Orbit Post Sitemap
ETF turned to net outflow, let's first pour some cold water: I am bearish, but I don't agree with directly translating this news as "funds continuously fleeing crypto." This daily report also mentioned pressure on tech stocks and rising US Treasury yields, indicating poor risk appetite, but a pessimistic narrative still needs evidence to support it.
I'm stuck on two points: the report doesn't provide the scale or persistence of the ETF outflow, so based on direction alone, it's hard to tell if it's a short-term portfolio adjustment or a trend withdrawal; rising US Treasury yields increase the opportunity cost of holding risky assets, which could be a reason for funds to withdraw, but it's not proof of continuous outflows. Mixing the two can easily exaggerate the signal.
Of course, the bearish view could also be correct. If ETFs continue to have net outflows and interest rate pressure doesn't ease, I would lean more toward the judgment that capital demand is weakening. Next, I will focus on the persistence of capital flows and won't use a single "net outflow" to stamp the entire trend.The risk-reward of this matter is asymmetric: changing the billing incurs costs, but the returns can only be seen after the rules are finalized. CryptoSlate states that the EIP-8037 state gas rules force Ethereum applications to rewrite billing; the call on November 6 urges projects to test gas assumptions and report fixes, which may affect the Glamsterdam specification.
I tend to see this as adaptation pressure rather than a market positive. Old billing assumptions need retesting, and applications relying on gas sponsorship or fixed pricing may be more sensitive—this is my speculation. Fix feedback can also impact the specification, meaning timely testing could reduce rework later, but it doesn't necessarily mean user fees will decrease.
If testing can reveal cost boundaries, the investment is worthwhile; if the rules are not finalized and a full rewrite is done, the risk of rework may lower expectations. I will watch the test results and specification changes closely and will not give technical proposals extra weight in price odds.#马斯克预计SpaceX年底年化营收突破1000亿美元
The boss has something to say
I came across Musk's post and first noticed a detail: he said SpaceX's annualized revenue will hit $100 billion by the end of 2026, with Q4 quarter-on-quarter growth of 70%, but he specifically emphasized this is an annualized run rate, not full-year revenue; the target for the end of 2027 is $500 billion annualized. The growth focus shifts from rockets and Starlink to AI computing power, with government orders dropping from 16.6% in Q3 to below 10% in Q4. Meanwhile, Tesla plans to stop Cybertruck production at the Texas factory by mid-2027 to free up capacity for the Cybercab autonomous taxi.
My interpretation is: Musk is telling the market a bigger story — transforming from a space company into an AI and robotics company. But the current macro environment is not buying it: non-farm payrolls disappointed, December rate hike probability is 79%, and the whole market is killing high-valuation narratives. The $100 billion annualized projection he painted can't support the stock price in the short term. For the crypto space, SPCX-related coins have weak correlation with BTC, mostly sentiment-driven, and do not constitute trading signals.
BTC is currently around 74,800, consolidating on Saturday. My approach: I listen to Musk's story but keep my position unchanged; 75,000 remains resistance, looking down to 73,000. For weekend news like this, just take a look, don't chase it with real money.
The above analysis is time-sensitive, please stay safe. $BTC $ETH $SNDK #RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？ RKLB is about to release its Q3 earnings! Could this be the catalyst for a stock price rebound?
Rocket Lab (RKLB) will announce its Q3 2026 earnings after the U.S. market close on November 9. After recent intense volatility in tech growth stocks, this earnings report could be a crucial turning point for RKLB's next phase.
The market currently expects Q3 revenue of about $257 million, a year-over-year increase of approximately 66%, with a loss per share of about $0.07. Previously, Q2 revenue set a record at $234 million, with a backlog of $2.36 billion, indicating that demand in commercial space remains strong.
I believe there are three key points to watch in this earnings report:
① Can revenue continue to exceed expectations? The market already anticipates rapid growth, so merely meeting expectations may not be enough to sustain a stock price rise.
② Progress of the Neutron rocket. Compared to short-term profits, the development progress, first flight timing, and commercial orders of Neutron may more directly impact long-term valuation. The project timeline has been adjusted before, so the latest guidance from management is especially critical.
③ Growth expectations for 2027. Whether the Space Systems business, defense orders, and satellite business integration can bring higher revenue and profit growth will determine if the market is willing to continue granting RKLB a growth premium.
#RKLB #RocketLab #USStocks #EarningsSeason #CommercialSpace #Neutron$ATOM
Cosmos has an interesting challenge: its technology supports an interconnected blockchain ecosystem, but that does not automatically guarantee value accrual to ATOM. The relationship between ecosystem expansion, interchain security, and token demand deserves closer attention. A growing network of independent chains is promising, but the economic benefits must reach the core ecosystem.$MU
Micron rebounds with chips; what is the validation point for the memory cycle?
On November 6 intraday, Micron and the semiconductor sector rebounded together. This reflects a change in risk appetite but cannot alone prove that memory supply and demand are tightening again.
Memory companies' profits are sensitive to price and utilization. Strong AI memory demand does not mean all product lines can raise prices simultaneously; weak consumer demand may also drag down the mix.
I am more focused on subsequent contract prices, inventory, and capital expenditures. If high value-added products ramp up while ordinary product inventory declines, the recovery is more comprehensive; if capacity expansion outpaces demand and customers rebuild inventory, a single-day rebound cannot eliminate cycle risks.Last night, the October nonfarm payroll data significantly exceeded market expectations: 165,000 new jobs added, expected 65,000, with the previous two months revised upward by a total of 84,000, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%.
After the data release, the probability of a rate hike in December rose from about 75% to around 80%; the probability of maintaining the rate in December is 22.3%, and the probability of a 25 basis point hike is 77.7%. Short-term interest rate futures fell as traders increased their bets on a December rate hike. Job growth was broad-based, with professional business services and healthcare leading.
Notably, the initial one-year inflation expectation for November was 4.3%, below the expected 4.7%. Inflation expectations have declined, but employment remains strong, giving the Federal Reserve more room to focus on inflation pressures.
The economy keeps pace with labor force growth, requiring only about 40,000 new jobs per month, a breakeven value that has fallen from about 150,000 in 2024. Labor supply contraction, tighter immigration, and increased retirements are the main reasons for the lower unemployment rate. The Federal Reserve and economists believe the labor market itself does not pose inflation risks.
