Orbit Post Sitemap
Stop obsessing over the K-line charts. I just checked last night's spot ETF data, and honestly, I feel worried for the brothers blindly rushing in. The moves from these traditional institutional funds are completely different from what we retail investors think!
First, look at the $BTC ETF: yesterday saw a net inflow of $3.05 million. Don't think it's small—remember, there were continuous large outflows in the past few days, with over $70 million dumped on the 22nd. This slight inflow now indicates traditional funds are tentatively buying at the 80,000 level, but they're still very cautious and haven't made big moves.
Next, the $ETH ETF barely had an inflow of $14,200 yesterday. But looking at the previous days, on the 22nd and 26th, there were outflows of three to four million. Big institutions like Grayscale and BlackRock are clearly still watching and haven't decisively stepped in to support the price.
The worst is the $SOL ETF, which had an outflow of $190,000 yesterday. It has been steadily bleeding out in recent days. Institutional funds are not buying at all. The 100 mark is now being held up only by retail investors heavily leveraged in contracts. If spot inflows don't come, once it breaks down, a chain of liquidations will be ugly.
To sum up, the current ETF market shows BTC stabilizing, ETH on the sidelines, and SOL continuing to bleed out. Retail investors are frantically bottom-fishing with leverage in contracts, while institutions watch coldly from outside the ETF market. Don't open positions blindly. Wait until institutions put real money in with volume before making a move. For now, just observe.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 🚨 Michael Burry's warning about the real estate market seems increasingly worth paying attention to.
The latest data shows that foreclosure pressure on U.S. homes is rising:
Foreclosure inventory up 37% year-over-year
Completed foreclosure sales up 15%
Loans overdue by more than 90 days up 21% year-over-year
A few months ago, Burry already indicated that the U.S. real estate market was starting to loosen, and home prices might already be falling.
If these pressures continue to expand, the real estate market could face greater challenges.
But note, rising foreclosure data does not necessarily mean a repeat of the 2008 financial crisis.
What deserves more attention next are employment, credit quality, and home price trends.
Macroeconomic risks cannot be ignored, and risk assets like $BTC may also be affected by changes in liquidity.Market Watch: Detailed Differentiation Between Gains and Losses
$BEAT reported at 0.07229, up 8.5% in 24 hours, showing a truly outstanding price performance. However, the contract data doesn't quite align — open interest by coin count shrank about 2.4% within a six-hour window. The price increase is valid, but the contract volume hasn't kept pace, indicating this rally may not be driven by new positions. The strength is acknowledged, but the narrative of "contracts continuously entering" currently lacks evidence; existing data cannot clarify which type of traders are driving the momentum.
$ETH reported at 2313.97, down 0.9% in 24 hours. It briefly rebounded above 2330 during the session, then retreated back near the starting point, erasing the earlier gain from 2318. The recovery process remains volatile; a single push up doesn't guarantee stability. The short-term smoothness is discounted; the rebound is worth noting, but the pullback must also be accounted for — we can't just pick the favorable half.
$XRP reported at 1.294, nearly flat in 24 hours. The absolute price didn't move, but measured in ETH it rose about 0.8% — the difference comes from the comparison benchmark, not from its own strength. This relative advantage can be credited, but only for the current window; it doesn't amount to a strong rally, nor is there a need to fabricate an additional capital story to support it.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 2. My subjective judgment: What will be the final Normalized EPS recorded by Seeking Alpha?
Given the premise that the current net profit is significantly lower than the original estimate:
👉 I estimate the actual Normalized EPS to be in the range of $6.00–$6.22, closer to around $6.10.
3. Probability of > $6.25 (purely subjective probability, for speculative reference only, not an exact model)
✅ Probability of greater than $6.25 (Yes): about 20%
❌ Probability of ≤ $6.25 (No): about 80%
Why not fifty-fifty?
Positive factors (supporting surpassing $6.25):
1. Revenue and operating profit exceed expectations, HBM structure is very good;
2. Exchange rates and adjustments (items excluded in normalized) may raise adjusted profit.
Negative factors (suppressing, also the core reason I assign a low probability):
1. Original net profit of 39.78 trillion KRW, significantly lower than the previously assumed nearly 60 trillion by the market, a much weaker base;
2. Many analysts’ baseline expectations are themselves 6.15/6.25, already hovering near the threshold;
3. The rule requires strictly greater than 6.25, equality does not count as Yes, further compressing the Yes space. Looking at the risk-reward structure of this, the key is who the new demand belongs to, not who shouts the loudest. U.S. Treasury Secretary Bessent stated at the Ripple Swell conference that digital assets can consolidate the global dominance of the U.S. dollar; over 90% of stablecoins are backed by the dollar, and issuers often hold U.S. Treasury bonds as reserves.
