编译: 吴说区块链
原文链接：
https://www.gsr.io/reports/is-solana-eft-next/
Solana 已巩固了其作为加密货币三巨头之一的地位。随着其他两大巨头已经或即将推出现货 ETF，Solana 很可能也会在不久的将来推出现货 ETF，而且其对 SOL 的影响可能是迄今为止最大的。
注：GSR 持有 SOL。
Solana 由 Anatoly Yakovenko 和 Raj Gokal 于 2018 年创立，并于 2020 年推出，是一个为高性能和大规模采用而设计的委托权益证明区块链。凭借极低的交易成本、广泛的去中心化应用以及活跃的用户和开发者社区，Solana 已经积累了近 3000 亿次交易和超过 40 亿美元的总锁定价值。此外，Solana 继续在众多项目中脱颖而出，最近的亮点包括大量高知名度的代币发布、各种项目迁移到 Solana、关键创新如代币扩展的发布以及围绕 Solana 独有的用例，如订单簿、批量 NFT、DePINs、memecoins 等。
Solana 成功的基础是其卓越的技术，我们认为这提供了可持续的竞争优势，尤其体现在三个特别显著的方面。首先是 Solana 的历史证明（proof-of-history），它为验证者提供了时间概念。类似于移动信号塔交替传输以避免干扰，历史证明使验证者可以在轮到他们时生成区块，而无需网络先达成当前区块共识，从而带来巨大的速度和可扩展性优势。其次，与当前加密货币领域背后的单线程虚拟机不同，Solana 支持并行交易处理，不仅大幅提高了吞吐量，还能利用计算速度的主要提升来源，今天的大多数性能提升来自增加更多核心，而非提高每个核心的性能。最后，虽然 Solana 历史上对硬件和带宽的高要求在一定程度上牺牲了去中心化以优化速度和安全性，但随着成本的下降（摩尔定律），Solana 自然会从中受益，或许会成为第一个真正解决区块链三难困境并最终实现其以光速同步全球状态愿景的项目。
随着 Solana 确立其在比特币和以太坊之后的地位，并且比特币和以太坊都已（或即将）推出美国现货 ETF，自然引发了一个问题——Solana 会是下一个吗？在当前周期中，现货 ETF 是价格的主要驱动因素，这个问题尤为重要。
简单来说，在当前的框架下，在美国推出现货数字资产 ETF 的路径是明确的，需要有一个联邦监管的期货市场（目前除了比特币和以太坊之外没有其他期货市场），期货市场需要存在多年以证明足够的相关性，并且期货 ETF 需要获得批准，然后才可以考虑现货产品。换句话说，近期不会有额外的现货数字资产 ETF。然而，我们认为这严重低估了变革的可能性。
事实上，变化已经在进行中，唐纳德·特朗普最近对加密行业的支持，使得民主党在紧张的选举年放松了对数字资产的立场。虽然一个月前还难以想象，但我们已经看到国会两院通过了一项推翻有争议的 SEC 加密货币会计政策（SAB 121）的两党措施，以及众议院通过了一项全面的数字资产监管框架（FIT21）。尽管当前的立法和监管结构不太可能采用允许推出各种现货数字资产 ETF 的规则，但特朗普政府和自由派 SEC 委员可能会实现这一目标，特别是通过定义证券和商品的数字资产市场结构法案。不仅这种情况可能发生，而且甚至可能成为现实。
在更宽松的法律法规下，我们认为决定下一个现货 ETF 的两个关键因素是去中心化程度和潜在需求。就前者而言，无论是 FIT21 通过创建具有关键去中心化测试的新数字资产类别来绕过 Howey 测试，还是 SEC 建议的 “足够去中心化” 可能影响证券分类，去中心化程度可能是数字资产能否获得 ETF 的关键。就后者而言，任何新 ETF 的潜在需求同样重要，因为它将是影响盈利能力的最大因素。在这里，发行人可能会在考虑潜在需求的同时，权衡声誉风险、通过各种内部委员会的能力以及客户的最佳利益。总体而言，虽然加密原生发行人可能会申请大量的现货 ETF，但我们认为较大的发行人更可能专注于具有足够去中心化和高潜在需求的一两个数字资产。
Next, we provide a brief analysis that attempts to quantitatively determine the decentralization score and demand score and add them together to form an ETF likelihood score. Note that we convert the various category metrics into Z-scores to facilitate merging categories, and then take a simple average of the Z-scores for each category to calculate the final decentralization and demand scores. Finally, note that many of the metrics used have flaws and a degree of subjectivity, but we believe these metrics are still valuable for the current task.
Analyzing the degree of decentralization in blockchain is difficult because there is no universally agreed upon definition, many metrics are unsatisfactory, and the topic is generally highly complex, technical, and even confusing. Philosophical color. Furthermore, decentralization encompasses many concepts such as permissionless participation, development control, key person influence, token allocation/distribution, stake characteristics, and software and hardware diversity, among others. Finally, note that most public chains have gradually become more decentralized over time, which is evident in groups such as Cardano’s upcoming Voltaire era that will substantially decentralize governance, or Solana’s upcoming The Firedancer client will make Solana the only network besides Bitcoin and Ethereum to have a second independent client on mainnet. To sum up, we believe that some of the more sound and valuable decentralization indicators are:
· Nakamoto coefficient, which measures the minimum number of independent entities that may collude to attack the network. The higher the value, the higher the degree of decentralization. .