Strong employment data has reignited rate hike expectations, and the low unemployment rate also makes the Federal Reserve's stance more hawkish. This report further tilts the direction toward a rate hike in December.$TON
TON has an interesting distribution advantage through its connection with Telegram's ecosystem. Yet access to a large communication platform does not automatically create sustainable blockchain adoption. The important distinction is between users discovering crypto applications and users consistently finding value in them. Developer quality, user retention, and application utility will determine how far this opportunity develops.Bitcoin ($BTC), Ethereum ($ETH), and SOL ($SOL) simultaneously experienced a downward trend, but their liquidation structures in the derivatives market have taken completely different paths. Bitcoin's current price is near 76154, down 5.69% in 24 hours. Although the overall market still leans bullish, the main liquidations during this downturn were shorts, with the squeeze from the rebound causing losses for the short side. Ethereum ($ETH) is in a tighter situation, down 7.81%, with the long-short ratio further rising. The long position crowding is the highest among the three major coins, and many long orders have been forced to close recently. SOL ($SOL) fell 6.28%, with a relatively milder trend. The long-short ratio slightly declined, but the liquidation pressure is also borne by the longs. This round of declines in $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL belongs to an ongoing downtrend, but internal forces have already split. The crowded long positions in $ETH and $SOL still face the risk of forced selling, while Bitcoin's long-short structure is relatively balanced, allowing for greater two-way volatility. The key next point to watch is whether the 75000 level can hold. If the support fails, Ethereum and SOL may face even more intense sell-offs than Bitcoin.Burning is not fireworks, it's a pump🔒(๑•̀ㅂ•́)و✧
The crypto world is never short of "burn announcements," but the chain won't play along. The real issue isn't how much is burned, but whether the chips are continuously taken away and locked.
$BNB: The solid feeling from the big brother🤔
37 rounds have cumulatively burned 1.646 million tokens, with the target reduced to 100 million. The mechanism is solidly implemented. But after the trust shock, daily active users dropped 14%, with 700 as the core defense level. Only by holding this can there be a recovery scenario; if broken, don't stubbornly preach faith📉.
$HYPE: Hard rules, hard valuation😅
Burn and buyback rules are strict, and reserve income is still rising. But FDV is pulled up to 99x, so the good news has long been priced in. Chasing above 83? First ask if the odds agree👀.
$UNI: Rising against the trend, but don't rush to get hyped
On the day of the market bloodbath, burns actually increased in volume; yesterday burned 62,000 tokens, more than twice the median of the past 30 days, totaling 113.8 million tokens. Looks fierce, but it's more like fees rising with volatility, not an independent positive. When the coin price doesn't follow the burn, don't mistake volume increase for a reversal (￣▽￣)ノ.
In short: Who is really moving chips? Look at whether the chain can continuously take them away and lock them long-term. Only if the pump keeps running can the premium stand firm🔒✨
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 🔍A number that looks bullish, can it really be taken directly as a market signal? OKEx data shows that the BTC contract long-short ratio is currently 2.98, compared to 2.96 24 hours ago, meaning for every 1 short account, there are 2.98 long accounts. The data is updated hourly, but here only the number of accounts is counted, not the position size.
An interesting detail here: the ratio only slightly increased from 2.96 to 2.98, indicating a slight increase in the proportion of long accounts, but it does not prove that long capital has simultaneously strengthened. It could just be more retail traders siding with the bulls, or a few large short positions on the other side holding down the market; the number of accounts and actual capital are not the same.
My judgment is: this data is more like a "bullish sentiment reminder" rather than a confirmed trend, and we should even be cautious of a reverse swing after a one-sided move. Because the higher the value, the more crowded the market tends to be; but the source only says extreme values may reverse, and does not indicate that 2.98 is already extreme. Interpreting it directly as bullish or bearish is somewhat premature.
This is my speculation: if the ratio continues to rise but the price does not strengthen accordingly, the divergence between sentiment and price is worth watching; if the ratio falls back but the price remains stable, it may indicate that the bulls have not completely lost support. Going forward, will everyone focus more on changes in the ratio, or on whether it diverges from price movement?$ONE surged 50% yesterday and continues to soar 23% today. Even though it's about to exit the crypto space, it just won't calm down! Recently, the project team Harmony announced the shutdown of the mainnet and pivoted to the AI remix industry. The blockchain explorer is also about to close. $ONE will become an air coin without a project team. It's uncertain if major exchanges will delist it. Chasing longs now is basically courting death. After this surge, short it until it gets delisted!A post about a mistaken transfer brought the "UID" into the spotlight.
A user wanted to transfer assets from Binance main site to Binance Thailand, but instead of filling in the address, they directly entered a string of UID. When the confirmation page popped up, they didn't verify and just clicked continue, and the money went into someone else's account. He Yi responded that Binance UIDs are unique and there are no duplicates — it wasn't the system giving the wrong number, but this string corresponds to another person in a different system.
Here is a structural issue that is easy to overlook. UID is an internal sequence number, only valid within the ledger that issued it. He Yi clearly stated that the account systems of local fiat platforms like Binance Thailand, Binance Turkey, and Binance US are independent. What does independence mean? The same number can represent four different people in four places.
The significance of the second confirmation is therefore clear: it is the only chance to align what "I think" with the "actual." Address, UID, network, amount — read them one by one. This user skipped it, effectively leaving the verification to luck. Transfers of $BTC and $USDT are irreversible once sent.
Afterwards, He Yi and 4 employees assisted in freezing the related funds and are contacting the recipient user for negotiation. The response is considered proactive, but essentially it is a goodwill remedy, not a system guarantee: whether the freeze succeeds depends on the recipient's cooperation.
So the issue is not "whether Binance compensates," but that the only reliable credential for cross-platform transfers is the address; UID can only be used within the same system. Treating internal sequence numbers as universal credentials is treating two ledgers as one.$ZEC has just completed a major upgrade, reducing block time from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, effectively tripling the speed. However, the upgrade temporarily locked about 12,200 ZEC, worth over $15 million, from being transferred.
Zcash's NU7 upgrade was officially activated at block height 3,543,405. Besides speeding up transaction confirmations, it also adjusted fee distribution: 40% to miners and 60% into a network security reserve, planned to be gradually reissued starting in 2031.
Interestingly, this upgrade did not increase ZEC's daily issuance rate, nor did it change the 21 million supply cap.
ZEC is currently around $1,330, up about 5% in 24 hours, with trading volume still in the billion-dollar range. When the upgrade news broke the day before, the price actually dropped temporarily.
I think Zcash is addressing the practical experience of privacy payments this time, rather than just hyping concepts. It competes with Monero for privacy demand but also faces speed competition from regular payment chains.
