与「BIT专家对话系列」相关的搜索结果

【BIT科普系列】很多用户问，在 BIT买美股，资金与证券最终由谁保管？ 为此，我们做一次完整披露：关于美股清算架构的科普，以及 BIT美股合规底层的起底。内容分为三部分：美股清算体系基础、Broker接入清算的四种主流方式、及BIT采用的具体路径。 全程公开可查，通过FINRA BrokerCheck、SEC 注册数据库、不丹 GMC 官方均可核验。 一、美股清算体系基础 美股交易看似在纽交所、纳斯达克完成，但真正决定资金与证券所有权变更的，是 SEC 监管下的清算与结算体系。整套体系由 DTCC 旗下三家公司加一家独立机构构成： · DTC（Depository Trust Company），存证公司，账面保管的证券资产超过 $87 trillion，已超过美国当年 GDP。 · NSCC（National Securities Clearing Corporation），日均清算美股交易额接近 $1.7 trillion。 · OCC（Options Clearing Corporation），独立运营，所有股票期权与波动率期货由其清算。 · FICC（Fixed Income Clearing Corporation），DTCC 子公司，负责美债清算。 SEC 将这四家列为 systemically important——倒一家，全市场停摆。 整套体系最核心的机制是 CCP novation——中央对手方合约更替。任何买卖成交后，原始合约立即拆分为"客户对手为 NSCC，NSCC 对手为所有人"。一家 broker 破产，损失由 NSCC 通过保证金、违约基金、风险瀑布层层吸收。在 2008 年金融危机期间，相关中央清算机制在维持市场运作方面发挥了重要作用。 二、Broker接入清算体系的四种主流方式 行业内主要存在四种结构，对应不同的成本、资本门槛与隐私权衡。 Self-Clearing（自清算）：券商自持 NSCC 与 DTC 会员资格，下单、清算、托管全程自营。代表如 Schwab、Fidelity、盈透。控制力最强、成本最低，但监管资本与运营要求极高。 Fully Disclosed IB（全披露介绍经纪商）：清算责任外包给 clearing broker，但每位客户身份完全披露给清算端，由 clearing broker 替 IB 持有独立客户账户。客户隐私自 IB 层透传至清算层。 Omnibus IB（综合账户介绍经纪商）：所有客户资产在 clearing broker 端合并为单一大账户，清算端仅看到 IB 整体头寸。IB 自行完成 KYC、合规、申报。这是国际跨境证券服务中较为常见的接入模式之一，行业内亦多采用。 DVP/RVP（Delivery Versus Payment）：属于结算方式而非 broker 架构，意为资金与证券同步交付。机构客户基本要求 DVP 结算。CCP novation 与 DVP 的组合，构成清算体系切断信用风险的底层保障。 三、BIT 美股的合规架构 以下是BIT采用的合规路径，全程公开可查。 【牌照层】 BIT 美股（原 Matrixport）运营主体为 Matrix Gelephu Pte. Ltd.，在不丹格勒普正念之城（Gelephu Mindfulness City，GMC）经济特区持有数字金融服务牌照。GMC 为不丹国家级战略，监管框架由全球顶级金融监管专家共同参与设计。硬性规范包括：客户资产与公司资产严格隔离、托管由独立持牌机构提供、维持资本与流动性缓冲、持续审计与申报、对客户资金与证券的使用设严格限制。 之所以选择 GMC 而非传统券商牌照，原因在于 BIT 业务定位是面向全球非美国本土投资者的美股服务，同步推进代币化与链上结算等数字金融业务。传统券商（broker-dealer）牌照对业务范围有强约束，对数字资产业务支持有限。GMC 是少数将证券、代币化与国际市场业务纳入统一监管框架的方案。 【清算路径】 BIT采用 Omnibus IB 结构。BIT 不直接对接 NSCC，而是将订单引入美国本土持牌清算broker，由后者承接 NSCC 清算与 DTC 存证托管。两家清算与托管合作方均可通过 FINRA BrokerCheck 公开查证： · RQD CLEARING, LLC，SEC 监管，CRD 134284 · ATOMIC VAULTS SECURITIES, LLC（AVS），SEC 监管，CRD 317194 【三层叠加】 GMC 牌照保障经营合规，Omnibus IB 路径将客户资产置于美国清算与托管基础设施之内，SIPC 提供最坏情形下的法定底线。客户美股资产与其他大型美国券商共享同一套底层基础设施——不在任何公链上，不在 BIT 自定义托管账户内，亦不依赖 BIT 自身的资产负债表。 查证入口 · RQD CLEARING, LLC： · ATOMIC VAULTS SECURITIES, LLC（AVS）： 我们坚持公开披露所有合规细节，欢迎用户自行核查与监督。

