供 RWA 资产数据终端、RWA 资产评级、Web3 风险关系图谱、AI 分析工具及定制化数据等服务。从数据整合、风险识别到决策辅助，帮助机构以更低成本、更高效率获取关键情报并转化为可执行洞察，构建全球 RWA 底层基础设施。 Takeaway USDT 评级下调与争议：USDT

火星财经消息，区块链分析公司 Elliptic 宣布已获汇丰银行战略投资，具体投资金额暂未披露。据悉交易完成后，汇丰银行企业及机构银行金融犯罪业务主管 Richard May 将加入该公司董事会。Elliptic 计划将其反洗钱、稳定币解决方案在传统金融领域部署，帮助银行在持有稳定币储备之前评估发行人钱包风险。

在传统金融界，每到夏季，人们就会提到一句老话：“Sell in May and go away” – 五月出售然后去度假。虽然如今这个季节信号几乎没有价值，但它仍然常常被拿出来讨论。尽管加密货币市场刚刚出现，

以太坊高层喊话警告，安排在今年年底的 Fusaka 升级若是延迟，恐怕影响以太坊的整体路线图。 （前情提要：灰度报告：机构涌入、监管放行，以太坊强势崛起背后的多重利好 ） （背景补充：V神喊以太坊放弃Optimistic「钦定ZK为正统」，是远见还是扼杀生态的独裁？ ） 以太坊基金会执行董事 Tomasz K. Stańczak 在社群媒体发文，直言 Fusaka 升级如无法如期于 2025 年 11 月初在主网启动，谈论以太坊的路线图和愿景就「没意义了」。他提醒开发社群不要只盯着 2026 年的 Glamsterdam，而应优先确保眼前时程不失手。 Glamsterdam may be

1. Market observation In the current macroeconomic context, the market is paying close attention to the potential challenges facing the independence of US monetary policy. The core focus is that Trump may exert influence on Powell, the chairman of the Federal Reserve during his tenure, and

经过龙头行业专家和经验丰富的编辑审查的可信编辑内容。广告披露 您可能从未听说过Fannie May或Freddie Mac，但这两家公共公司——由国会在60年代设立——是美国住房市场的龙头。 合在一起，他们拥有超过7万亿美元的资产

原文标题：Stablecoin Update May 2025 原文来源：Artemis 转载：Oliver，火星财经 在加密市场，稳定币不再只是「稳定」——它们正在悄悄帮你赚钱。从美国国债收益到永续合约套利，生息稳定币（Yield-Bearing Stablecoins）正成为加密投资者新的收益引擎。目前，市值超 2000 万美元门槛的相关项目已有数十个，总价值超百亿美元。本文将为你拆解主流生息稳定币的收益来源，并盘点市场上最具代表性的项目，看看谁在真正为你「钱生钱」。 什么是生息稳定币？ 与普通稳定币（如 USDT 或 USDC）仅作为价值储存工具不同，生息稳定币允许用户在持有

作者：May 在 2025 年拉斯维加斯比特币大会现场，水滴资本创始人大山接受 bitpush 主编辑 May 专访。他分享了参会的感受、大会的亮点（包括政客浓度高、比特币精神体现、生态技术新应用），并深入探讨了比特币生态的发展趋势、如何吸引价格关注者转向技术生态、潜力细分赛道（如BTC Fi和支付），以及地区市场布局（美国主导与香港新兴机会）。 May：跟大家聊一聊今天这个参会的感受 大山：这次是比特币大会这么多年以来第一次在Vegas这个城市举办，这次大会也非常有特色。按照我的观察，有几个亮点可以分享。第一个是Vegas这个地方本身就非常有特色，在美国属于天使和恶魔同时存在的地方。

 比特币最近的上涨引起了机构的关注

原文标题：Trump’s ‘art of the retreat’ may signal he’s setting Powell up to take the fall for economic turmoil 原文作者：Eleanor Pringle 原文来源： 编译：Daisy， 火星财经 特朗普的"撤退艺术"可能预示着他正让鲍威尔充当经济动荡的替罪羊 在未能达成任何重大贸易协议后，外界对特朗普关税策略的信心可能正在减弱，这引发外界猜测政府正从大胆谈判转向战术性撤退。分析师指出，特朗普近期对美联储主席鲍威尔态度软化——此前数月他持续批评这位央行行长——可能不仅是为了安抚市场

原文作者：May Pang，Chief Compliance Officer@OORT 导语 当 DeFi 协议遭遇 GDPR 的"被遗忘权"，当 NFT 平台面临 CCPA 的"数据退出权"，区块链行业正经历着去中心化理想与现实监管的激烈碰撞。据 Chainalysis 报告显示， 2023 年全球区块链企业因隐私合规问题导致的罚款同比增长 240% 。本文将解构区块链项目如何在 Web3 时代构建合规竞争力。 一、全球隐私法规的核心异同 随着数据隐私问题日益受到重视，美国加州的 CCPA、中国的 PIPL 和欧盟的 GDPR 成为三大代表性法规。尽管三者均旨在保护个人数据，但其