However, the fee reserve is not a permanent burn and should not be directly interpreted as deflationary. The inability to transfer old privacy pool assets may also affect user confidence.
I am not chasing the price increase of ZEC for now; I want to see if the real private transaction volume can sustain growth after the upgrade.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Oversold recovery ≠ trend reversal
After a "night of terror" in the crypto market, selling pressure has temporarily eased, but the market looks more like it's catching its breath rather than reversing trend. On the macro side, after the midterm elections, the Democratic Party controls Congress, expectations for tighter AI regulation are rising, combined with stronger-than-expected nonfarm payrolls fueling rate hike concerns, putting risk assets under synchronized pressure.
🔸$BTC is at $75,832, dipping intraday to $74,762; $75,500 is the short-term defense line, and if broken, $69,000 will come into view.
🔸$ETH is at $2,234, down 7% in a day, erasing all post-election gains, with weakening moving averages and RSI at only 40; failure to reclaim $2,251 may test $2,204.
🔸$SOL is at $90.02, with last week's ETF net outflow hitting a record $71.47 million, futures long liquidation accounting for 92%, price at a two-month low, 50-day and 200-day EMAs approaching a death cross, showing significant technical pressure.
Overall, regulatory uncertainty, tech stock sell-offs, and crypto capital outflows are resonating. The current rebound mainly comes from oversold recovery and is insufficient to confirm a bottom; short-term focus should remain on risk prevention.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 ☀️ Uncle's Weekly Report｜2026.11.02—11.06 One-sentence summary This week the market didn't change direction, it changed the algorithm: from "telling stories" to "calculating returns." 1. This Week's Market｜Buy the outcome first, then sell the cost The US stock market experienced a full emotional reversal. On November 4, the Democratic Party achieved an overwhelming victory in the midterm elections, and the market initially bought in on the "elimination of uncertainty" as a positive. The Dow Jones rose 3.03% in a single day, closing at 53,356 points; the Nasdaq rose 1.44%, and the S&P 500 rose 1.59%. But just one day later, the market began recalculating the cost of policies and investments. On November 5, the Dow fell 3.44%, the Nasdaq fell 5.52%, the S&P fell 4.36%, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plummeted about 12.25%, marking the second-largest single-day drop in history. The Nasdaq 100 dropped over 6%, with related component stocks losing about $2.5 trillion in market value in one day. On November 6, tech stocks staged a retaliatory rebound: the Nasdaq rose 1.09%, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rose 4.21%, but the Dow still fell about 0.5%. The rebound couldn't recover the week's losses: the Nasdaq fell 3.4% for the week, the S&P fell 2.7%, and the Dow fell about 0.9%. The weekly index looks not too bad, but the process was a violent valuation recalculation. The A-shares closed higher for the week but cooled noticeably on Friday. The Shanghai Composite Index rose 1.39% for the week, closing at 3,649 points; the Shenzhen Component Index rose 3.16%, the ChiNext Index rose 2.14%, and the STAR Market Composite Index rose 5.28%. But on Friday, the Shanghai Composite Index fell 1. #US Crypto Regulation: "CLARITY Act" Progress Stalled, 401(k) Rules Enter Final Review Employment range between 50,000 and 100,000, abnormal ETH fund positioning before Nonfarm Payrolls
ADP figures remain flat compared to previous values, employment status stuck at a vague boundary, unable to lock in market direction in advance. Traditionally, funds tend to move to safety before Nonfarm Payrolls, but now both longs and shorts are continuously building positions in the ETH market.
Only when the range falls between 50,000 and 100,000 does the market have room for recovery; below 50,000 or breaking through 100,000 will directly disrupt the previous market rhythm.
Review your ETH holdings and check if stop-loss positions can withstand the data impact.
$ETH $BTC $SOL 【CYBER repurchased $13 million in one year, can it really support the token price?】
Over the past year, Cyber has cumulatively repurchased about $13 million worth of $CYBER, with the team indeed putting real money behind supporting the token. Compared to the current circulating market cap of CYBER, which is about $20 million to $25 million, this amount is quite significant, nearly half of its circulating market cap.
However, the repurchase amount cannot be directly considered as permanently burned tokens, nor should it be understood that the team still holds this buying position. The official announcement did not specify the exact number of tokens repurchased, the average cost, or the subsequent handling method, which are the factors that determine its actual impact on circulating supply.
Currently, CYBER has rebounded from the low of about $0.23 on November 5, with the price once rising above $0.32, an increase of about 20% in the past 7 days. But on November 14, about 1.76 million tokens will be unlocked, accounting for about 2.9% of the current circulating supply.
The $13 million repurchase has indeed given holders some confidence, but what truly determines whether CYBER can sustain a continuous trend is whether the ecosystem has real demand and whether the repurchase can continuously translate into supply contraction. TRX as a whole remains in a sideways and relatively stable state, with very little intraday volatility, indicating that there is no obvious chasing or panic selling of funds. TRON's core advantages remain stablecoin transfers, on-chain payments, and a relatively high actual usage frequency. This kind of "cash flow-type public chain" tends to be more resistant to volatility than purely narrative assets during market fluctuations. However, TRX's explosive potential is usually limited, with more focus on the circulation of on-chain USDT, ecosystem data, and whether large funds continue to settle. The current trend's key point is not how high a single candlestick can pull up, but whether it can maintain a stable center of gravity and continuously attract incremental funds. $TRXThree things this week: money got expensive, dragged down by the stock market, and the backing changed.
① US October employment at 165,000, expected only 65,000, rate cut hopes dashed, interest rates remain high, both the dollar and US Treasury yields rise. Money becomes expensive, non-yielding assets get drained first—Friday's US stock rebound, BTC didn't follow, more important to watch than the candlestick.
② The big drop on the 5th wasn't an internal collapse, but a spillover. First, BTC was pushed up to 80,000 on policy friendliness, then AI returns became doubtful, Nasdaq fell 5.52%, chips dropped 12%, panic index soared to 70%. Once leverage broke, 1.24 billion liquidated in one day, 230,000 people wiped out, ETF outflows of 870 million over four days.
③ Valuation anchors recalculated: Democrats took both chambers, plan to expand SEC powers and restrict officials from touching crypto, loosening expectations pushed to 2028; Binance's 6.3 billion theft aftermath not over, 3.64 billion ran on first withdrawal day; Mainland also investigating Solana's illegal marketing in Shanghai.
