主要内容： Binance已上线Meteora (MET)，并在交易和推荐中推出了价值340万美元的MET代币优惠券活动。 此次促销活动时间为2025年11月14日至11月28日，涵盖现货交易、交易量竞赛和用户推荐。 此次上市凸显了交易所的崛起

Meteora披露Q4已投入1000万枚USDC回购2.3%代币总量，并推出积分系统Comet Points Solana生态流动性协议Meteora在X平台发文称，2025年第四季度Meteora已斥资1000万枚USDC进行MET代币回购，累计回购了总供应量的2.3%，未来将使用同一个钱包开展自主回购操作。此外，Meteora宣布推出积分系统“Comet Points”，用户通过质押MET代币并使用产品即可赚取积分。Meteora计划构建一个“Comet Points”兑换体系，用户可用积分获取空投/预售资格、在链下兑换商店购物、购买流动性挖矿指导服务等。 某巨鲸/机构近半个月将1

加密市场表现 当前，加密货币总市值为 3.26 万亿美元，BTC占比 58.7%，为 1.91万亿美元。稳定币市值为3042亿美元，最近7日减少0.41%，值得注意的是，稳定币数量持续3周出现负增长，其中USDT占比60.44%。 CoinMarketCap 前200的项目中，大部分下跌小部分上涨，其中：STRK 7日涨幅72.26%，DRC7日涨幅65.91%，ZEC 7日涨幅26.84%，B 7日涨幅26.63%，MET 7日涨幅19.58%。 本周，美国比特币现货ETF净流出：11.11亿美元；美国以太坊现货ETF净流出：7.29亿美元。 市场预测（11月17日-11月21日

日本微策略 Metaplanet 公布最新财报，2025 年第三季营收为 24 亿日圆，较上季成长 94%，主要是透过现金担保的比特币卖出卖权 (sell put options) 创造持续性收入，同时增加长期持有的比特币数量。 (Metaplanet 第三季营收暴增 94%，比特币选择权成主要收入引擎) 但根据其官网公告，Metaplanet 自 9/30 后就未再买入比特币，且其自 2024 年 4 月成为全球第二家全面采用比特币标准的上市公司后，已买入 30,823 枚比特币，平均成本为 107,911 美元！让人纳闷的是，身为早期投入者，从比特币还在 6 万美元即开始买入的 Met

火星财经消息，火币HTX 对优质新资产的前瞻布局再次得到市场印证。今日，Lorenzo Protocol（BANK）与 Meteora（MET）在其他主流交易所宣布上线，据悉，这两项资产早已在火币HTX 平台上线。其中 BANK 于 5 月 9 日作为首发资产上线，MET 则于 10 月 24 日补齐上线。 其中，BANK 于5月9日作为首发资产上线，作为 LSD 赛道热门资产，今日最高涨幅达 104%；MET 于10月24日上线火币HTX，为 Solana 生态的流动性基础设施项目，最高涨幅达 33%。 市场普遍认为，此次两项资产的同步爆发，不仅反映出项目自身的成长潜力，也验证了火币HT

 两个新的山寨币，Lorenzo Protocol (BANK) 和

BANK上涨60%，MET在今天的Binance上架前上涨。 币安新增种子标签，并警告交易者高波动性。 Meteora面临空投FUD和创始人相关的法律争议。 两个另类币正在大幅上涨，其中一个的表现明显优于另一个，此次上架是由于币安的上架。

币安将于 2025 年 11 月 13 日(giờ VN) 21：00 上线 Lorenzo Protocol (BANK) 和 Meteora (MET)，开放 BANK/USDT、BANK/USDC、BANK/TRY、MET/USDT、MET/USDC、MET/USDC 和 MET/TRY 交易对的现货交易。用户可以提前一小时存入 BANK 和 MET，提现将于 2025 年 11 月 14 日 21：00 (giờ VN)开放。

Meteora (MET)市场在阿卡姆情报透露前五名空投接收者中有三个钱包与官方特朗普 meme 币(TRUMP)相关联后，受到了巨大的冲击。内幕活动引发了大规模的愤怒，并在上线后的前24小时内导致价格降低了40%。 内部人士