My judgment: This increases the likelihood that dollar stablecoins will be promoted as financial infrastructure, and the actual implementation of payments is more worthy of study than conceptual premiums. My speculation is that if stablecoins can truly open new global markets, settlement services may gain new demand, and the demand for U.S. Treasury reserves may also grow with adoption. But increased usage does not mean the related tokens will receive revenue; there is still a value capture mechanism in between.
For me, only with real usage and clear attribution of revenue is it worth continuing to calculate expectations; with only policy narratives, no matter how tempting the odds are, it is difficult to evaluate. Looking at the stablecoin sector, do people value the success rate of payment implementation more, or the odds of the related asset's imagination space?I look at the on-chain positions of stocks mapped to assets like this, and I usually place them within the framework of liquidity and risk appetite first, rather than directly guessing whether the company is good or bad. This time, Core Trader 31 opened a new $NVDA short position, using 20x leverage, with a nominal value of about $100,000.
My inclination is: this looks more like a tactical bet that needs to be observed for follow-up, not enough to indicate a broad shift to defense by large funds. The amount can indicate the risk exposure of this trade, but it cannot vote for the entire market; and looking at a single wallet alone, it’s impossible to tell if it’s hedging long positions elsewhere.
If the macro liquidity outlook tightens and the risk funds are willing to take decreases, then the valuation of high-expectation assets may come under pressure, and this short position would have the wind at its back. This is just my inference; the material does not provide evidence that macro conditions have already changed. Conversely, if risk appetite remains strong, then 20x leverage will make waiting expensive: a price move of about 5% in the opposite direction could theoretically wipe out an amount equivalent to the initial margin, and actual forced liquidation is also affected by margin models and other conditions.
I wouldn’t interpret high leverage as greater conviction; I’m more interested in observing whether broader, sustained defensive behavior emerges afterward. For me, a single address is a clue; whether capital behavior can resonate broadly is the key to judging risk appetite.On Tuesday, US stocks and BTC rebounded together, led by technology and chips, while oil prices fell for two consecutive days, and AI sentiment also recovered a bit. After Monday's close, Bank of America, Citibank, Morgan Stanley, and Blackstone raised $63 billion, buying Broadcom chips and network equipment and leasing them to Anthropic, finally giving the market a glimpse of hope for AI fundraising.
But inflationary pressure remains: the 10-year US Treasury yield is still near 5%, and although oil prices have retreated, regular gasoline in the US only dropped by a little over one cent per week, while highway diesel rose to $6.35 per gallon, more than $2.6 higher than last year, making it difficult to reduce freight and business costs.
The Federal Reserve meeting is early Thursday morning; the market expects no rate hike, but high oil prices and soaring inflation make it hard for Chair Powell to be dovish, and even without a rate hike, there could be a heavy hit; core PCE on Thursday night is likely to rise, making a rate hike in December almost inevitable.
$BTC remains strong, back above 80,000. Those worried about confidence before the rate decision and PCE this week and want to be cautious can trade below 78,000. If BTC can hold steady above 80,000 after this week, then switch to a more aggressive stance.Three days of narrow-range grinding, the real answer comes early Thursday morning⏳
$BTC is hovering around 80,000, ETH around 2300, SOL near 101, back and forth for the third day, the range narrowing more and more, the market feels muted🔇. Don’t really fall asleep though, money never rests.
$ETH current price 2327, with 10.86 million short orders hanging at 2345 above, just one breath away; BTC above 80,000, 24.1 million held down at 81,400. Not empty below either: ETH has a string of long orders at 2245, 2240, 2222, BTC is supported layer by layer at 79,200, 79,000, 78,200. Capped above, supported below, price stuck in the middle, neither bulls nor bears showing their cards first🃏.
This quietness feels more like holding breath. No visible volatility on the surface, but both sides are gathering strength, waiting for the Fed to give direction at 2 AM Thursday🧭.
Retail investors fear this moment the most: either guessing direction and opening positions early, or thinking “three days sideways, it won’t drop” and heavily betting on one side. If it really won’t drop, why are those tens of millions of long orders below piling up thicker? Once broken through, it could trigger a chain reaction, queueing downwards💥.