In a nutshell: past price support relied on "easy money + relaxed regulation," now both have reversed. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% $SNDK is pressured by midterm election bearish factors. SanDisk had been falling all along, so why did it suddenly surge yesterday and then drop back today, stuck at 835 in a sideways pattern?
First, let's answer the first question: why the rise?
1. The short-term drop was too steep, triggering a technical rebound demand [oversold rebound].
Also, after the price dropped near 800, a large number of shorts chose to close positions and take profits, which is [short covering].
At the same time, short-term [bottom-fishing funds] entered the market to speculate on a rebound, pushing the price up.
2. [Panic sentiment temporarily eased], and the market is testing the strength of policy implementation.
Because the policy proposals still have a long way to go before landing, execution, and taking effect—not an immediate cut—this gave a rebound window.
3. Cloud stocks like Microsoft $MSFT strengthened, boosting sentiment across the AI sector.
To add, Microsoft’s strength is because the Democrats restrict new data center construction, making existing computing power scarce, while cloud providers like Microsoft, Amazon, and $GOOGL have already built data centers, so they benefit.
Therefore, this rise has no new fundamental positive news, no order increases, no institutional target price upgrades—purely sentiment and capital speculation❗
Second, why did it fall back today and now move sideways?
1. The core bearish logic remains unchanged; the Democrats’ restrictions on the AI industry have not been lifted.
2. After rebounding to a high level, bulls concentrated on taking profits and exiting, while overhead trapped positions also reduced holdings at highs.
3. Bulls and bears entered a divergence phase, leading to sideways consolidation.
Due to limited space, the next article will discuss how to operate going forward👇$BTC has returned to just above 75,000, ETH dropped to 2226, and SOL is holding the 90 mark. The voices of bottom-fishing in the background are intensifying again, but I still say: no rush.
Look at a more honest indicator than price, the funding rate. A true oversold rebound rally is often accompanied by the funding rate being pushed to deep negative values, with shorts extremely crowded and a short squeeze providing the fuel. But the current #CircleQ3USDCVolumeUp49% Goldman Sachs lowers gold price forecast? That familiar feeling is back 😂
Whenever this kind of news comes out, it's actually a signal to pay more attention; the opportunity for gold might be coming soon.
Goldman Sachs is basically recognized in the industry as a contrarian indicator. A few months ago, it kept raising the $XAU target, but the market kept going down. Now it’s directly cutting the gold price forecast. Usually, this happens near the end of a market move, when forecasts are adjusted to align with current prices.
By the time they massively lower targets, a lot of bearish sentiment has already been fully released. Of course, this signal is worth watching. The Fed’s hawkish narrative has been priced in repeatedly by the market. If expectations ease even slightly afterward, the space for gold to rebound could open up quickly.
Gold’s volatility also transmits to $BTC; the two have always been linked as safe havens. If you want to track the rhythm of the linkage between precious metals and crypto, you can come to the homepage study group.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 I think connecting prediction markets with cryptocurrency is like installing a cash register for the "I'm sure" comments in group chats. Priced in stablecoins and settled through contracts, verbal judgments suddenly have a price.
While buying coins focuses on price fluctuations, this focuses on whether a certain event will happen. But the odds are just opinions backed by funds; with a shallow pool, large orders can easily drown out other voices.
I'm more curious about who ultimately determines the outcome. The money is on-chain, but whether the event actually happened in reality still depends on the interpretation of the judgment clauses. How come watching the fun also requires reading comprehension?#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
October nonfarm payrolls added 165,000 jobs, well above the expected 70,000, with the unemployment rate dropping to 4.1%. Once the data came out, the probability of a rate hike in December surged to over 68%, making rate cuts basically off the table. The market is moving in a very conflicted way: the Nasdaq rose 1.09%, the Dow Jones actually fell 0.46%, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumped 4.2%, but the Nasdaq's weekly chart shows a cumulative drop of 3.37%, marking four consecutive weeks of decline. The gainers are the chip stocks that had previously fallen sharply and are now recovering, not new money coming in.
Next Tuesday's CPI is the real bombshell. Citi and Morgan Stanley both forecast core month-over-month CPI at 0.19%, significantly cooler than September's 0.33%, which looks like good news. But the 10-year US Treasury yield is still hanging above 4.85%, the dollar index is at 102.3, and the VIX is 25.6; financial conditions have not eased at all. Even if CPI meets expectations, interest rate expectations may not decline.
The crypto side is even more direct. BTC is stuck between 75,000 and 76,000, with nearly $300 million in leverage liquidated in 24 hours, bulls accounting for 80%. The batch at 80,000 was just liquidated, and ETF inflows have not yet returned.
My approach is simple: before the CPI release, I won't add positions in US stocks or crypto. Chasing highs at this level has too poor odds. I'll wait for the data to land and see whether the market kills expectations first or facts first, then decide which side to take. Moderna’s move from a roughly $200M Q3 loss to $162M in GAAP net income gives its raised 2026 revenue-growth outlook more weight than a simple beat would. Revenue grew 29% to $1.313B, suggesting the business is regaining operating leverage. Still, one quarter does not establish durability; the updated 15%-25% range leaves a wide execution band.
#ModernaQ3ReturnsToProfit The increase is in leverage, not spot.
Three-line table, any contract can be filled.
① Position ÷ Volume: HYPE position $126.0M, 24h volume $26.5M, ratio 4.8x, exceeding 3x means position pushing price.
② Funding rate: HYPE +0.0045%, XRP +0.0072% longs pay, BTC -0.0004% shorts pay, both directions, money doesn't uniformly favor bulls.
③ Increase × volume: HYPE +2.06%, volume less than 6% of BTC, increase because no one is selling.
How to use: all three lines point to leverage, don't mistake weekend red K for a trend. I won't chase, will reconsider when volume returns to $60M.
On weekends, are you more afraid of a spike or missing out?
Not investment advice, DYOR.
$HYPE $BTC $XRP #Hyperliquid #欧意星球 #OKXOrbit #CryptoAt 23:17 last night, I placed a BTC long order at $75,900, with a stop loss at $74,800 and a take profit at $78,200. It is now $76,118 — an unrealized profit of less than 0.3%, but the position size, stop loss, and target price are all public. Whether this trade ends in profit or loss, I will post the transaction record as is. The reason to follow me is simple: this account has posted a real-time position screenshot every day since November last year, with a win rate below 50%, but a profit-loss ratio maintained at 2.1.
