wesley教授
wesley教授
Founder of Block Infinity, Poker player, Trader, Chinese whale, @drhashclub
1.1KFollowing
4.5Kfollowers
Feed
Livestream
Feed
Last night the Dow surged 1,100 points, AMD soared 13% in a single day, and immediately a bunch of people in the background exploded: Is it going to reverse? Should we chase it?
If I were to answer you in poker terms: just because your opponent wins two hands in a row doesn't mean you should go all-in on the next one.
A 13% gain in one day is never a healthy bull market; it's a short squeeze and emotional recovery after an oversell. The sharper the rise, the harsher the possible pullback. For someone like me who sees the big picture as bearish on the AI bubble, this kind of vertical rebound is actually an opportunity to reposition chips back into the short zone, not a signal to get on board.
Moreover, the real referee only appears on Tuesday—until the CPI is released, all the ups and downs are just noise. Before the big cards are revealed, keeping your position light and your hands steady is more important than anything.
Are you planning to chase this rebound, or wait until the cards are shown before making a move?
Everyone is focused on last night's big surge in the US stock market and Tuesday's CPI, but a deeper underlying trend has been overshadowed: the Middle East is quietly cooling down.
The Financial Times reported that at least four leaders from Arab and Muslim countries called Trump overnight, urging him not to take action against Iran and to allow more time for diplomacy; Trump himself has softened his stance, saying that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are more interested in a peaceful resolution and that he is "not in a hurry."
This development has a much greater significance for the market than it appears on the surface. The Middle East being re-priced from "ready to go to war at any moment" back to "sitting down to talk" means the war premium embedded in oil prices will be unwound—when oil prices drop, inflationary pressure eases, which is one of the hidden drivers behind last night's stock market rebound with strong volume, and also a live variable in Tuesday's CPI.
Remember what I often say: in this round of conflict, the market has never priced in risk aversion, but inflation and interest rate hikes. The movement of oil prices is more honest than anyone shouting about risk aversion.
Last night’s rebound in the US stock market has a detail worth watching even more than how much the indexes rose: all three major indexes rose more than 2%, with the S&P posting its largest single-day gain since April, yet Chinese concept stocks were uniquely slammed—the Nasdaq Golden Dragon China Index fell 1.33% against the trend, and Alibaba dropped nearly 4 points.
On a risk-on night across the entire market, some assets are always left out. What does this indicate? This rally is not a broad return of risk appetite; it looks more like a retaliatory rebound after the oversold US domestic tech stocks, with capital selectively buying only their own.
Those left in the corner by this kind of market aren’t just Chinese concept stocks, but also crypto, which remains flat. Despite also being labeled risk assets, others are partying while you’re left out—this in itself is an attitude.
What do you think, how far can this picky rebound go?
Last night, the US stock market experienced a classic panic retreat: the VIX panic index plunged nearly six points in one go, closing at 19.92, marking the largest single-day drop since April 2025. The Dow Jones surged by 1,100 points, and Wall Street finally breathed a sigh of relief.
But if you check $BTC, it remained completely still that same night, hovering below seventy-five thousand, with trading volume so dry it was almost invisible.
This is exactly the point I've been emphasizing these past two days: the sharp drop in the VIX reflects a restoration of risk appetite in the stock market, but it doesn't mean this warm current has flowed into the crypto space. A decline in the panic index does not equal a bottom in crypto; these are two separate things.
True risk appetite returns when the low-volume, sideways-trading coins themselves start to increase volume and move upward, not when the US stock market simply relaxes on their behalf. When do you think this warm breeze will finally reach crypto?
Tonight's U.S. Treasury auction hit a bottom: the 3-year winning bid rate fell to 4.627%, significantly down from the previous 4.93%, and the allocation ratio surged to 73% in one go. To put it plainly, what was truly snapped up during this panic was short-duration government bonds, not Bitcoin. Every time the market jitters, someone in the background shouts "extreme fear, safe-haven funds will eventually flow into $BTC," but if you look at the data: money is flowing into government bonds and gold, but not into crypto. Bitcoin hasn't been digital gold for the past six months; it's just a high-beta tech stock, and when risk-off happens, it gets hit along with the Nasdaq. Stop fooling yourself with the word "safe haven" to try to catch a bottom; the market votes with its feet, which is more honest than anyone's words.
Tonight, a piece of news overshadowed by the market is worth more contemplation than any single K-line: The U.S. Congress has officially subpoenaed NVIDIA CEO Jensen Huang. $NVDA has gone from last week's internal letter controversy and an independent board investigation to now a direct congressional subpoena. This is no longer some scandalous gossip but the first time this AI frenzy has hit a hard regulatory and governance wall. I've always said the cracks in this AI bubble aren't in valuation but in the financing chain and narrative control: when the core company of the entire narrative has its CEO summoned to Congress to explain, the so-called "certain growth" starts to waver. The market hasn't seriously priced this in yet, but once these cracks begin to spread, there is never just one.
The real judge this week isn't today's few sideways K-lines, but Tuesday's CPI. The market consensus for the monthly rate is +0.3%, core +0.2%. The numbers haven't been released yet, but interest rate futures have already priced in an 80% chance of a rate hike in December. I've been playing cards for over ten years, and the biggest taboo is pushing all your chips in before the flop is dealt and before seeing the pot clearly. Right now, the whole backend is shouting, "Short god, are you adding to your position?" "Is it time to buy the dip?" My answer is simple: don't bet direction naked before the data; if you're itchy, keep your position light and save your bullets to act once the cards are revealed. Guessing the right direction once isn't skill; going all in on the wrong bet once is deadly. $BTC's low-volume sideways movement is most easily slapped into direction by a single data point. Are you planning to take sides before the CPI, or honestly wait for the flop?
The "no drop" that lasted the entire weekend finally got its answer today: $BTC hasn't bottomed out; it's breaking downwards, once dipping below 74,000. Last week, while the US stock market rebounded sharply from oversold conditions and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumped five to six points in a day, Bitcoin stubbornly didn't follow along. This kind of "stocks up, crypto not" scenario is never an independent trend; it means real buying is absent, and only short-covering is propping it up. Now that the short-covering momentum weakens, debts must still be paid. For those still using the Fear and Greed Index as a reason to bottom-fish, I advise you to first understand this market truth: sideways movement doesn't mean it can't drop further. Do you think this is a fake drop to shake out weak hands, or is it really the next step down?
Tonight the entire semiconductor sector is celebrating wildly, with AMD, Broadcom, and ASML all surging by five to six points, yet $NVDA is singled out and cut down, dropping as much as six points.
Many attribute this to Jensen Huang's scandalous news, but I think that's an oversimplification. The market is repricing based on two concrete issues: first, whether the H200 license for China will be approved or blocked by Congress; second, the governance risks of the company following an independent investigation. The scandal is just the trigger; the underlying cause is a loosening valuation logic.
When an entire industry rises collectively but the absolute leader is pressed down alone, such divergence is never a good sign. When the leader is doubted, it’s often where the narrative cracks first. At this point, do you trust Jensen Huang or the market?