The longer the sideways, the stronger the move once direction emerges. Before it lands, don’t shoot all your bullets for either side first🔋. #美伊讨论霍尔木兹开放方案，油价回落 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ 3E; Brokers previously downgraded Q3 profit forecasts mainly because the certification of Nvidia's new generation chips was delayed, dragging down the shipment pace of HBM4.
2. HBM4 itself is a super high gross margin product; once volume scales up, its elasticity is very strong. The unit price of HBM4 is significantly higher than HBM3E, with a gross margin of 70%–80%, making it SK Hynix's most profitable product; the company guides that by Q4 2026, HBM4 shipments and revenue scale will surpass HBM3E, with Q4 being the turning point for HBM4's profit contribution.
3. Q3 profits mainly rely on existing HBM3E stock plus server DDR5 price increases; HBM4 is more driven by expected valuation rather than current performance.
II. Positive factors: The long-term profit logic of HBM4
- Performance and orders: HBM4 meets Nvidia's new generation GPU demands and has signed long-term supply agreements with multiple leading AI customers, locking in capacity for the next 2–3 years. The product commands a clear premium, with significant price increase potential compared to HBM3E.
- Yield improvement: Management states that HBM4 yield is already close to the mature HBM3E. As capacity ramps up, unit manufacturing costs continue to decline, and once scaled, profit margins will further improve.
- Complete product lineup: HBM4E samples have been delivered, and the next-generation IHBM self-developed packaging is progressing simultaneously, maintaining HBM technology barriers and consolidating share advantages in Nvidia's supply chain. Bitcoin's security budget is being gradually torn apart by reality
In October 2026, Bitcoin's price hovered around $80,000, while the total network hashrate climbed back above 1 ZH/s (approximately 1070–1090 EH/s). On the surface, the network looks "very secure." But the miners' ledgers are looking increasingly grim.
How tough is it for miners right now?
The current hash price has returned to the $36–37 per PH/day range. Difficulty was just adjusted up by 5.92% on October 16, reaching 140.58T, and the next adjustment (expected around October 29) will likely increase by another 5–6.5%. Transaction fees? They have long accounted for about 0.5% of miners' total revenue, almost negligible.
In plain terms: miners' daily earnings almost entirely depend on the 3.125 BTC block subsidy. After deducting electricity, maintenance, and equipment depreciation, many older mining rigs are hovering around breakeven. Some publicly listed mining companies have shifted their facilities and power to AI computing, while small and medium miners are gritting their teeth to hold on. Although hashrate has returned, the profit margin behind it is being squeezed by both difficulty and electricity costs.
This is the most realistic pressure miners face today—not a lack of hashrate, but insufficient "secure wages."
What are mining pools competing for?
The leading mining pool landscape is very clear: Foundry USA firmly holds first place (about 26–27%), followed closely by AntPool and F2Pool. Together, these three often control over 60% of $BTC. To pour some cold water first, automatic refunds do not mean that the risks of the prediction market have been cleared. According to The Defiant, Myriad Markets' internal admin wallet used for automatically creating and adjudicating some markets was hacked. On October 26, the attacker manipulated the results of 10 prediction markets and claimed the rewards. The platform revoked these 10 markets, and affected users will receive automatic refunds. My bearish stance is on the speed of trust restoration after such incidents, not on the prediction market direction itself.
I have two reasons. The refund only deals with the affected funds and does not directly address why the adjudication mechanism could be rewritten by a compromised wallet; if the permission risk is not isolated, similar concerns will not disappear with refunds. The other reason is that these markets involved hot topics like the OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs, Base token issuance, and the US midterm elections. The hotter the topic, the easier it is for people to focus only on event probabilities and forget whether the platform can reliably settle. I think this is a layer of risk that participants tend to overlook.
But those optimistic might also be right: revoking markets and arranging refunds at least provide a clear direction for handling the situation. If we later see permission restrictions, adjudication constraints, and verifiable information that refunds have actually been completed, I will adjust my judgment and won’t nitpick just to be bearish. For now, I will focus on evidence of repair and not treat the refund arrangement as the end of the safety issue.U.S. stocks were again led by chips on Tuesday. According to the Associated Press closing numbers, the S&P rose 0.6% to 7722.60, marking two consecutive days of gains; the Nasdaq rose 1.18% to 26477.81.
The star was Broadcom. Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and Blackstone pooled $63 billion to set up a special purpose company to buy Broadcom's XPU chips and networking equipment, then lease them to Anthropic, with deliveries starting in 2027. Broadcom rose 4%, AMD rose 5.5%, and Micron rose 2.8%.