选择交易平台，安全和合规永远是第一位。诚信为本，BIT美股在此直接公开业务最底层的【合规架构】和【资金流向】，欢迎用户自行查证： 🔍核心起底：BIT 美股业务合规吗？ 是的，BIT美股业务在合规许可框架下运营。BIT美股是(原名Matrixport) 基于全资子公司Matrix Gelephu Pte. Ltd. 在不丹经济特区持有的金融服务牌照主体而构建的数字证券经纪业务。 合规通道：BIT作为专业的交易平台及金融科技平台，通过直连美国持牌券商，为客户构建通往美国证券市场的合规通道。 美股监管： 所有合作券商均受美国SEC及FINRA监管，并为SIPC成员。这意味着，用户的交易与资产依托的是与全球大型券商相同的、成熟且受监管的美国金融市场基础设施。 💰资金去向：用户的钱和股票究竟在哪里？ 很多人的误区是“把钱放在了 Web3 平台”。其实不然。用户的资金和股票，直接存放在美国官方持牌的清算机构（RQD 和 AVS）里。在成熟的美国金融体系中，清算与托管是由独立持牌机构完成的。 官方核查底层托管方路径如下：大家可以通过美国金融业监管局（FINRA）的 BrokerCheck 系统一键查阅合作底层机构 (1)合作清算机构：RQD CLEARING, LLC 机构性质： 受 SEC 监管的美国本土清算与托管机构 监管注册号 (CRD Number)： 134284 👉 一键直达： (2)合作清算机构：ATOMIC VAULTS SECURITIES, LLC (AVS) 机构性质： 受 SEC 监管的美国本土清算与托管机构 监管注册号 (CRD Number)： 317194 👉 一键直达： 🇧🇹 为什么要信任“不丹 GMC 牌照”？ 不丹在格勒普正念之城（GMC）框架下发放的金融牌照，是一项国家级战略，旨在打造国际顶尖的数字金融与资产中心。其监管制度由全球顶尖金融监管专家共同参与设计，具备严谨性。对于 BIT 的客户而言，不丹 GMC 牌照提供了以下硬性规范： 1、客户资产必须与公司自有资产严格隔离 2、托管需由机构级、受监管的托管方提供 3、公司需维持资本与流动性缓冲以确保稳健运营 4、必须接受持续的审计、申报与合规审查 5、对客户资金和证券的使用有严格限制 更重要的是，GMC的监管制度包含数字资产、代币化及面向国际市场的相关业务，并提供一个法律清晰、监管严谨且具前瞻性的框架。这使BIT能在合规要求明确的环境下推进业务发展，同时符合国际投资者保护与治理标准。

"If Malik Tillman can sit a little bit and allow Tyler Adams to hunt, that's what he does really well." @JimmyConrad and @CharlieDavies9 analyze how the USMNT could set-up vs. Paraguay ⚽️

