Folks Finance 已与 AEON 社区合作，提升 $FOLKS 作为日常交易数字货币的实用性，促进其在多个地区的 5000 万+ 商户中的使用，从而将 DeFi 与日常商务连接起来。

Alchemy Pay的$FOLKS 代币新法币上链通道允许在173个司法管辖区内使用本地支付方式轻松购买，促进更广泛的采用并简化全球用户访问DeFi服务的流程。

在 DeFi 世界深耕五年後，來自義大利的 Folks Finance 創辦人 Benedetto Biondi 帶領團隊完成了 TGE（代幣發行）這一重要里程碑。這位榮獲富比士「30 Under 30」的機械工程師，對 DeFi 有著獨到的見解：他認為，DeFi 最大的敵人不是監管或駭客，而是其自身的複雜性。 本文目錄 Folks Finance CEO Benedetto 背景介紹 Folks Finance 解決 DeFi「原罪」—— 用戶使用門檻高 手機 APP：解決使用門檻＋流動性碎片化困境 Folks Finance 未來藍圖：連接

跨链借贷协议 Folks Finance 正式宣布其服务已在 Monad 主网上线，为该生态系统带来了统一的流动性解决方案。 （前情提要：Folks Finance 宣布推出 FOLKS 代币） （背景补充：摩根大通要开交易所？注册新商标欲提供「虚拟货币交易」服务） （本文为广编稿，由 Folks Finance 撰文、提供，不代表动区立场，亦非投资建议、购买或出售建议。详见文末责任警示。） 顶尖跨链借贷协议为 Monad 生态系统带来统一流动性、原生跨链上币及其首个激励计划。 由 Coinbase Ventures、Jump、ParaFi 和 Borderless

火币HTX于11月7日上线FOLKS/USDT永续合约，最高杠杆20倍，并启动交易派对，奖池达10,000美元。用户需完成报名并交易累计有效额≥10,000 USDT，享排名分奖，且新用户可获得专属福利。

11 月 6 日，加密市场整体呈现轻微复苏态势。比特币重返 10.3 万美元上方，以太坊突破 3300 美元，全网 DeFi 总锁仓量（TVL）报 1319.37 亿美元，24 小时微跌 0.08%，市场暂稳于高位整理区间。 主流协议分化明显，Lido、EigenLayer 等以质押业务为主的项目略有增长，而 Aave、Spark、Ethena 等借贷与收益协议则小幅回落。 DEX 交易活跃度维持高位，24 小时总交易量约 161.27 亿美元，显示市场流动性仍较为充裕。 当日焦点事件集中在 Notional Finance 因 Balancer 漏洞导致坏账并关闭 V3，以及 Aster 启动回购与抵押功能升级，显示 DeFi 市场正在安全修复与代币经济优化的双轨中前行。

在一個被轉瞬即逝的趨勢和投機狂潮所困擾的時代，Folks Finance 脫穎而出，成為 Algorand 區塊鏈上獨創性的先鋒。這個開創性的協議倡導去中心化金融（DeFi）的願景，重視耐心和策略遠見，更喜歡有條不紊的方法而不是混亂的交易。其革命精神的核心是 Lock & Earn 機制，重新定義了流動性。

Folks Finance (FOLKS) 是推动 Folks Finance 的实用和治理代币，Folks Finance 是 Algorand 上领先的跨链去中心化金融借贷应用。该代币的总供应量为5000万 FOLKS，旨在实现可持续发展，协调用户、贡献者和社区的激励，推动超过十亿美元的去中心化金融总锁仓价值（TVL）生态系统的长期增长。

深潮 TechFlow 消息，11 月 6 日，据官方消息，Hotcoin 将于 2025年11月6日上线恶俗企鹅、UAI、FOLKS三大热门项目，精准捕捉市场热点，助力用户抢占新一轮赛道先机！ 【现货交易】 📍11月6日13:00（UTC+8）上线 恶俗企鹅/USDT 📍11月6日21:20（UTC+8）上线 UAI/USDT 📍11月6日21:20（UTC+8）上线 FOLKS/USDT 为庆祝多币种同步上线，Hotcoin