This deal needs a closer look. About $43.5 billion is senior first-lien debt arranged by the three major banks, with Blackstone providing the second lien. Broadcom must provide residual value support for this portion, meaning if the equipment loses value, Broadcom will cover the shortfall. The Wall Street Journal reported that in recent weeks some banks became increasingly hesitant, and Chen Fuyang agreed to increase interest and guarantees to close the deal.
So I have reservations about this rally. The chips have been sold, but the money is borrowed, and the risk ultimately circles back to Broadcom itself. Moody's put it politely: Broadcom is very stable, but doing too many of these transactions in a short time raises risk. Previously, with Apollo and Blackstone's $35 billion deal, Broadcom also covered up to $29 billion.
After hours, the market cooled down; NXP fell 9%, Seagate dropped 6% despite beating expectations, and Robinhood fell nearly 5%. The Federal Reserve will announce results at 2 a.m. Beijing time on Thursday, with CME giving about a 92% probability of no change, followed by earnings reports from Google and Microsoft.
Morgan Stanley's Mike Wilson said most of the pullback is over. Maybe, but I want to first see Google and Microsoft's spending guidance for next year. $MU $AMD $AVGO #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？
Wall Street previously predicted a $6.25 Normalized EPS, based on the premise that Q3 operating profit would be around 77 trillion KRW and net profit around 60 trillion KRW. Driven by the official volume release of HBM4 and price increases in server DDR5 and enterprise-level eSSD, Hynix's actual core business operating profit reached 83.33 trillion KRW. If calculated only by the normalized tax rate on core business operating profit, its real operating profitability firmly exceeds the $6.25 expectation.
In the previous quarter, Hynix recorded a huge fair value revaluation gain on its holding of Japanese flash memory giant Kioxia shares, resulting in a Q2 pre-tax profit of 122.71 trillion KRW and net profit of 93.92 trillion KRW. However, in the just-ended Q3, with the realization and settlement of Kioxia investment gains, changes in fair value of derivatives/exchangeable bonds, and non-operating income and expenses plus income tax deductions exceeding 40 trillion KRW, the net profit on the books directly fell back to 39.78 trillion KRW.
Final answer: EPS Miss, below expectations BTC quickly pulled back from 79,400 to above 81,000, but the push upward was not from new money.
1. What changed? On October 28, BTC reported 81,077, up 1.16% intraday. The anomaly: global open interest contracts decreased by 1.97% during the same period, and the funding rate was only 0.32 basis points, ranking at the 6.7th percentile over 90 days. Price is rising, leverage is falling.
2. Why is this worth noting? This rebound is short covering before the rate decision, not leveraged long positions adding. On the ETF side, only IBIT saw inflows of 122 million, while the other 11 had zero. Big money simply hasn't boarded.
3. Which market observation is more supported? It supports "defensive short covering before the rate decision" rather than a trend reversal. The macro driver comes from the overnight Nasdaq AI sector rebound, restoring risk appetite and transmitting to the crypto market.
Next, the focus is on whether the resistance zone of 82,000–83,000 can be broken through by spot buying volume after the FOMC announcement at 2 AM Beijing time tomorrow morning, and whether any ETF besides IBIT starts to follow the flow.
If only IBIT is buying, how far can this short covering go? Let's discuss in the comments. $BTC On the same day, the same batch of institutions only funded Bitcoin while withdrawing money from Ethereum.
1. What changed? On October 26, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $110.3 million, all from BlackRock IBIT. On the same day, Ethereum spot ETFs had a net outflow of $88.6 million, with a cumulative outflow of $1.26 billion in October, approaching the record for the largest single-month outflow.
2. Why is this noteworthy? The market cap of Ethereum ETFs is much smaller than Bitcoin's, yet the scale of capital outflow is nearly six times that of BTC ETFs. This is not a uniform withdrawal; institutions are making a choice between BTC and ETH.
3. Which market observation does this support more? It supports "defensive rotation" rather than a full exit. BTC's market share remains above 60%, while ETH has dropped to around 10.6%. The money hasn't left the crypto market; it has just moved from the highly volatile ETH to BTC.
Next, focus on whether ETH can hold the average on-chain cost line of $2,310, and after today's Federal Reserve decision, whether Ethereum ETF redemptions will accelerate or slow down.