从这周五开始，富途长桥这几家香港券商，就不支持大陆用户在境内进行入金以及交易操作了，但听说切换 IP 到境外还是可以正常使用.. 假设传统香港券商针对内地彻底关门，那未来投资美股无非就是这么几条路线： 1️⃣ 转战美国本土券商，比如嘉信理财、第一证券这些券商，仍然可以使用大陆身份开户，不要求海外证明，功能也都非常齐全，不比香港券商差，只要不嫌弃 UI 难用就好。 2️⃣ 转战加密平台的美股代币或者美股产品，比如 BIT 美股券商，就是在 522 事件之后火出圈的一家，现在很多美股难民都在使用，稳定币直接入金，可以平替之前的传统香港券商。 3️⃣ 转回到国内 QDII 基金、场内标普纳指 ETF，或者通过港股通的形式投资境外资产，这也是最稳妥的一个做法，只不过投资限制确实太多了。 终极路线就是移民，更改税务身份，使用的银行、券商以及转入转出的资金都是境外的，一了百了。

this is my personal singularity moment this post may sound like a paid ad. I only wish. I'm concerned, more so than happy. the world is changing, and, among the scenarios where AI goes terribly wrong, inequality is the most realistic, yet, the one Anthropic seems to be the least concerned about. I'm glad OpenAI is taking the opposite stance: *personal AGI for everyone*. I think this is a commendable position in the times we live. but who am I in the queue of the bread? anyway, Fable is here, so I'll just report my first-hour experience first of all, all my pet prompts are solved. → λ-calculus puzzles → bug questions → one-shot apps all are trivial to it. I don't have anything harder other than my ongoing work so, in the last several days, I've been toying with HVM5, a new interaction net evaluator with a faster loop. after writing the first version, I left 32 GPT-5 agents working for ~20 hours each. this resulted in up to 2x speedups, but the file size increased by 2-fold and quality decreased significantly. I then simplified the whole thing into an even simpler core, and left Opus 4.8 and GPT 5.5 optimizing it for 8 hours. Opus got a legit 6% - 34% speedup in most benches. GPT got better results, but, sadly, an unusable file. I then asked Fable to optimize it. 2 hours later, it landed a 1770% speedup in one case, 100%+ in other 4, and 22% in average. yes, in 2 hours it outperformed me, opus 4.8 and a swarm of gpt 5.5 agents, by one order of magnitude. that could not possibly be legit. "it must be hardcoding the benchmarks" (GPT trauma). so I read its explanation and what it did was, indeed, the most high impact optimization one could try first. seems like HVM5 was wasting a lot of time garbage-collecting unused branches of pattern-match nodes. I had optimized that for static mats, but not for dynamic mats. skill issue. Fable figured how to do it for these, resulting in a massive speedup in some benches but wait, is that *correct*? I'm not sure yet, it is credible, but this is the kind of thing that is very easy to get wrong on interaction nets. the problem is, when I was ready to start auditing Fable's solution so I could tell whether it was buggy or legit, it interrupted me to tell me it had found a massive bug on the code *I* had written. ... wait, what? so... for garbage collection purposes, I stored a bit on lambda term pointers that meant "the variable bound by this lambda has been freed, so, its lambda must free whatever argument it is applied to". that's fine. yet, on duplicator nodes, I also used the same bit to mean "one of the duplicated variables was freed, so, treat this dup as a passthrough no-op". so, if a lambda entered a duplicator, it would mistake the lambda's collection bit for its own, resulting in corrupted interaction! that's a mouthful, why I'm writing this? just so you can appreciate the sheer absurdity of what just happened. I didn't ask it to find bugs. I asked it for an optimization. and even if I did ask it to find bugs, this bug is so astonishingly subtle and specific, identifying it takes mastering the domain to an extent that it beyond even me. I'd easily need hours or days to fix it, *if* I ever came across it. chances are it would just go unnoticed. and Fable found it and fixed it like it was nothing, while it was busy adding a 17x speedup to a file that neither I, nor Opus 4.8, nor a fleet of GPT 5.5 managed to barely make 2x faster. oh and there is also another tab where it is also ripping through Bend's codebase and finishing everything I had to do I don't know what to say anymore this isn't about Anthropic or OpenAI, this is about our collective future as a species. the world is changing, and we need to be aware of it, and discuss how to handle this change. receipt below . . .