What I want to say today is that the macroeconomic line is being ignored too much. #JobsReportRaisesHikeOdds and #OilPlungesBelow$100 are both on the market — crude oil falling below 100 means inflationary pressure is easing, but employment data pushes up the probability of rate hikes. These two signals contradict each other. The market’s current approach is to ignore macro and only trade small coins: ONE rose 60% in one day, while BTC only rose 0.7%, and ETH barely followed with 1%. I’ve seen this structure too many times; funds flowing out of mainstream coins into small-cap fringe coins usually do not mark the start of a new cycle but rather the end of rotation.
My judgment is: do not chase BTC above $78,200; instead, it is a zone to reduce positions. If this rate hike expectation continues to heat up, the stop loss at $74,800 will most likely not be triggered in vain.
#OKX Prophet The excitement belongs to them, but the account is mine 🫧 So who is really making money this round? Watching the market these past two days gives a very subtle feeling: on social platforms, there are cries of "liquidation," "zeroing out," and "never touching it again," yet BTC's candlestick chart is still there, moving steadily with a 5,000-point amplitude up and down, as if nothing has happened. On the surface, retail investors are crying, but the underlying structure is telling a different story—this round is not a one-sided crash, but a volatile market repeatedly harvesting high leverage. I've long since used up my bullets and thus avoided this sharp drop in global risk assets. But honestly, watching others get liquidated doesn't bring relief, it brings familiarity. For those with high leverage and large positions, BTC's 5,000-point swings are not a market, but torture. You can withstand direction, but not volatility. Emotionally, the market is no longer trading "up or down," but "who breaks first." With stronger-than-expected non-farm payrolls and rising bets on December rate hikes, these macro signals cause risk appetite to first contract then probe. BTC, as the leader of risk assets, loses its elasticity first; ETH and altcoins follow more slowly but fall more sharply. What is truly priced in advance is the expectation that "easing will return," not that "tightening has ended." The more bullish path is: the more thoroughly leverage is cleaned out, the lighter the subsequent rebound. Liquidation waves often mark emotional bottoms in phases, not tops. But the risk is clear—if macro pressure continues, capital preference will shift from "daring to bet" back to "survival mode," and altcoin rotations will become shorter and more superficial, making it easy for those chasing to get caught in a trap #伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 As of the end of June 2026, Berkshire's cash and U.S. Treasury securities totaled approximately $364.7 billion, with Visible Alpha estimating a decline to about $358 billion by the end of Q3. This remains at historically very high levels. An intriguing market observation is that Berkshire's cash reserves essentially represent the "smart money's fear index"—the more cash held, the more patient capital believes there are no bargains currently.
This signal is significantly amplified at the current moment. On November 5-6, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 12% in a single day, Bitcoin simultaneously fell below $76,000, and the crypto market along with AI tech stocks showed a highly correlated "risk asset resonance purge." Meanwhile, Berkshire's stock price hit a record high during the same period, with funds flowing into this "one of the strongest balance sheets in the U.S." seeking a safe haven. Against this contrast, the cash movements disclosed in Berkshire's earnings report directly provide pricing clues to the question of "whether the market has already fallen to an attractive level."
After Buffett steps down as CEO and becomes chairman in 2026, he reiterated his skeptical stance on Bitcoin, clearly stating that Berkshire "has no intention of holding any position in any cryptocurrency." The new CEO, Greg Abel, maintains this avoidance posture; Berkshire does not hold Bitcoin, spot Bitcoin ETFs, or any digital assets.A net inflow of 1,308.74 BTC, coupled with a sharp 79.46% drop in liquidation volume, only makes sense when these numbers are considered together. But is this really a return of buying pressure, or just the calm after leverage has been cleaned out? I was a bit stunned when I reviewed this data yesterday. A 24-hour net inflow of 1,308.74 BTC represents a 194.98% surge compared to the previous day and a 256.43% increase from seven days ago. Meanwhile, BTC liquidation volume has dropped to about $41.64 million across 3,152 orders, nearly an 80% decrease from the day before. With inflows expanding and liquidations plummeting, these two signals appearing simultaneously suggest the market is not necessarily "more optimistic," but rather "lighter." From a risk management perspective, the sharp drop in liquidations means high-leverage positions have been cleared, leaving holders with more stable cost bases and naturally reducing short-term passive selling pressure. The bullish path is clear: reduced floating supply and loosened selling pressure above. As long as spot buying continues, BTC is likely to move more smoothly, and sentiment for ETH and altcoins will also ease, creating fertile ground for risk appetite to expand. However, the risk is precisely hidden in this "calm." The net inflow data comes from a 24-hour rolling window of fund distribution and does not equate to actual position building by a single exchange or institution, so its reference value should be discounted. More importantly, the calm after leverage is cleared is often temporary; once prices accelerate again, new high leverage will quickly accumulate, making liquidation volatility even greater. The sentiment indicator currently hovering at zero also shows the market has not given a clear direction and is just temporarily holding back. My own Wall Street just changed its stance; the single-day data did indeed reverse, but there is still a gap between "one day turning positive" and a "trend reversal."
When this set of data is compared over a longer period, its quality is discounted.
$BTC: Reference price around 84500, it has the most solid capital support among the three. 85000 remains a clear resistance; whether it holds above this level is more worth watching than how much inflow there is. If it holds, look toward 86000; if it doesn't, a pullback is possible.
$ETH: A single-day inflow of 29.4 million is good, but the monthly chart's bleeding hasn't changed just because of one day turning positive. Whether 2500 can hold is more valuable as a reference than the single-day data.
$SOL: Reference price near 108.4, ETF turned positive in one day; if it can't break through around 110, the bulls who chased in will feel more discomfort than the institutions.
On the macro level, the Federal Reserve's October 28 interest rate decision has been finalized, maintaining rates at 3.75%–4%, basically in line with previous market expectations. After the result, whether funds continue to test or truly increase their positions, the continuity over the next few days carries more information than a single-day reversal.
No guessing the direction, just see who can hold the money for more than three consecutive days.
Are you more focused on BTC's test of 85000 or ETH's defensive quality around 2500? Let's discuss in the comments.
For record-keeping only, not investment advice.
#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 After reading, I noted three things. 1. The current long-to-short ratio of OKEx $BTC contracts is 2.98, compared to 2.96 24 hours ago; meaning for every 1 short account, there are 2.98 long accounts. My judgment is: it can indicate sentiment bias, but judging market direction solely based on this 0.02 change is overestimating it.
2. This ratio only counts accounts, not position sizes. If most long accounts have small positions while short accounts hold large positions, then "more people going long" cannot be directly interpreted as "stronger long capital"; when I see a number close to 3, I remind myself not to confuse the number of people with the amount of capital.
