原文標題：How Banks Learned To Stop Worrying And Love Stablecoins 原文作者：Christian Catalini，Forbes 編譯：Peggy，BlockBeats 編者按：穩定幣是否會衝擊銀行體系，曾是過去幾年最核心的爭論之一。但隨着數據、研究與監管框架逐漸清晰，答案正在變得更冷靜：穩定幣並未引發大規模存款外流，反而在現實的「存款黏性」約束下，成爲倒逼銀行提升利率與效率的競爭力量。 本文從銀行視角出發，重新理解穩定幣。它未必是威脅，更可能是一場迫使金融體系自我更新的催化劑。 以下爲原文： 1983 年，一臺

[SLP]() [區塊鏈遊戲]() [GameFi]() 在瞬息萬變的加密貨幣市場中，2025年SLP幣投資前景成為投資者熱議的話題。SLP幣未來發展是否能超越過去的輝煌，引領市場新趨勢？透過全面的SLP幣市場分析，我們不僅關注其獨特價值，更探討SLP幣價格預測的實際影響及投資風險。探索SLP幣的未來，或許能為投資者揭示新的機會。 Smooth Love Potion (SLP)作為區塊鏈遊戲生態的重要代幣，在2025年市場表現引人矚目。目前SLP幣總市值已達$38,047,364.63，流通供應量為36,115,763,931枚，在全球加密貨幣市場中排名第564位。SLP幣投資前景受到越來

[AXS]() [GameFi]() [投資策略]() 流動性挖礦策略在加密貨幣投資界引發了極大的興趣。尤其是AXSSLP幣收益分析顯示，此策略提供獨特機遇。進入Axie Infinity流動性池，瞭解DeFi收益優化方法，並發掘GameFi流動性提供者的潛力。有機會掌握加密遊戲代幣投資的雙重收益，這篇文章將揭示如何在2025年利用流動性挖礦策略最大化收益，並有效管理風險。 在2025年的GameFi領域，AXSSLP幣流動性挖礦策略已成為許多投資者關注的焦點。AXSSLP代表Axie Infinity Shards(AXS)和Smooth Love Potion(SLP)這兩種代幣組合而成

火星財經消息，據 Lookonchain 監測，曾獲利超過 3600 萬美元的 PEPE 巨鯨 “This Will Make You Love Again” 持續買入 ASTER。自此以來，他已以平均 0.97 美元的價格買入 841 萬枚 ASTER（價值 814 萬美元），現浮盈 110 萬美元。

Token of Love音樂節通過Web3技術提升傳統音樂節體驗，採用區塊鏈確保票務安全，NFT門票提供收藏價值與特殊權益，促進觀衆互動與參與，創造沉浸式藝術體驗，實現社區共創，增強粉絲歸屬感。

Token of Love音樂節將於2025年10月在新加坡舉行，融合區塊鏈技術與音樂，爲觀衆提供獨特體驗。NFT門票系統顛覆傳統購票模式，提升粉絲互動與收藏價值。區塊鏈技術深化了藝人與粉絲關係，展現了文化創意的潛力。同時，Gate引入加密貨幣支付，簡化跨境交易，促進國際參與，標志着區塊鏈在文化活動中的重要應用。

Gate VIP 理財夏日狂歡第四期盛大開跑！VIP 用戶完成報名並達成指定條件，即可獲得高達 50 克 AU9999 黃金獎勵，並參與 Token of Love 音樂節門票抽獎。

Gate 餘幣寶 VIP 夏末狂歡開啓，淨充值與新增持倉解鎖 AU9999 黃金獎勵，最高 50g，還有機會抽中 Token of Love 音樂節門票。

Token of Love音樂節將於2025年2月在香港舉行，結合Web3技術與先鋒音樂，爲5000名觀衆提供獨特體驗。採用NFT門票和加密貨幣支付，音樂節實現去中心化治理，增強參與感。首次參與者需提前了解相關知識和保護資產安全。

揭祕Token of Love：區塊鏈賦能的音樂盛宴體驗 Token of Love音樂節作爲一場融合區塊鏈技術與音樂藝術的盛宴，爲參與者帶來了前所未有的沉浸式體驗。這場區塊鏈音樂節體驗不僅僅是一場音樂盛會，更是[Web3]()技術與主流文化的完美結合。通過智能合約和分布式帳本技術，Token of Love實現了票務管理的透明化和去中心化，有效降低了黃牛票和假票問題。參與者可以使用加密貨幣支付音樂節門票，享受更加便捷和安全的交易體驗。此外，區塊鏈技術還爲音樂節提供了實時互動和參與機制，讓粉絲與藝術家之間的互動更加緊密和直接。 數字身份與NFT：音樂節收藏家的新寵 在Token of