作者：May Pang，Chief Compliance Officer @OORT 引言 当传统金融遇上区块链技术，现实世界资产代币化（Real World Asset Tokenization, RWA）正在重塑全球资本市场的运作范式。通过将传统资产如房地产、国债等上链，RWA为投资者提供了更高的流动性和透明度。据波士顿咨询集团预测，到2030年，代币化资产规模有望突破16万亿美元。在这股浪潮中，合规性成为决定RWA能否从概念验证走向规模落地的关键因素。本文通过解构三大具有代表性的RWA项目，揭示当前市场的主流合规路径，并前瞻性分析行业面临的机遇与挑战。 一、RWA的合规实践：三大标

关键备注 鲸鱼在短短20天内购买了高达1.3亿个OM代币。 加密分析师Matt May预测，$10以上只是Mantra的开始。 OM在过去一个月下跌了20%，但已突破了一个看涨三角形态。 法则 OM $6.84 24小时波动率： 1.9% 市场c

加密货币 mar千et看到修正，比特币跌至$79K，以太坊跌至$2,100。艾达和瑞波也有所下降。艾达 brea千s 千ey 支撑，表示下行压力。瑞波 at critical 支撑， may 关注 艾达的 brea千down.前途未卜，瑞波未来的日子不明朗。

* * * * * 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.

> 原文标题：Why tech giants like Amazon may hesitate to adopt Bitcoin > 原文作者：DANIEL RAMIREZ-ESCUDERO > 原编译：Lawrence，MarsBit 大型科技公司手头有大量现金流。货币贬值使他们失去购买力。比特币是对抗通胀的财务解决方案吗？亚马逊是下一个要决定的。  亚马逊等大型科技公司手头有大量现金（去年为 870 亿美元），但随着货币贬值，这些现金的购买力正在下降。 华盛顿特区智库国家公共政策研究中心 (NCPPR)

原文标题：Why tech giants like Amazon may hesitate to adopt Bitcoin 原文作者：DANIEL RAMIREZ-ESCUDERO 编译：Lawrence，火星财经 大型科技公司手头有大量现金流。货币贬值使他们失去购买力。比特币是对抗通胀的财务解决方案吗？亚马逊是下一个要决定的。  亚马逊等大型科技公司手头有大量现金（去年为 870 亿美元），但随着货币贬值，这些现金的购买力正在下降。 华盛顿特区智库国家公共政策研究中心 (NCPPR)

足球预测一直以来震惊舆论的著名占星家Meral Güven的代币因冠军预言未能实现而遭遇崩盘。 Meral Güven, who is famous for her predictions for the Süper Lig and Ziraat Turkish Cup matches, became the center of attention on May 27th.

原文标题：Bitcoin halvings may be bullish—but returns have shrunk every cycl 原文作者：David Canellis 原文编译：Mary Liu，比推 BitpushNews 比特币当前的上涨正值两种看涨叙事的结合：在不到八周的时间内，减半将使新增供应量减少一半，同时现货 ETF 吸筹比特币的速度已经快于开采速度。 除了现货 ETF 的新需求之外，减半通常被视为比特币价格大幅上涨的催化剂。 但在过去的两个周期中，受益最大的是加密货币，而不是比特币。从之前每次减半的前一年开始，比特币的峰值涨势为： · 2012

> 密码朋克「和我们的大多数赛博朋克表亲一样，也就是说，没那么朋克。」 撰文：Crypto Wars 编译：Kurt Pan 「起来，密码朋克们，恶行正在野兽的腹中酝酿」—Timothy May 用这些话号召他的同志们拿起武器。 1992 年春，May 在加利福尼亚州奥克兰接待了正在那里寻找住处的 Eric Hughes。在他们共同居住期间，很少再去找房子了，因为两人交换了关于方兴未艾的数字革命会带来的隐私威胁的激烈观点。访问结束时， May 和 Hughes

> 隐私可以而且应该被构建，但它永远不会完美。 撰文：Michael Goldstein 编译：刘教链 2024-01-08 12:06 发表于北京 > 「有些事情在我们的掌控之中，有些则不然。」 > —— 伊壁鸠鲁，《恩赐论》 加密无政府主义蔓延 蒂莫西·梅（Timothy C. May）在他的经典作品《加密无政府主义宣言》（Crypto Anarchist Manifesto）中提出了对未来的憧憬，由于采用了公钥加密技术，未来社会将面临许多挑战。其中一个特别有趣的挑战就是匿名信息市场： >

前言 「All tokens, locked or unlocked, may be staked.」 「所有锁定或解锁的代币都可以被质押。」 9 月 26 日，模块化区块项目 Celestia 宣布面向 7579 名开发者与 576653 个链上活跃地址空投，6000 万枚 Celestia 的代币 TIA，符合资格的用户需在 2023 年 10 月 17 日 20:00 之前领取，由于主网还未上线（计划 2023 年底），TIA 开启转账具体时间还未知。 Celestia 算是上一波牛市（20-21）的中后期才启动的天王级项目，投资者对其抱有相当大的期望，很多机构挤破头也想参与 ...