加密社区再次陷入动荡，因为与梅拉尼亚·特朗普（Melania Trump）模因币相关的两个钱包收到了价值123万美元的Meteora (MET)代币，这在社交媒体上引发了一波指控和愤怒。 根据SolScan数据，钱包

火币HTX将于10月24日开放MET充币，并开启MET/USDT现货交易，提币业务将于10月25日开放。Meteora 是一个基于Solana的动态流动性池协议，通过集中式流动性管理支持自动做市商和代币交易。

火星财经消息，10 月 23 日，Backpack 已上线 MET 现货和永续合约交易。

火星财经消息，OKX 将于 2025 年 10 月 24 日 12:00 开启 MET/USDⓈ 现货交易。为保护投资者，交易开始后的前 5 分钟内不允许市价单交易，每笔限价单的最大金额为 10,000 美元，限制将在开始交易后 5 分钟取消。

原文标题：Meteora&39;s TGE: What is fair value for MET? 原文作者：Luke Leasure、Carlos 原文来源： 转载：火星财经 本周 Meteora 即将发行其代币 MET：其公平价值可能在哪里？ 指数 本周开局强劲，BTC 从上周五低点上涨了

Solana 生态备受期待的 DEX 协议 Meteora 计划于 10 月 23 日举行代币生成事件（TGE），其原生 MET 代币的总供应量 10 亿中，将有高达 48%（即 4.8 亿枚）进入初始流通，主要通过空投分配给社区和合作伙伴。尽管 Meteora 凭借 Solana DEX 市场 26% 的交易量份额和每日约 390 万美元的费用收入，展现出强劲的基本面，市场普遍预测其完全稀释估值（FDV）在发布一天后有望达到 7.5 亿至 10 亿美元，但前所未有的大规模初始释放引发了对其早期抛压的担忧。

在Solana DeFi生态持续火热的背景下，被誉为生态“四大支柱”之一的老牌DEX Meteora，其代币MET的正式发行无疑是2025年第四季度最受瞩目的事件。尽管在预交易市场已触及10亿美元完全稀释估值（FDV），并创下48%代币初始解锁的纪录，但凭借其创新的技术、庞大的交易量以及独特的“无代币销售”启动策略，MET依然吸引了大量市场的目光。本报告将深入剖析MET的基本面、技术前景与潜在风险，为投资者提供全面决策参考。

Meteora 在 X 平台宣布将利用发射套件发射 MET，并推出三项产品升级，包括 Presale Vaults、Meteora Invent 和动态费用分享，以增强代币发行的支持与灵活性。

10 月 17 日，加密市场经历了较为显著的回调，BTC 价格跌至 10.5 万美元附近，ETH 持平于 3700 美元。受市场整体低迷影响，全网 DeFi TVL 下降至 1514.54 亿美元，24 小时跌幅 1.71%。尽管去中心化交易所（DEX）仍保持较高的交易量，约 222.22 亿美元，但大部分 DeFi 协议的代币价格普遍走低，UNI、AAVE、MORPHO 等主要代币跌幅超过 8%。市场情绪受压，整体走势偏空，投资者保持观望。

撰文：Oliver，火星财经 Solana生态备受瞩目的流动性协议Meteora，终于将其原生代币$MET的生成活动（TGE）定格在2025年10月23日。然而，Meteora团队的雄心显然不止于一次常规的代币发行。他们将此定义为一场“流动性生成事件”（LGE），并宣称这将是“有史以来最具革命性的代币发行技术”的首秀。这不仅是一句响亮的品牌宣言，更是一场精心策划的经济实验，旨在正面挑战当前加密市场普遍存在的“低流通、高完全稀释估值（FDV）”模型，并试图从根本上破解空投所带来的宿命般的即时抛压。 本次发行围绕三大核心机制展开：极宽的启动池价格区间、一个从50%起并快速衰减的交易税，以及一种