3. The data updates hourly, and focusing on small changes like 2.96 to 2.98 easily leads me to imagine a new signal; a higher ratio also means long accounts are more concentrated. I include it in my sentiment checklist, especially watching for the possibility of the market moving opposite when readings are extreme, rather than using it to draw conclusions.
My checklist conclusion: remember which side the crowd is on, but don’t treat the number of people on each side as the directional answer. What would you add as a fourth point: when looking at the long-to-short ratio, which data do you most want to cross-check to avoid misinterpretation? Bitcoin and Ethereum Dilemma: Chips Have Cleared, but Sentiment Has Not
$BTC is repeatedly tugging between $75,000 and $78,000, while $ETH is consolidating narrowly around $2,200 to $2,300. In October, BTC fell 7.3%, ETH dropped 16%, and market breadth sharply contracted. On the surface, prices are stuck, but the root cause lies in the capital structure—both BTC and ETH spot ETFs are seeing net outflows, with ETH bleeding $1.6 billion in a single month, as institutional demand tactically retreats.
More subtly, the total open interest in the market has been compressed to a 12-month low, with leverage basically cleared out, yet the perpetual funding rate remains positive. This means chips have cleared, but the bulls unwilling to admit defeat are still paying to hold their "long" positions. The market is like a crowded room where no one wants to leave first, but no one dares to add more.
10x Research's judgment is: BTC may still reach $90,000 by year-end, but only after first dropping to $77,000–$79,000 to complete the final shakeout, and ETH will underperform BTC—value continues to flow to Layer 2, and ETH holders are not receiving sufficient returns. The key signal triggering a turning point is not a new price low, but a shift of the funding rate to negative. That would mean the bulls truly give up and the bottom structure is established. Before that, any rebound is just a correction, not a reversal.
In short: the drop isn't deep because no one dares to sell hard, and the rise stalls because no one wants to chase. When the funding rate turns negative, only then can the bottom be considered truly set.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 The real liquidation line for 100x leverage is not -1%, but about -0.5% — this figure causes most people's risk models to be wrong from the start. The maintenance margin rate for $BTC is about 0.4%-0.5%, and with opening and closing fees, the price only needs to move against you by half a percentage point for the position to be forcibly liquidated. The same applies to 20x leverage: you might think you can withstand -5%, but the actual tolerance is only about -4.5%. Leverage never gives you "greater tolerance," but a much narrower lifeline than you imagine. What really kills accounts is often not the market, but three hidden expenses. The first is fees: each trade uses 10% of principal with 10x leverage, so the nominal position equals the entire principal, with a one-way fee rate of 0.05%, meaning opening and closing cost 0.1%; with two trades per day and 250 trading days a year, fees alone consume about 50% of capital. Before the market even moves, the exchange has already taken half. The second is the funding rate. At 0.01% every 8 hours, three times a day, about 11% annually. This means holding long positions in perpetual contracts like $BTC and $ETH is equivalent to paying an 11% "holding tax" per year — even if the price is flat, the account still shrinks. The third is the most hidden: unrealized profit averaging up your position price. Buying 10U, then adding the same amount at 20U raises the average price to 15U; the price only needs to fall 25% for your unrealized profit to turn into unrealized loss. Adding to positions amplifies both gains and costs, and is never a free amplifier. Looking at these three together, the conclusion is quite counterintuitive I carefully reviewed the trump card of this top Hyperliquid short whale (0x5b...c060) and was deeply impressed. $BTC $ETH $SNDK
Currently, he holds up to $620 million in perpetual short positions, heavily shorting BTC (average price $76,390), ETH ($2,322), and SOL. His total profit has astonishingly reached +$220 million, with nearly $42.44 million earned in just the past 7 days.
But what shocked me the most was his resilience. The profit and loss curve shows that he was once deeply stuck in nearly $200 million of unrealized losses. He was not shaken out but relied on his massive capital base, using a 5-7x full-position strategy to tough it out. The extremely distant liquidation price made him fearless of short-term spikes, and he continuously harvested tens of millions in funding fees paid by longs.
In my view, his strategy is extremely clear: large capital, low leverage, high tolerance for risk. He does not engage in short-term speculation but precisely positions at high levels, firmly believing in the macro downtrend. This is a victory "endured" with real money. For me, this not only reminds me not to blindly imitate whales holding positions but also confirms that mainstream assets still face huge downward pressure. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 📊 Berkshire's Q3 Earnings: The "Silent Deterrent" of $358 Billion in Cash
👉 Key Data: Q3 revenue expected around $97.3 billion, up 2.5% year-over-year; EPS expected at $5.91, down 5.6% year-over-year. Insurance underwriting is a weak spot—FactSet forecasts underwriting profit to plunge 54% year-over-year to $1.47 billion, with ongoing competitive pressure on GEICO. The market is focused not on profits but on cash: $365.5 billion at the end of June, with Visible Alpha expecting a drop to $358 billion by the end of September.
🗣️ Abel has taken action, but not in the crypto space
The cash decline is not a bet on risk assets but Abel spending money. In Q2, $4.5 billion was repurchased at an average price of $487.98; net stock purchases were about $20 billion, including a $10 billion AI bet on Alphabet, but Google's stock price is now over 20% below the purchase price, showing an unrealized loss. In July, a $6.8 billion acquisition of Taylor Morrison was completed. These three paths simultaneously consume the stockpile, marking a shift in capital allocation style in the "Abel era." Family, the most interesting part of liquidation data is not the total amount, but the cycle reversal
As of 04:43 UTC on November 7, the visible liquidation panels on Binance, Bybit, and OKX show: about $1 million in the last hour, longs 55.1%; $11.21 million in 4 hours, longs 79.2%; $27.15 million in 12 hours, longs 64.3%; $117.4 million in 24 hours, longs 65.6%. OKX only samples partially, this is not the full market total.
In the short term, long and short liquidations are close in the last hour, but in 4 hours there is a clear liquidation of longs. Recent selling pressure may have weakened, but it cannot be said that the bulls are safe; reduced liquidation may also just mean the price is temporarily holding.
OKX's $BTC contract snapshot at 05:19 UTC: price about 75,898, up slightly 0.28% in 24 hours, OI about $2.623 billion, down 1.66% in 24 hours. Price stabilization and reduced positions look more like a breather after deleveraging, not a full entry of new bulls.
I will first watch if OI can stop falling, then see if spot trading can take over. Do you think liquidation is over, or just a temporary breather?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% #BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 $LRCX
$25 billion buyback authorization, how much support can it give Lam Research?