什么是Folks Finance？Folks Finance是一个跨链去中心化金融（DeFi）协议，其核心定位是成为连接多链生态的综合性资本市场枢纽，将于11月6日开启FOLKS空投。 项目最大亮点在于其深度集成Chainlink CCIP、Circle CCTP与Wormhole等顶级跨链基础设施，实现了原生资产的无缝跨链借贷与管理，旨在从根本上解决DeFi领域长期存在的流动性碎片化问题。凭借清晰的愿景、已被资本验证的商业模式（完成620万美元总融资）及合理的代币经济设计，Folks Finance已成为跨链DeFi赛道中一个值得关注的实力派玩家。

Folks 理财是一个非托管的去中心化金融 (DeFi) 协议，基于 Algorand 区块链知识，提供进阶模式的资产管理、借贷、借款和流动性聚合工具，旨在为用户提供安全、无中介的金融服务。

Ether.fi (姨太) 今天结束了对$50 百万回购提案的治理投票 Folks Finance 将于11月6日推出其 FOLKS 代币，释放 25.4% 的供应量 Aerodrome 准备通过 Slipstream V2、Autopilot 和 UI/UX 改进进行重大升级。 多个加密项目正在进入N

柴犬币 (SHIB) 通过与 Folks Finance，一个去中心化金融 (DeFi) 协议的整合，扩展到了跨链借贷。这标志着模因币首次在跨链平台上上架借贷。 该功能由Chainlink的跨链技术提供支持

为庆祝 Shiba Inu（SHIB）首次登陆跨链借贷市场，官方宣布推出价值 500 美元 SHIB 的空投活动。此次合作基于 Chainlink 生态借贷协议 Folks Finance 的多链部署，旨在将 SHIB 推向 Polygon、Avalanche、Arbitrum 和 Base 等 12 条区块链。本文将深度解析 SHIB 的价格走势、销毁机制与跨链生态进展，为加密货币投资者提供全面参考。

去中心化金融平台在完成Chainlink CCIP集成后新增柴犬币支撑 用户可以存入SHIB以获取收益或将代币作为借贷的抵押品 平台提供10.93%的年利率，当前提供的柴犬币流动性为25,000美元 去中心化金融借贷协议Folks Finance已新增柴犬币

柴犬币社区实际上创造了历史，成为第一个加入Folks Finance的表情币，这在现在的公告后引发了约2%的显著柴犬币涨幅。今天的柴犬币价格反映了投资者信心的增长，因为SHIB正在扩展到跨链去中心化金融。

柴犬币的生态团队推出了一次赠品活动，以庆祝其在Folks Finance的跨链借贷平台上架。活动持续48小时，参与者通过关注和标记朋友来参与。一个AI将随机选择一位获胜者，增强社区参与度并推广SHIB的金融应用。

阿拉贡与Wormhole的集成实现了在40多个区块链之间无缝的原生代币转移，提升了去中心化金融的互操作性。这一合作伙伴关系激发了市场活动和开发者的兴趣，交易量的上涨和FOLKS代币的推出就是明证。阿拉贡还专注于现实世界的应用，包括在非洲的生物识别支付。

Folks Finance主导的Wormhole的NTT标准集成，解锁了无缝的跨链代币转移，并为阿拉贡的下一阶段多链增长奠定了基础 新加坡，2025年7月1日 /PRNewswire/ — 阿拉贡基金会今天宣布与Wormhole的原生代币进行整合

关键笔记 Algorand 基金会与 Folks Finance 合作开发了这一 NTT 计划。 通过这一新发展，Algorand 可以利用加密领域最大的互操作性网络之一。 另一个通过创新推动生态系统扩展的L1是Cardano。 开

Gate 研究院：本周 FanTV、Folks Finance、Aiden 和 SoSoValue 这四个项目都提供了参与空投的机会。FanTV 聚焦内容创作，Folks Finance 专注跨链 DeFi，Aiden 打造去中心化搜索引擎，而SoSoValue 则提供加密货币市场研究服务。这些项目都为用户提供了参与 Web3 生态的机会，并通过空投等方式吸引用户。参与这些空投项目需要用户访问项目官网、连接钱包、完成指定任务等。

* * * * * 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.