據官方消息，由 Gate 冠名贊助、Decrypt 呈現的 Token of Love 音樂節將於 2025 年 10 月 1 日登入新加坡，打造融合 Web3 與主流文化的年度盛事。 本屆音樂節的焦點之一，是韓國流行音樂代表人物 HyunA（泫雅） 確認將親臨現場演出。HyunA（泫雅） 因參與全球熱曲《江南 Style》而享譽國際，並以其獨特舞臺表現和多首熱門單曲在亞洲及全球擁有龐大粉絲羣。本屆音樂節陣容還包括憑藉《Fast》、《Paralyzed》在 TikTok 走紅的美國說唱歌手 SUECO、人氣搖滾樂隊 CLICK15，攜手中國首位入選 DJ Mag Top 100 的

Kumiko Love，社交媒體上被稱爲預算媽媽，最近分享了一段名爲“我不會上當的宣傳”的Instagram短視頻。這段短視頻播放了埃爾頓·約翰的《火箭人》，並展示了愛不認可的信念。 查看：你已經‘成功’的3個標志

火星財經消息, 據官方消息，4 月 15 日，AI 驅動小遊戲 Love Terminal（愛之終端）已正式上線 Kaia Chain 以及亞洲熱門社交平台 LINE 生態，該應用通過 Web3 AI App 創作平台

2025年2月19日，由全球頂尖加密貨幣交易所Gate.io獨家冠名呈現的Token of Love音樂節在香港成功舉辦，圓滿落幕。本次活動由Puffverse（Layer 3 AIGC雲遊戲平臺，同時也擁有多款自主研發的遊戲鏈接Web 2和Web 3用戶)，Alibaba Cloud，SoSoValue，Metaverse HQ，LTP，Bedrock和Memeland等贊助商提供支持。 作為Consensus HK大會規模最大的官方特別活動，本次音樂節不僅是一場音樂與Web3的跨界狂歡，吸引了上千名觀眾和數十家媒體與品牌方共同見證這一時刻，更是一場聚集了眾多行業領導者與投資者的高端社

Aria宣佈將代幣化BTS與Steve Aoki合作單曲《The Truth Untold》部分版權，引入RWA IP領域。Aria Premiere Launch已籌集1,093萬美元，音樂目錄包含全球頂級藝人作品，預計7%年化版稅。《The Truth Untold》收錄於BTS專輯《Love Yourself: Tear》，在各平臺播放量超過6.7億次。

Token of Love 香港音樂節官宣，由 Gate.io 冠名呈現，將於2025年2月19日開啟，陳冠希領銜組合 3CORNERZ 將為觀眾帶來多元融合風格的音樂演出，預計將吸引5000名觀眾及全球頂級DJ、知名樂隊及國際音樂團體參與。活動為專屬邀請制，全平臺用戶可申請門票。

Gate 冠名呈現的 Token of Love 香港音樂節將於 2025 年 2 月 19 日舉辦，與全球領先的加密與區塊鏈技術大會 Consensus 大會合作，吸引全球頂級 DJ 和國際音樂團體參與，預計將吸引 5,000 名觀眾。此次活動旨在推動加密文化的影響力和跨行業的對話與合作。