· Staking requirements, a measure of how easy it is for anyone to participate in the network as a node operator or validator, including minimum staking requirements and hardware requirements, less staking and lighter hardware contribute to higher decentralization.
· CCData governance rating, including various governance measures such as participation, transparency and decentralization.
As shown below, the four blockchains with above-average decentralization scores are Ethereum, Solana, Avalanche, and Aptos.
Potential demand is another key determinant and issuers may look at various metrics when assessing future inflows. The most important of these is token market cap, but overall, we believe the following three categories are particularly valuable:
· Market indicators, where higher market cap, higher trading volume, and strong token performance may be indicative of the future Demand is strong.
· Total assets under management (AUM) of existing products, the high AUM of tokens in existing investment products globally indicates that demand for spot ETF products may also be high.
· Activity metrics, a strong, active community and widespread usage can also be strong signals of future demand.
As shown in the chart below, the three largest blockchains with above-average demand scores are Ethereum, Solana, and NEAR.
Our decentralization score and demand score are added together to arrive at the final ETF Likelihood Score. It is important to note that we set the decentralization weight to 33% and the demand weight to 67%, as we believe that decentralization may be a threshold factor, while underlying demand may be the main criterion used by issuers. Overall, Ethereum received approval for the key spot ETH ETF 19b-4 filing in May and is expected to launch multiple spot ETFs this summer, taking first place by a wide margin. Next up is Solana, which also outperforms other digital assets by a wide margin and is the only one besides Ethereum to score positively on both decentralization and demand. In third place is NEAR, due to good performance in two categories. Overall, the results clearly indicate that if the U.S. allows additional spot digital asset ETFs, Solana will be next.
To evaluate the potential spot Solana ETF impact on SOL price, we can simply refer to the impact of the spot Bitcoin ETF on Bitcoin. After all, the approval of a spot Bitcoin ETF and the massive inflows that followed were the main factors that pushed Bitcoin from $27,000 in October, when market participants began to think U.S. spot ETF approval was a real possibility, to around $63,000 now. Achieved 2.3 times growth. This 2.3x will be our baseline.
Next, we need to adjust our analysis to take into account that the spot Solana ETF has seen significantly smaller inflows relative to Bitcoin. Ultimately, we adjust by estimating inflows into the spot Solana ETF relative to Bitcoin. Here we consider three simple scenarios.
· Pessimistic scenario: Solana Global Investment Products has 2% of Bitcoin’s AUM. We believe this underestimates potential Solana ETF inflows, as this metric gives Bitcoin a big lead, with the Grayscale Bitcoin Trust launching back in 2013 and Solana not launching until 2020. Therefore, we use 2% as the inflow for the pessimistic scenario.
· Baseline Scenario: We evaluate Solana’s performance with reference to actual recent inflows. Here we use inflow data from 2021 to 2023, as Solana is not well known before 2021, and data as of 2024 to exclude the impact of the spot Bitcoin ETF (which launched in January). Over the three years, Solana investment products saw 5% cumulative inflows relative to Bitcoin. We consider this 5% as the baseline scenario.
· Optimistic scenario: Over the past two years, Solana has seen higher relative inflows, accounting for 31% and 9% of Bitcoin inflows in 2022 and 2023, respectively. While we don't expect Solana to fully keep up with the unusually high periods of Bitcoin inflows in 2021 and 2024, we view relative inflows averaging 14% per year over three years as a potentially optimistic scenario.
While inflows to the spot Solana ETF could be 2%, 5%, or 14% of Bitcoin under the pessimistic, baseline, and optimistic scenarios respectively, we now have to adjust the spot ETF for its smaller size For the impact on SOL, this adjustment will be made through market capital. Specifically, Solana’s market cap has averaged just 4% of Bitcoin’s over the past year.
Taking all factors together, we can adjust our relative inflow estimates based on Solana’s 2.3x growth relative to Bitcoin under different scenarios. Thus, Solana could grow 1.4x under the pessimistic scenario, 3.4x under the baseline scenario, and 8.9x under the optimistic scenario. Additionally, there is reason to believe that the impact may be higher than these estimates because, unlike Bitcoin, SOL is actively used in staking and decentralized applications, and the relationship between relative inflows and relative size may not be linear. Finally, it is important to note that the underlying Solana spot ETF may be significantly less reflected in the SOL price than Bitcoin at the beginning of our analysis, which can be inferred from Grayscale Trust's deviation relative to its net asset value . If this extrapolation is correct, SOL's huge potential upside from owning a spot ETF could be considered a "free option." All in all, if more spot digital asset ETFs are allowed in the U.S., Solana will be primed for spot ETFs and the price impact will likely be the largest yet.
Due to the lack of a real-time creation and redemption mechanism, the price of the Grayscale Trust may deviate from its underlying net asset value (NAV), but this deviation will disappear when the Trust is converted to a spot ETF, because the spot ETF has Such a mechanism. On January 1, 2023, Grayscale Bitcoin Trust (GBTC) was trading at a 45% discount to net asset value (before BlackRock filed for a spot Bitcoin ETF on June 15, 2023, and on August 31, Grayscale was fighting the SEC’s Prior to winning the lawsuit), this discount was reduced to 21% by early October, suggesting that the price of Bitcoin may have already factored in increased opportunities for spot Bitcoin ETFs by the time we began to measure the price impact.
以上是GSR研究：Solana ETF会通过吗？对价格什么影响？的详细内容。更多信息请关注PHP中文网其他相关文章！