If ETH breaks the cost line, will the rotation turn into a flight? Share your thoughts in the comments. $BTC 7 deep reviews, only 1 passed, but this one has an annualized 12%｜Airdrop Radar #010
7 deep reviews: 0 strongly recommended, 1 doable; the highest annualized return is from US stock preferred stock dividends, not stablecoin deposits.
🔥 Actions to take
1｜Tydro USDT0｜Week change on 10-28
Utilization estimated at 89.76%, only 0.24 points away from the 90% withdrawal line; withdraw if it crosses.
2｜eCash fork｜Around 10-30 04:00 Beijing Time (estimated)
You can only get ECX by putting BTC in a wallet where you control the private keys.
🧐 Deep review rankings
🟡 Saturn 70: Annualized 12.85%, underlying is Strategy preferred stock; centralized control, only small amounts placed
🔵 The other 5 range 47–59: Base has no promised tokens, Pareto can only redeem monthly, Flop Labs current network has no rewards, Sentora multisig can transfer assets away, Avant's income source is undisclosed
⚪ Marinade: Terms exclude Chinese users
🚨 Phishing traps
Two more fake accounts impersonating governance appeared; do not click if asked to connect wallet signature for voting; the Axis Season 2 entry with invitation code is not official.
💬 Where do you keep your stablecoins now? See you next Friday.
Not investment advice; items marked "estimated" are calculations.
#Airdrop #DeFi #Ethereum$IRYS
IRYS surged more than twentyfold in a week, then dropped by 90%. I searched through official channels—the latest blog post stopped at August 3rd, with no announcements throughout, and no one can clearly explain why it rose.
On OKX today, it’s down to only 0.023, dropping another 27% in 24 hours, with a low of 0.0228. Looking back, on the 23rd it peaked at 0.32, now it’s barely even a fraction of that.
The main battleground is South Korea; on Upbit and Bithumb, 24-hour trading volume hit the trillion KRW level on those days, making it the most active in all of Korea. The supply is also clean, with only 20% of the 10 billion tokens circulating outside; during the pump days, $24.2 million was liquidated, of which $21.4 million was short positions. Low circulation combined with shorts squeezed together means a short squeeze when it goes up, and no buyers when it crashes—both sides are risky.
Last week I watched it pump and even told people not to touch a rise without news, but it doubled again before crashing. The judgment was right, but the timing was off—this is what I’m best at.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 ⚠️ The shorts have just been collectively liquidated in a round, so don't rush to mistake the rebound for a reversal.
In the past 24 hours, the entire market saw about $130 million in liquidations, with 60% being shorts forcibly closed; looking at BTC alone, the proportion of shorts liquidated was as high as 77%. BTC pulled back from around 79,500 last night to near 80,900, and the Nasdaq also rose another 1.18%, with AI sentiment visibly warming up. But two pitfalls to note: ① ETF buying only returned $110 million (only IBIT acted on October 26), which can't make up for the cumulative outflow of 770 million on the 22nd and 23rd; a single day's inflow can't support a "new trend"; ② The Federal Reserve decision will be announced at 2 AM tomorrow, with 90% pricing in no change, the suspense lies in whether there will be a hike in December—the big volatility window is at dawn, not tonight.
My stance: short-term wait and see. The 24-hour high of 81,298 just hit the wall between 81,300-82,000, so don't chase longs before it stabilizes; below 80,000 is a cost-intensive zone for ETFs and institutions, breaking through would be a different scenario.
Tonight, will you get in before the decision, or wait for the news at dawn? Let's discuss in the comments.
$BTC $ETH
#欧意Orbit #BTC行情 #加密货币 #美联储决议
The above is my personal market observation, data as of today, not investment advice; crypto assets are highly volatile, please judge independently and bear your own risk (DYOR).$BTC
This morning I was still writing about Bitcoin holding 81,000, so I casually opened OKX and saw the latest spot price at 80,791, with a 24-hour low of 79,505. The numbers don’t match after just one night, which is more straightforward than any analysis.
This week it has fallen below 80,000 twice already; the last time was on the 23rd at 79,220, the lowest in five weeks. This morning it was just $300 short of that level, then bounced back to around 81,300 before someone started selling again, with the 24-hour high stopping at 81,298.
A few numbers beyond the price are even more worth watching. Coinbase premium has been negative for over a month, hitting -0.176% this morning, the lowest in five months, with no buying during the US session; Hyperliquid’s big whales have turned net short for the first time since March, and they were the most accurate buyers at the last bottom; Strategy’s SEC filings this week show they haven’t bought a single coin.