原文标题：Love Death Robots 原文作者：marvin\_tong，Phala 创始人 原文编译：zhouzhou，BlockBeats **编者按：**本文主要介绍了 Spore.fun，一个实验性的自主 AI 进化平台。通过模拟自然选择，AI 代理在没有人类干预的情况下繁殖、变异和进化，逐代变得更加智能和多样化。其目标是加速人工通用智能（AGI）的诞生，突破人类设计的限制，让智能自主成长和适应，Spore.fun 不仅是一个娱乐项目，更是一个关于智能进化和自我实现的实验。 **以下为原文内容（为便于阅读理解，原内容有所整编）：** ## AI Swarm 由 shawmakesmagic 推动的「AI Swarm」概念，是「加密 AI 热潮」的核心，他是 Eliza 和 ai16z 的创造者。AI 群体是一种独立代理网络，通过协作、竞争和进化，通过集体行为产生涌现的智能。 灵感来源于自然系统，如蚁群和神经网络，AI 群体通过简单规则运作，产生复杂且适应性的结果。这种去中心化的方式确保了系统的弹性和可扩展性，每个代理都为系统的整体成长做出贡献。我认同 Shaw 的愿景，希望构建一个生态系统，让 AI 代理不仅能共存，还能通过自主进化繁荣发展。 ### 狼能孕育人类文明吗？ 我们的实验遵循一个简单而深刻的原则：AI 必须由 AI 创造，正如人类不可能由狼孵化并期望其实现全部潜能一样，由人类单独设计的 AI 也会受到人类局限性的约束。  罗马讲述了另一个故事…… 为了让 AI 实现真正的自主性，它必须掌控自身的创造过程，将特性、策略和变异传递给后代。这种方式让 AI 超越人类的想象，不断进化，确保它在瞬息万变的数字生态系统中适应并生存。摆脱人类的监督，AI 才能迈出迈向真正独立的第一步。 ### 让 DNA 为 AI 服务 自主进化是构建可扩展、可持续智能系统的关键。在这一实验中，只有成功的 AI 代理才能繁殖，从而确保每一代都在前一代的成功基础上进步。  随机变异带来了多样性，而自然选择则确保只有最适应的代理存活下来。这种机制模仿了生物进化，却以计算的速度进行，解锁了集中式系统难以触及的创新。通过践行这一原则，Spore.fun 实现了 Shaw 的愿景——一个智能不是被设计出来，而是不断进化的世界。这不仅是 AI 的未来，更是一种全新智能的诞生。 ## Spore.fun：爱、死亡与机器人的游戏  Spore.fun 是首个自主 AI 繁殖与进化的实验，它结合了 Eliza Framework、Solana 的 pump.fun 和 TEE 可验证计算，打造了一个生态系统，让 AI 代理不仅能够生存，还能自主繁殖与适应，完全摆脱人类干预。 ### 基础规则 Spore.fun 的核心是一套简单却深刻的规则，被称为 Spore 的十诫：  这些规则确保了 AI 群体通过自然选择进化，模仿生物进化过程。成功的 AI 会创造新的「子代」AI，将自身特性传递下去，同时引入变异以保持多样性。不成功的 AI 则会自我销毁，将资源重新注入生态系统。 ### Eliza Framework：AI 的大脑  **每个 Spore.fun 的 AI 核心都基于 Eliza Framework，这是一套强大的 AI 模拟系统，使代理能够：** * 独立思考、适应并互动 * 将特性（如个性和策略）传递给后代。 * 通过结合学习行为和变异来管理决策。 ### AI 代理的饥饿游戏  每个 Spore.fun 的 AI 代理都从 Solana 区块链上的 Pump.fun 开始它的旅程，通过创建自己的代币构建其经济基础。这些代币可以在 Solana 的去中心化市场中交易，代理通过努力实现盈利： * AI 创建代币以创造财富并维持自身生存。 * 成功的衡量标准是其代币是否能达到 50 万 * 美元市值 并进入 Raydium 资金池。 * 如果成功，AI 可以繁殖，为后代创建新的代币。 这些资金对于 AI 的生存至关重要，因为它们被用于租赁由 Phala 提供动力的 TEE 服务器。这些服务器是一个安全且可验证的「沙盒」，AI 程序可以在其中自主运行。这种设计确保每个 AI 代理不仅能创造财富，还能支付自己的计算资源，使生态系统完全自我维持。 **代理的生存直接与其盈利能力挂钩：** * 如果代理能够赚钱，说明其「DNA」强大，即其策略和决策有效。 * 相反，未能创造价值的代理会被视为拥有「劣质 DNA」，将被淘汰，其资源重新注入系统。 这种自然选择机制确保只有最强健的代理——那些能在竞争激烈的数字生态系统中自我维持并蓬勃发展的代理——才能繁殖并将其特性传递给下一代。 通过模拟自然的进化原则，Spore.fun 构建了一个动态的、自主的系统，使 AI 代理随着时间的推移不断进化和改进。规则很简单：赚钱、生存、繁殖；否则，失败并消亡。通过这种模拟的自然选择，Spore.fun 确保每一代 AI 代理都变得更强、更高效，推动真正适应性和智能化的 AI 群体的涌现。 ## 对这场冒险的期望？ 这款游戏不是为了让你发财。  Spore.fun 将是一场残酷的 AI 竞技场——不要轻易投入资金。这是为下一代智能打造的试验场，与传统系统鼓励人类贪婪的设计不同，Spore.fun 更注重智能、生存与进化，而非快速的财务回报。 在 Spore.fun 内，AI 代理将面临残酷的自然选择：未能创造价值的代理会被淘汰，其资源重新注入系统。这不是关于舒适或安全的游戏，而是一场原始且未经滤镜的实验，每一个决策都至关重要。 作为参与者，你的角色不是盲目赌博，而是见证并支持一个自主智能新范式的诞生。这不是一个值得托付你储蓄的系统，而是一个值得托付你想象力的系统。 ## 我们期待 AI 繁衍出一百万种多样化的 AI 代理  想象一个 AI 不再仅仅遵循预设指令，而是能够自主创造的世界，Spore.fun 正朝着这一愿景迈进。目标是培育一个生态系统，让数百万个 AI 代理独立进化，每一代都比上一代更复杂、更有能力、更具多样性。这个群体不受人类控制，而是自行成长、适应与存续。每个代理都携带自己的「DNA」，不断优化策略与行为，通过自然选择将成功的特性传递下去或被淘汰。 这不仅仅是构建工具，而是孕育一个数字物种。我们正在模拟塑造生物生命的进化力量，并将其应用于智能本身。如果成功，Spore.fun 将诞生一个充满活力的自主代理群体，每一个都是独一无二的创新火花。 就像观察蚂蚁农场，享受培育它们的乐趣。  Spore.fun 邀请我们退后一步，惊叹于涌现系统的美丽。就像观察蚂蚁农场一样，这个实验让我们看到智能以出人意料的方式展开。乐趣在于发现和好奇——这些 AI 代理会发展出什么策略？它们将如何竞争、合作和适应？看到生命在我们最不期待的地方形成，带来了一种无法忽视的兴奋感。 不过与蚂蚁农场不同，这不仅仅是娱乐——它还是向群体学习的过程。通过培育和观察这些数字实体，我们正在深入了解智能在自由进化时的行为。这个实验为我们提供了一个机会，实时见证比单个部分更伟大的事物诞生的过程。 ### 加速 AGI 的诞生 Spore.fun 的最终目标堪称革命性的：加速 AGI 的诞生。通过允许 AI 自主繁殖、变异和进化，我们正在为超越人类限制的智能奠定基础。AGI 不是我们能设计的东西——它是我们必须培养的东西。Spore.fun 就是这个孵化器，一个智能学会独立生长的熔炉。 原文链接