Why Most CIOs Are Quietly Praying for Retirement — And the Few Who Aren’t Are About to Get Very Rich I had a moment this week where I was sitting across from a Director of IT and it hit me — this poor bastard has the toughest job in the entire company. The business folks get to be full-time dreamers: “Hey, can we automate this? Can the AI just know what to do? Can it walk my dog while I’m in this meeting?” Meanwhile he’s over there thinking about data security, system reliability, whether some employee is gonna click on an email that says “You’ve won a $1,000 Walmart gift card!”, whether Ukrainian hackers are going to steal their customer data at 2 a.m., and whether his entire team is about to get replaced by three interns and ChatGPT — all while knowing none of this stuff actually works the way the brochures promised. And here’s the part that makes me feel for the guy — for his entire career he’s been rewarded for keeping the machines running and not getting fired. Now we’re asking him to suddenly become a profit center, to be out over his skis with AI initiatives. It’s like telling the hall monitor he’s now responsible for running the company’s underground poker game. Did I just compare our AI software to an underground poker game? Yeah, probably not the best analogy, but hang with me here, I’m rolling. Meanwhile the C-suite is over there wondering why nothing’s happened yet, completely oblivious to the fact that they’ve spent twenty years brutally punishing IT for not playing defense. Hell, I know CIOs who got fired because Windows 95 sucked. The real kicker is how to even get started. Our philosophy has always been to start small — automate one workflow, prove it works, and then compound fast. Smart in theory. In practice, with a big organization, that feels like bringing a birthday candle to a forest fire. The C-suite doesn’t get excited about incremental. They want to see something that actually moves the needle. So you’re stuck trying to thread this ridiculous gap: build something small enough to actually work, get real user adoption, and make sure the vendor isn’t full of shit. Honestly, I don’t envy that seat one bit. At Collide, we’re committed to being real partners with the folks actually doing the building. I’ve got serious scar tissue from getting fired for not being “openly collaborative” with other oil and gas companies on well spacing back in the shale days, and I’m never making that mistake again. We’re gonna share what we learn, educate when we can, and actually listen — God knows we have a lot to learn too. Truth is, my tech guys are dying to find some partners in crime — and I really gotta stop with the crime analogies, I swear that’s not what we’re doing here — because they get all excited explaining the latest and greatest AI breakthrough and I respond with the technical sophistication of a man asking if his rotary phone has Bluetooth. Sip slowly, my friends.

“這、這個姿勢…會不會不太淑女，好害羞..” ——『大小姐的思春期』 "I-Is this pose... a bit unladylike? This is so embarrassing..." ——『The Rich Girl's Pubertal Lust』

Elon Musk: "I started reading quite a bit about rockets to try and understand why they're so freaking expensive If one could make them reusable like airplanes, then the cost of rocketry would drop dramatically The cost of the fuel was maybe anywhere from 0.2% to 0.5% of the cost of the rocket I came to the conclusion that there wasn't really a good reason for rockets to be so expensive and that they could be a lot less even in an expendable format Nobody had really been able to make a reusable rocket work... but if we can do that, then that would really be the key breakthrough"

Jason Calacanis warns developers about Sam Altman and OpenAI: “If I were any kind of developer, I would never work with Sam Altman and OpenAI, This is a warning for anybody dumb enough to use Sam Altman’s OpenAI API, Sam is an incredibly savvy person, and he wants every bit of revenue from the ecosystem. He's gonna study how you're using the API, which he has the right to do. Sam Altman comes from the Zuckerberg school of business, which is: give people access to your tools, study them, and like the Borg, steal every innovation they create . Exactly like Bill Gates did at Microsoft; they let people build Lotus 1-2-3, and then they did Microsoft Excel. They let people build a product called WordPerfect and WordStar, and then they built Microsoft Word."