So my stance is: it looks more like a downward continuation than a shakeout before a takeoff. The 80,000 level loves to flip back and forth; I misjudged it once in a similar spot last week, and I admit when I’m wrong—I don’t stubbornly hold on.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 ZKZK (Zero-Knowledge Proof) technology is recognized as the ultimate form of L2. However, despite its technical superiority, it cannot hide a harsh reality: after token issuance, the value capture of tokens has almost entirely collapsed.
Comparing these three projects:
$STRK: A ZK veteran with strong technology, but on-chain revenue has dropped to a monthly average of $28,000 to $48,000. The token is mainly used for governance and staking. Recently, 25 million STRK tokens have flowed back into the ecosystem, but this is an ecosystem incentive rather than a direct buyback and burn. With massive unlocking, the price remains under long-term pressure, relying more on new narratives like "quantum resistance" to maintain attention.
$ZK: The founder proposed using all network revenue to buy back and burn ZK tokens, which is the right direction, but this mechanism has not yet become a verifiable, sustainable on-chain execution record. Until the proposal is fully implemented and generates substantial buy pressure, the token's value capture remains in a "transitional state."
$POL: Also part of the ZK family, but with clearer mechanism actions. Polygon has deployed a burn contract, with an initial one-time burn of 100 million POL tokens. Thereafter, the community can trigger burns quarterly, and since January 2026, POL has been in a deflationary state. Although the burn is actively managed rather than fully automatic, the supply contraction execution path is much clearer than pure governance tokens.
Summary:
STRK is "very low income, empowerment indirectly transmitted through ecosystem incentives"; ZK is "buyback proposal pending implementation, execution record pending verification"; POL is "burning is underway but manually triggered." The hot list still shows $35 billion, and Meta has already increased this round of issuance. The question now is not just how much money can be raised, but how much return the AI business needs to generate to make shareholders feel it’s worthwhile. According to the Meta pricing press release reprinted by Barchart, the common stock issuance has been increased from $22.5 billion to $25 billion, with a public offering price of $625 per share, combined with a forward sale agreement; another issuance is $12.5 billion representing mandatory convertible preferred equity depositary shares. The base size totals about $37.5 billion, excluding the underwriters’ additional purchase option. The $625 is the issuance price this time, not the real-time stock price at the time of the article’s release, and certainly not a guaranteed floor for future stock prices. The two issuances are expected to be completed on October 29, still subject to delivery conditions being met. It cannot be stated today that all funds have been received. Especially for the common stock portion, the company still expects not to receive funds initially from the forward purchaser’s sale, but to obtain funds when settling the forward agreement in the future. The completion of issuance and the company’s final receipt of the corresponding funds cannot be combined into the same point in time. Funds also have costs. The cumulative dividend rate on the preferred stock is 6.50% per year, with payment subject to specific terms and board declarations, payable in cash or qualifying shares; future conversion also affects the number of common shares. It is not a cost-free AI budget, nor can it be simply treated as ordinary bond interest. My judgment: the expanded financing indicates the company has increased its funding arrangements, but this alone does not prove that AI investment is necessarily worthwhile. Next, capital expenditures and operating cash flow should be considered Anthropic is rushing its IPO, and everyone is asking how high the valuation can be. I want to look at another matter first: if you buy common stock in the future, how much control will you actually have over the company? The company announcement confirmed that it has submitted an S-1, plans to list on Nasdaq under the ticker ANT, but the number of shares issued and the price range have not yet been determined. This discussion concerns the proposed listing structure and should not be understood as the company already being publicly traded. The SEC filing submitted on October 26 begins with a very special governance arrangement. The proposed Class A common stock carries one vote per share; however, the Long-Term Benefit Trust (LTBT) holds Class T shares, which typically have the right to elect and remove Class T directors, who will constitute the majority of the authorized seats on the board. The Class T shares themselves have no economic rights. On the other hand, the founder entity plans to hold one Class F share, which carries voting power equivalent to 50.1% of the total votes on matters submitted to shareholders, including the election of non-Class T directors. This Class F share also has no economic rights. The 50.1% voting power should not be misinterpreted as the founders holding 50.1% of the company's economic interests. This means that economic benefits distribution, voting participation, and board composition decisions are three separate matters that need to be understood independently. Class A shares are not without voting rights, but "one share, one vote" does not mean public shareholders can dominate the company's direction. My judgment: beyond valuation, governance arrangements should also be part of investors' evaluation. As a public-benefit company, Anthropic needs to balance shareholder interests, the interests of those affected by its actions, and its specific public-benefit mission. This does not automatically equate to poor returns Order Book Strength Ranking
5-minute median slippage, estimated by order book
$AKE Large buy order cost decreased, small buy orders almost unchanged. Simulated slippage for a 100,000 scale buy dropped from 1.54% to 1.39%. A 10,000 buy still around 0.18%. Order size can be increased, but still verified with the 100,000 level.