Solana 生态 DEX Meteora（前身 Mercurial Finance）宣布将于 10 月 23 日正式推出原生代币 MET，并以“凤凰涅槃”命名其代币经济学。该方案中，高达 48% 的代币将在 TGE 时分配并直接解锁，而其中 10% 将以流动性头寸（LP 形式）而非传统空投发放，旨在为初始流动性提供支撑并让用户赚取手续费。项目从 2021 年的 Solana“太子党”，历经 FTX 暴雷和 TVL 暴跌，凭借 DLMM 模型和 TRUMP 代币交易量奇迹成功转型，但其联创又因涉嫌市场操纵丑闻被迫辞职，MET 代币的发行被视为重建信心的关键一步。

从 Jupiter 推崇的明星项目，到操控 meme 代币丑闻，Meteora 经历了跌宕起伏的发展之路。 （前情提要：两天暴涨 10 倍，这可能是 Solana 上最抽象的 Perp DEX ） （背景补充：Perp DEX 的「隐形之手」：中心化资本如何操控去中心化市场？ ） 计划在本月 23 号正式推出代币 MET 的 Solana DEX Meteora，在国庆假期期间公布了代币经济学，并且给该计划起了一个「凤凰涅槃」的名字。 依据 MET 代币经济学，20% 分配给 Mercurial 利益相关者；15% 通过 LP 刺激计划分配给 Meteora 用户；2% 分配给链下贡献者，即为

去中心化金融平台Meteora刚刚公布了流动性生成事件(LGE – 流动性创造事件) – 这是一个重大转折点，所有参与项目的同伴将进入“流动性”阶段，所有代币将在发行时完全解锁。 据开发团队，Meteora 已经经历了

Meteora将于2025年10月23日推出代币$MET ，为生态系统带来新的创新和发展机会。代币为用户提供福利，包括治理权和积极参与社区的机会。

Meteora，Solana生态系统中的龙头流动性协议，提议将其3%的MET代币生成事件(TGE)储备分配为流动性位置NFT，回应社区对初始发奖方案的反对。

火星财经消息，SolanaFloor 在 X 平台发文表示，Solana 生态流动性协议 Meteora 在因 JUP 质押者分配方案引发强烈反对后，公布了一项新提案。 3% 的 MET TGE 储备将按时间加权模型，以流动性头寸 NFT 的形式分发给 Jupiter 质押者，从而在代币上线时为质押者提供

火星财经消息，Meteora 负责人 Soju 于发文表示：“本周将会很平静，但下周会有大事发生。” 此前，Meteora 曾确认将于 10 月 TGE，Soju 的发言或暗示 TGE 将发生在 10 月第一周。

受信任的编辑内容，经过行业领先专家和经验丰富的编辑审核。广告声明 日本公司Metaplanet获得股东批准，通过在海外发行多达5.5亿股新股筹集约8.84亿美元。 募集的资金主要用于扩展Met

在最近的项目孵化过程中，如何重新构建一个强有力的社区共识体系成为了我们实际执行中的一大难点，尤其是针对于Defi类高用户质量的赛道，毕竟用户质量与购买力越高，他们的积极性相较于撸毛用户也更难调动。 我们观察到了一个优秀的运营标的 @MeteoraAG，他们通过优秀的共识建设体系构建了一个强大的 @met\_lparmy。我们选择他们的共识运营体系进行拆解，在给孵化团队内部进行参考时，也希望能给各位提供一些灵感，为其他项目提供可借鉴的范式。 关于Meteora的一些背景 Meteora 的前身是 Solana 生态的稳定币自动做市商（AMM）协议 Mercurial Finance，过往

Metya联合AVE.AI举办“爱，就谈场区块“恋”！”限时交易赛，用户在AVE平台交易$MET可参与排名赢取总额61,720枚MET。活动包括交易量排名奖励和幸运空投奖励，旨在推动$MET流动性与社区参与，加速生态通证应用。

Metya平台以智能社交助手和本地生活功能为核心，利用AI技术个性化推荐约会场所与商家，AR技术增强社交体验，ME足迹和虚拟城市功能带来实时社交探索，$MET代币深度融入社交和金融领域。Metya致力于引领Web3社交新趋势，不断拓展创新功能，提升用户社交体验。

* * * * * 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.