火星财经消息，11月26日，预测市场平台 Polymarket 宣布，美国商品期货交易委员会（CFTC）已向其发出 修正后的「指定令」（Amended Order of Designation），允许其以中介（intermediated）方式运营。这意味着 Polymarket 将成为一个完全受联邦监管的交易所。

简要 Orderly Network 引入了一种收入支持的回购和质押系统，将 60% 的协议费用与每两周的 ORDER 回购挂钩。 跨链流动性基础设施提供商Orderly Network推出了一种新的基于收入的代币回购机制，用于其本地资产ORDER，

去中心化交易领域的关键参与者 Orderly Network 在 2025 年取得了显著增长。作为一家 B2B 交易基础设施，其成功主要归功于永续合约 DEX 的蓬勃发展和其创新产品 OrderlyOne 的推出。Orderly 的 总锁定价值 (TVL) 从年初的 1910 万美元飙升至 \$5130 万美元，增长率高达 168.9%。同时，ORDER 代币价格在 OrderlyOne 启动后创下 0.47 美元的历史新高 (ATH)。平台累计交易量达 372 亿美元，这反映了市场对去中心化金融 (DeFi) 解决方案的强劲需求。

ORDER代币在其Upbit上架后的15分钟内激发了30.05%的价格冲锋，达到了$0.386 USDT，因为多链永久去中心化交易所在韩国最大的交易所上获得了关注。

Orderly (ORDER) 在韩国最大加密货币交易所 Upbit 上架后冲锋 42%，将其市值提升至 $97 百万。此次上架可能会增强该代币在亚盘的流动性、可见性和采用率。

Upbit，韩国最大的加密货币交易所，将于10月24日上线ORDER/KRW交易对。ORDER是Orderly项目的原生代币，在以太坊上运行。用户在交易前必须验证网络，并使用官方合约地址。

资产类型决定价格走势 币安人生是为 Aster 反撸遮掩，极致的造富效应，哪怕是情绪，在阴雨连绵的深秋，也足以让人忘却仓位的烦恼，不论多空。 在报菜名的技术参数、费用表格对比之外，真正令我好奇的是，为什么 CLOB 架构（中央限价订单簿，Central Limit Order Book ）适合永续合约，以及 CLOB 架构的极限在哪里？ 资产决定价格 > 我生得太晚，没有赶上 DeFi Summer 的时代；我又生得太早，没能看得到 CLOB 闪耀于外汇之间。 > > 传统金融的历史过于悠久，久到人们都忘了市场究竟是如何形成的。 一言以蔽之，金融围绕资产和价格进行交易，价格

原标题：《Loopscale: Order book lending on Solana》 作者：Castle Labs 编译：Luiza，ChainCatcher 尽管以太坊的DeFi总锁仓价值（TVL）仍远未达到2021年的峰值，但Solana的TVL已实现显著增长，目前已创下历史新高。 Solana 生态系统的特性使其成为借贷协议的理想选择。Solend等协议便是明证——该协议早在2021年存款规模已接近10亿美元。尽管 FTX 崩盘在随后几年对 Solana 借贷生态的发展造成了严重冲击，但 Solana 上的借贷协议展现出了强大的韧性，并催生了新一轮增长浪潮。 2024 年

火星财经消息，9 月 29 日，据 行情数据显示，ORDER 上涨短时突破 0.4 美元，先报价 0.3692 美元，24 小时涨约 60%。

火星财经消息，UPBIT 将于 2025 年 9 月 29 日 20:30 上线 Orderly (ORDER) 的 BTC 和 USDT 交易，用户可在公告发布后 2 小时内进行入金。请注意，入金需通过 Ethereum 网络进行。

火星财经消息，据 行情显示，ORDER 短时触及 0.39 USDT，现报 0.35 USDT，创历史新高，24 小时涨幅 50.34%。

火星财经消息，据链上分析师 Ai 姨监测，BF 团队在过去 15 小时内花费 18.5 万美元买入 81.7 万枚 ORDER，均价 0.2265 美元。ORDER 目前已成为该团队链上持仓第一的资产。

Orderly建议使用60%的协议净收入进行ORDER代币回购，旨在减少供应并改善质押和治理动态。 币安CEO警告称，有人利用API权限进行虚假支持电话。这一骗局凸显了日益严重的威胁以及对更强用户保护的需求。

美国SEC虽批准Bitwise 10加密指数基金(BITW)及灰度数字大盘基金(GDLC)转型为现货ETF，但同步签发暂缓令（Stay Order）延迟上市，致使XRP陷入短期监管真空。受此影响，XRP价格持续承压，8月17日下跌0.59%至3.09美元，而同期以太坊(ETH)上涨1.13%、Solana(SOL)上涨0.72%。分析指出，已获批的BTC、ETH、SOL现货ETF正持续吸引资金流入，而XRP价格破局关键催化剂仍需等待专属现货ETF落地及瑞波案终审结果。 ## SEC暂缓令重创XRP：现货ETF审批陷僵局 美国SEC于7月22日批准Bitwise 10加密指数基金(BITW)转