$IRYS After enlarging orders, slippage on both entry and exit sides increased significantly. Simulated slippage for 10,000 scale buy/sell is 0.13%/0.17%, and for 100,000 is 1.09%/0.83%. The sign of thin depth is synchronous rise on both sides.
$BTW Large buy order cost increased, small buy orders almost unchanged. Simulated slippage for a 100,000 scale buy rose from 0.56% to 0.69%. A 10,000 buy still about 0.11%. Depth is deteriorating, and similarly, the same order size is more expensive.Robinhood's Q3 report is out: revenue hit a record high, but earnings per share fell 16% year-over-year. Growth hasn't disappeared; the issue is how much of that growth ultimately benefits shareholders. The company's financial report released on October 27 (Eastern Time) shows Q3 net revenue of $1.424 billion, up 12% year-over-year; trading revenue was $867 million, up 19%. However, net profit attributable to Robinhood was $468 million, with diluted earnings per share of $0.51, compared to $0.61 in the same period last year. First, let's see who is making money. Options revenue was $399 million, up 31% year-over-year; event contract revenue was $173 million, more than six times that of the same period last year. Conversely, crypto revenue was only $120 million, down 55% year-over-year. Therefore, "trading business growth" does not mean every segment is growing, and crypto trading volume cannot directly substitute for the company's crypto revenue. Next, why didn't profits keep pace? Total operating expenses grew 16% year-over-year, faster than revenue growth; the company mentioned credit loss provisions from credit card business expansion, as well as investments in new businesses and growth. Additionally, this quarter's net profit includes about $67 million in unrealized losses, mainly from revaluation of the market value of its investment funds. These paper losses do not represent cash already paid out. Adjusted diluted earnings per share were $0.60, still down 3% year-over-year. This is a new non-GAAP metric introduced by the company this quarter, which can help break down the impacts but cannot replace the $0.51 figure to claim comprehensive profit improvement. My$BTC is slowly moving up around 80,824.4, with 24h short positions liquidated at 9.15 million USD, while long positions only 5.95 million USD, meaning the main losers are those chasing shorts. Sino-British trade contacts are just background noise for the coin price; without capital or policy implementation, the transmission chain is very long. What supports the price is the internal market structure: options open interest put/call ratio is 0.77, trading put/call ratio is 0.69, with bullish positions and trades dominating; DVOL is 37.5, indicating no one is willing to pay extra for large volatility. Contract open interest is 7.72 billion USD, the latest funding rate is 0.0054%, leverage is not crowded, and longs are not overheated. My judgment is that the short term will continue to operate in the upper half of the range, with a chance to test 81,270.6 again. The condition to turn bearish: price breaks below 79,468.3, while trading put/call rises above 0.77 and DVOL increases, indicating option funds start shifting to defense, at which point the bullish view is invalid.Negotiations are hopeful, and oil prices can fall first; but refineries truly getting cheaper oil still need to wait for transportation and costs to improve together. The news about Hormuz is the easiest to mistake "expectations improving" for "the problem being solved." Barchart's pre-market report on October 27 linked WTI weakness to hopes for US-Iran diplomatic easing and mentioned regional officials visiting Tehran for talks, with discussions continuing. This was the market report at that time and should not be taken as real-time quotes on October 28, nor should it be used to assert that an opening agreement has been reached. The discussion of "phased opening" is not new today. Reuters reported on September 24 about the idea of phased progress with measures such as restoring Hormuz navigation and lifting blockades, with one difficulty being who makes the first concession. The October 28 Discovery Alert analysis still lists the order of actions and mutual trust as obstacles. Therefore, the old plan being reconsidered and both sides signing and implementing a new agreement should be viewed separately. My judgment: the news first affects risk premiums; truly lowering transportation costs still requires passing three hurdles. First, see if verifiable measures and implementation timelines exist; then see if commercial vessels can pass safely and continuously, not just occasionally allowed; finally, see if insurance, waiting times, and freight rates improve simultaneously. For readers focused on US stocks and inflation, the third step is especially critical. A drop in oil price quotes does not necessarily immediately translate into lower corporate procurement costs; logistics recovery may also require shipowners and insurers to reassess risks. If formal measures begin to be implemented, navigation continues to recover, and transportation costs followSK Hynix has already submitted its report, and the "Earnings Report Coming Soon" on the trending list can be