Lam Research approved an additional $25 billion buyback authorization on November 5. The announcement also clarified: the plan has no expiration date and does not require the company to purchase any specific amount of shares.
The authorization expresses capital allocation intent; what truly affects the value per share are the purchase price, execution speed, and sustained free cash flow. The total amount should not be directly regarded as funds about to be deployed.
I will watch the actual buybacks and net share changes going forward. If operating cash flow is stable and buybacks effectively reduce shares, the support is more solid; if equipment demand weakens or new incentives offset buybacks, the authorization itself is unlikely to reverse the profit cycle.[Brent Crude Falls 13% in a Week, but the Strait of Hormuz Has Yet to Truly Reopen]
On November 6 (Eastern US time), the US military struck Iran again, targeting Qeshm Island near the Strait of Hormuz. Qatar proposed a temporary plan attempting to exchange lifting the blockade and releasing some of Iran's frozen assets for Iran reopening the strait, but significant differences remain between the two sides.
Oil prices have already priced in a scenario of easing tensions: Brent crude $BZ closed at $98.32 on November 6, down about 13% for the week. However, Gulf crude and refined product exports in October still averaged only 17.1 million barrels per day, about three-quarters of pre-war levels. The market is trading on expectations of successful negotiations, but actual transport recovery is clearly lagging.
The reopening of the strait is not just about the two sides sitting down to talk; it also depends on whether commercial ships can pass safely and whether insurance and shipping companies are willing to resume operations. This is currently the biggest contradiction. The limited US military strikes indicate that military pressure remains, and oil prices may continue to be pulled back and forth in the short term by negotiation news and attacks on ships. The real sign of cooling tensions is not another round of talks but the stable resumption of oil tanker passage.
#美军再度打击伊朗，霍尔木兹海峡重开仍存分歧 To pour some cold water first, I don't directly count locked-up growth as a strengthening of the lending sector. According to DefiLlama data, Aave V4 currently has a TVL of about $807 million, increasing about 20.7% in a week and 4.7% in a single day. The numbers look quite impressive, but that doesn't necessarily mean the lending business is doing better.
I'm stuck on two points: TVL is measured in USD, so token price increases can also raise the figure, which can't be fully regarded as new deposits; the money deposited may not necessarily be borrowed. If supply increases but borrowing demand doesn't keep up, then an expansion in scale doesn't mean improved capital utilization efficiency. The latter point is my inference since this information lacks borrowing data.
Those optimistic might also be right—capital expansion can be a prelude to demand activation. If subsequent borrowing scale grows in sync and utilization remains stable, I would change my cautious stance. What I'll be watching next is whether the money is actually being used, not just the increase on the locked-up rankings.The progress of the CLARITY Act has been hindered, which makes me more concerned about one question: How much constraint is the crypto industry willing to accept for a set of stable rules?
Previous controversies have extended to issues such as government officials' crypto interests and ethical restrictions. The industry hopes to quickly determine how business can operate, while lawmakers still need to consider conflicts of interest and political responsibility. Summarizing all these differences as "some people don't understand crypto" cannot explain why the bill has been stuck for so long.
Meanwhile, the SEC and CFTC continue to work within their existing legal authority. It must be clear here: the failure of the congressional bill does not automatically grant any agency unlimited new powers. Agencies can interpret, propose, and formulate rules, but their legal basis may also be challenged.
My dissatisfaction with this situation is very specific. Companies may invest resources based on one interpretation, only to have to adapt to another interpretation years later. Large companies have budgets to continuously cope, but small teams find it more difficult, which may ultimately affect product choices and competition.
Of course, stable rules also mean clearer boundaries, and some businesses that were previously handled ambiguously may not be able to continue as before. I would rather see all parties openly discuss the conditions they can accept. The industry must strive for space for long-term development and seriously address issues such as user protection, disclosure of interests, and responsibility attribution.
#美国加密监管：《CLARITY法案》推进受阻，401(k)规则进入最终审查 The cross-border payment sector is undergoing a profound transformation. Although blockchain technology has driven the cost of cross-border fund transfers to the extreme, the real battleground has shifted to deposit and withdrawal channels, compliance networks, and value-added services. Recently, PhotonPay, headquartered in Hong Kong, completed a $40 million Series C funding round led by Blockchain Capital, once again confirming the capital market's fervent demand for payment infrastructure capable of capturing real fees and earning interest spreads on settled funds. The Illusion of Cheap Transfers Stablecoins seem to be the savior of cross-border payments: IMF data shows that the average cost of remitting $200 via stablecoins is only about 1%, compared to 5.8% through traditional methods. However, the blockchain network itself consumes only 0.4% of the transfer amount; the bulk of the fees are consumed in the deposit and withdrawal stages. Tests by the Bank of Italy also show that USDC outperforms Wise on only 3 out of 7 routes, with total costs fluctuating sharply between 0.30% and 9%. This means that the transfer itself is becoming a no-premium public pipeline, with value lying in its surrounding service ecosystem. The Hestart Risk and the Rise of Payment Platforms The 1974 collapse of Hestart Bank revealed the inherent risks of cross-border settlement. Today, platforms like Wise and PhotonPay are disrupting the traditional correspondent banking system by pre-funding local accounts and building compliance networks. PhotonPay holds 34 financial licenses, with an annual transaction volume of $65 billion, providing virtual cards, multi-currency accounts, and settlement services to over 200,000 overseas merchants.🚨 DeFi is starting to compete on cash flow! Who among AAVE, UNI, and OP will be the first to turn technology into revenue?
The market is being driven by "collaborations" and "upgrades," but what’s worth following is whether the protocols have users and if the fees are sustainable.
① AAVE: On November 2, Aave Labs' monthly report revealed that V4 deposits surpassed $1.5 billion, with active borrowings exceeding $450 million, and the first batch of external curated markets went live. This is product progress but does not mean AAVE token holders receive direct dividends. Next, watch borrowing utilization, bad debts, and net income; if funds are only coming as subsidies, growth may not be solid.
② UNI: On October 22, Uniswap announced the launch of aggregated Hooks, initially integrating 7 external liquidity sources covering Ethereum, Base, and Robinhood Chain. The new routing can contribute protocol fees and UNI burns, but the real routing volume and burn speed need to be observed. The risk is fierce aggregation competition, which may divert trades.