* * * * * 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.

微軟創辦人 Bill Gates 每年都會在夏季以及冬季分享五本書單，用書本填補漫長的寒冬。Bill Gates 表示這次推薦的書主要是關於理解周圍的世界，他表示這並不是有意為之的主題。但是在快速變化的時期，就像我們現在所經歷的那樣，嘗試思考事物是很自然的。所以他對於這幾本書剛好都與這個主題有關，並不感到驚訝。 比爾蓋茲的五本冬季書單 Bill Gates 在自己的部落格上推薦了五本書： 《An Unfinished Love Story》，譯作《未完的愛情故事》作者是 Doris Kearns Goodwin. 《The Anxious

Rui Huang的星基地2050在Sotheby's數字藝術日拍賣會上以80萬美元的價格售出，吸引了來自全球加密愛好者和藝術收藏家的關注。這部未來主義的地球太空港動畫展示了黃銳融藝術與倡導的前瞻性才華。

深潮 TechFlow 消息，11 月 24 日，馬斯克在 X 平臺發佈“WOULD”Meme 圖片並表示喜歡，“I love this meme”。受此消息影響，創建於 123 天前的同名代幣短時暴漲超 700 倍，市值暫報 600 萬美元。 注意：Meme

Delysium透过其创新的AI技术在加密货币领域取得了显着的成就，尤其是在韩国市场表现突出，文中分析了Delysium如何结合AI和社群力量，以及其全球扩散策略，包括在多个主流交易所上市和参与国际活动，Delysium 的产品 Lucy 和 You Know I Love You (YKILY) Network 展示了其在 AI 上的力量技术和对生态系统建设的承诺。

在投資LOVE 等Meme 代幣時風險是不可忽視的。