> 原文标题：Crypto 2029: The New Order > 原文作者：@hmalviya9 > 原文编译：zhouzhou， 编者按：2030 年，世界崩塌，岛上 Bitcoiners 建起堡垒，而真正的重启在废墟中悄然发生。技术与灵性融合，「隐秘之环」与加密理想者联合，拒绝消费主义与控制，重建价值与信仰。「去中心化灵魂」成为口号，未来不在上层，而由地下重新书写。 以下为原文内容（为便于阅读理解，原内容有所整编）： 2029 年的加密世界：新秩序 比特币已经成为全球投资者的新常态。今年，它的价格突破了 50 万美元大关——不是靠一场突如其来的暴涨，而是经历了长达

Orderly在Solana上的质押计划已与追溯性$esORDER发奖一起启动。 Solana用户可以选择将他们的$esORDER锁仓并在稍后时间转换为$ORDER，或者质押他们的代币以参与$ORDER质押计划。 对于 Solana 用户，Web3

去中心化永续合约交易所 (Perp DEX) 已成为 DeFi 生态系中最具活力的领域之一。不仅是年交易量屡创新高，平台创新与策略产品更层出不穷。链上研究员 JasonZha 对此深入剖析了 Perp DEX 的发展脉络、平台竞争与未来潜力，揭示链上衍生品市场的关键动向。 从 dYdX 到 Hyperliquid：Perp DEX 的演进历程 Perp DEX 的起源可追溯至 2019 年，当时 dYdX 率先推出基于链上订单簿 (order book) 的永续合约交易模式，为去中心化衍生品市场奠定基础。 此后，GMX 引入资金池 (Liquidity Pool) 架构，因 HLP

根据加密沙皇 David Sacks 的推文，美国总统川普 (Donald Trump) 已签署行政命令，建立战略比特币储备。这个储备将由联邦政府拥有的比特币资本化，意味着美国政府将不会花钱买入额外的加密货币。比特币下杀至 84K，之前被点名的储备代币 ETH、SOL、XRP 和 ADA 全面崩跌。 Just a few minutes ago, President Trump signed an Executive Order to establish a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. The Reserve will be capitalized

在充满波动的金融市场中，保护投资资金并限制风险是实现长期成功的关键因素。其中一种帮助投资者有效管理风险的有用工具是止损单(Stop-Loss Order)。以下是有关止损单的详细文章，c

原文标题：Trump’s Executive Order: Can It Break Crypto’s Four-Year Cycle? 原文作者：Matt Hougan 原文来源：

* * * * * 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.

撰文：金色财经 美国的战略比特币储备极大概率会成真。 2024年12月12日，特朗普在参加纽交所敲钟后接受了CNBC时采访确认，美国应该建立像石油那样的加密战略储备。 2024年12月18日凌晨，美国比特币政策研究所（The Bitcoin Policy Institute）起草的“战略比特币储备”总统行政令初稿在行业流传。此行政令全名为“Executive Order on Designating Bitcoin as a Strategic Reserve Asset within the Exchange Stabilization

就在双方举行对话之前和期间，特朗普原有的政治 Meme 代币 MAGA、TRUMP 等涨幅明显，也有一大批 Meme 代币建仓，但涨跌幅波动较大，比如 Yeah、New World Order、Dark Space 等。

> CoW Swap 采用 MEV 最小化方法而不是 MEV 最大化方法。 嘉宾: Anna (@AnnaMSGeorge) 主持：Stephanie (@stephaniiee\_eth) 如果你对 DeFi 和 MEV 感兴趣，你可能听说过基于意图的交易 (intent-based trading)、频繁批次拍卖 (frequent batch auction)、求解者 (solver) 模型、订单流拍卖（order flow auctions, OFAs）等，CoW Swap 可以说是上述创新的典范，将它们有机地融入到 DEX 产品中，

理论上 AMM+Order 模型，再加上严密的风控策略，或许会是不错的优化方向。

作者: Jeff@Foresight Ventures 一、环绕 Asgard 的城墙固若金汤，如何提高链上资产流动性是一个永恒的话题 Defi 的出现打开了一条直通 Asgard 的彩虹桥，在那里流动性得到了充分的释放。以提高 NFT 流动性为目的设计创新交易模型，也是所有 NFT 交易平台的努力方向。虽然当前 NFT 市场还未出现成熟统一的定价模型，但是从蓝筹 NFT 的交易量数据中可以看到，“撮合买卖盘”（Order Book）模型的交易市场（Marketplace）占据了 95% 以上的交易量；而基于 AMM 模型的一众 Marketplace 只占据不足 5% 的成交量。 ...