③ OP: On October 9, Uniswap announced Unichain’s shift to OP Enterprise, with the mainnet migration planned for October 29, aiming to prepare for native interoperability of OP Stack. Plans do not mean interoperability features are fully implemented; focus on operational status, cross-chain activity, and sequencer revenue. Ecosystem expansion does not guarantee benefits for OP tokens.
My view: The winning factor in DeFi is not the PPT but sustainable fees and value capture. Who do you favor more? 🔍"Strengthening RWA tokenization regulation," what caught my eye is this specific mention: Since the improvement of the virtual currency regulatory policy framework has been proposed, why single out RWA? The report also involves clues on underground money laundering and the normalization of "mining" crackdowns, but this news brief does not elaborate on RWA regulatory details, so let's not jump to conclusions yet.
An interesting detail here: emphasizing regulation does not mean issuing a business pass. What concerns me more is its constraint on narratives like "having physical assets means natural compliance." This is my speculation: if subsequent rules penetrate the underlying fund activities, then simply repackaging with RWA without changing the actual business model will hardly evade scrutiny by a new name.
I will continue to watch how the regulatory scope is defined, rather than guessing the rise or fall of the sector. What do you think is more likely to be clarified first: the boundaries on the issuance side or restrictions on the circulation side? Let's watch together and see whose speculation is closer.I don't currently consider this short position as following the trend — bearish is just a direction, and there must be evidence for a downward trend. I don't want to take someone else's bet as my own guide.
Core Trader 66 just opened a $NEAR short position with 10x leverage, nominal value about $100,000. My first rule for trends: look at price structure, not who placed the order. The data doesn't show a continuous movement, so based on this position alone, we can't judge if it's trend-following.
Second rule: distinguish between sentiment and direction. One wallet being bearish doesn't mean the whole market is bearish; if the price is still making higher lows, shorting goes against the structure. Third rule: besides direction, consider error tolerance. With 10x leverage, a roughly 1% adverse move corresponds to about a 10% loss of initial margin, excluding fees, so waiting for confirmation also has a cost.
The trend is the best friend; I'd rather wait for a clear structure. Facing this short position, do you all now judge the trend by moving averages, previous highs and lows, or volume? I still prefer the high-low structure.【ETF Withdrawals Exceed $1.2 Billion, Yet Strive Bought 15,000 $BTC in One Month】
The outflow of funds from U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs is accelerating. According to Farside data, as of November 5, the cumulative net outflow for the year was about $416 million, with an additional $412 million outflow on November 6 alone. Over the recent five trading days, the total outflow reached approximately $1.282 billion. $BTC fell below $75,000, with ETF redemptions and market selling pressure resonating.
On the other hand, Strive increased its holdings by 15,124 BTC from October 1 to 30, bringing its total holdings to 43,124 BTC. The corporate reserve strategy has not stopped; there are still long-term buyers willing to continuously allocate Bitcoin in the market.
However, these two types of funds cannot simply offset each other. ETFs represent the inflows and outflows of a broader investor base, while corporate accumulation often relies on financing and their own balance sheets, with buying rhythms more concentrated. The current issue is not whether there are buyers, but whether a few large corporate buyers can absorb the continuous outflows from ETFs. The short-term liquidity is clearly bearish; the real turning signal will be a sustained net inflow in ETFs again.
#BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 First, consider the worst-case scenario: if the strategy fails and the co-investment funds withdraw en masse, my concern is the compounded pressure of drawdown and exit. This is my risk analysis, not a statement that it has already happened.
According to the official announcement from OneBullEx, their Spartans strategy ecosystem has launched a co-investment plan. In Q4, the co-investment fund pool is 2 million USDT, with a maximum co-investment of 1 million USDT per single strategy platform. When I see such news, I habitually separate the "maximum limit" from the "actual investment."
⚠️ My judgment is that the scale of co-investment is not evidence of the strategy's safety. The limit does not mean the funds have been received, so it cannot be used to judge actual financial support; the platform's willingness to co-invest cannot replace testing the strategy's drawdown; if funds are concentrated in similar strategies, the seemingly diversified risk may be exposed simultaneously.
A risk control task ordinary people can do is to first write down the maximum single loss they can bear, then look at the promotional numbers. I will continue to pay attention to actual investment and risk constraints, rather than just remembering the limits. Liquidations are nearly balanced in the last hour, but bulls are still holding on over 24 hours
As of November 7, 04:51 UTC, Binance and Bybit liquidated $112.97 million in the past 24 hours, with longs at $75.27 million and shorts at $37.71 million, bulls accounting for 66.6%. Breaking it down, in the last 4 hours longs were $7.84 million, shorts $2.55 million; in the last hour longs were $508,000, shorts $467,000, nearly balanced.
This is not a "shorts counterattack." The one-hour data only shows recent liquidation balance between both sides; the 4-hour and 24-hour data still show greater bullish pressure. Note that this panel also includes stocks and ETF perpetuals, so the total amount should not be considered entirely as crypto liquidations.
On the same page, the open interest (OI) for $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL is about $5.34 billion, $1.76 billion, and $539.7 million respectively; in another full market snapshot, their daily OI changes are -0.8%, -0.2%, and -1.0%. Prices have stabilized but OI has not expanded, more like a breather after deleveraging.
I won’t chase longs just because the last hour is balanced. We still need to see if spot trading volume can pick up and if OI can stop falling. Do you think this is the end of liquidations or a continuation of the downtrend?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% #BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 Conclusion first: The joint venture OKXICE between OKX and NYSE parent company ICE was blocked before it even opened. Of the 63 US stock targets proposed in early October, 57 have been officially opposed by issuers, over 90%; 67 opponents include Apple, Meta, Nvidia, Microsoft, Amazon, and Tesla.
The remaining 6 not opposed are all insiders from the crypto circle: Strategy, Coinbase, Robinhood, Circle, Securitize, BitGo. But no opposition does not mean support, and the launch date has not been announced.
The second barrier is liquidity. Dune data shows that the existing 5,484 tokenized US stock pools have a total of only $69 million, with a median of $92 per pool, and 78 pools account for 81%. OKXICE does not provide liquidity and relies on external market makers to deposit assets into XLayer's Uniswap v4 pools.
This is directly related to the wallet. $HOOD is on the survivor list; after last night's election, Bitcoin retreated, and the underlying stock fell 10.3% in one day. The $HOOD perpetual on OKX has no spot pair, with 24-hour trading volume about $3.2 million and open interest about $2.7 million, almost 1:1 — such depth only allows small positions for quick in-and-out trades.
Is the issuer's resistance to protect the price or liquidity? $HOOD