updated. The most striking figure is an 80% operating profit margin, but attributing the entire performance solely to HBM4 would miss important details. The company disclosed on October 28 that Q3 revenue was 104.6155 trillion KRW, and operating profit was 83.3338 trillion KRW, representing a 32% and 38% quarter-on-quarter increase respectively; the officially announced operating profit margin is 80%. This is based on operating profit, not net profit margin. HBM4 is indeed starting to deliver: the company stated that HBM4 shipments officially began this quarter, with expanded sales of high value-added products. However, the same announcement also clearly mentioned a significant increase in server DDR5 sales and continued growth in high-end solid-state drive business for data centers. Product pricing and sales mix jointly affect profitability, and the announcement did not break down all profits into a single HBM4 contribution statement. What deserves more attention is Q4. The company expects HBM4 shipments and revenue to exceed those of HBM3E and plans to increase M15X capacity to its maximum level by the end of the year. This is management's expectation for the future, not sales already completed. Long-term orders also provide clues: the company said it has signed long-term agreements with 14 major customers, corresponding to more than half of total capacity for 2027 and 2028. However, locking in production volume does not mean locking in all prices; the pricing mechanism in the agreements will still reflect market conditions. My judgment: this earnings report proves that AI memory demand is already reflected in operating results; next, we need to see whether HBM4 can take over as expected and how profit margins will look after capacity expansion and continuation#Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？
Wall Street consensus looks like a joke: revenue significantly exceeded expectations, but EPS fell far short, a precise strike hitting a single point, breaking defenses today.
Expectations were too high: before the earnings report, HOOD stock price stayed near the high level of $105 (Wall Street consensus median target price between $113–$122). The market originally expected strong US stock options trading to fully fill the Crypto gap and achieve a revenue beat, but the final $1.424 billion revenue was still about $26.5 million less than consensus expectations.
Rising expenses and bad debt provisions: with the expansion of credit card loan scale, credit loss provisions increased, combined with prior investments in Trump Accounts and Rothera, total operating expenses rose 16% year-over-year.
Introduction of new Non-GAAP metric triggers scrutiny: the company introduced Adjusted EPS ($0.60) this quarter for the first time to exclude a $67 million mark-to-market unrealized loss from its primary market venture capital fund. Some institutional investors remain cautious about the 14% decline in GAAP net profit.Federal Reserve decision: Don’t just focus on whether they raise rates; these four "death spells" are the real threat
Lords, the Federal Reserve decision has landed. The market bets over 89% on no change, seems like no drama? Let me tell you, the interest rate is the obvious card, but the real killer knives are hidden behind.
First, look at the statement wording. Removing or altering words like "timely return"—a single word difference causes a bloodbath between bulls and bears.
Second, look at the dot plot. Since Walsh took office, forward guidance has been consistently weakened; if this continues, the market will be left guessing blindly. A night road without a map is scarier than one full of pits.
Third, look at the press conference. Last time the market read it as dovish, but Walsh’s words crushed risk assets. If tonight he insists on "insufficient restrictiveness," December rate hike expectations will reignite, and the crypto world will take another hit.
Fourth, look at the voting pattern. Dissenting votes are more honest than the decision itself. Two hawkish dissenters mean it’s just a delay tactic; three or more basically lock in a December rate hike.
For $BTC and $ETH, funds have already proactively reduced risk exposure before the decision, hovering around the 80,000 mark. The real market move isn’t tonight, but "what to do in December." Don’t treat the decision like a lottery draw; treat it as a road sign. Misreading the road sign means the faster you run, the worse you die. $BTC $ETH
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 Chasing the high right after the financing news? First, clarify whose 63 billion it is.
Here's what I see: Bank of America, Blackstone, Citibank, and Morgan Stanley announced about $63 billion in financing to purchase Broadcom AI accelerators and network equipment, which will then be leased to Anthropic, with delivery expected from 2027. Broadcom itself didn't pay cash upfront; they provided a residual value support (covering hardware depreciation risk). On Tuesday, the stock closed at $342.33 (+4.00%), with a daily high of $345.67 and a low of $336.87; chip stocks like AMD and Micron also rose.
My view: This is a relief from the anxiety of "who will foot the AI bill," not profits already in hand this quarter; treating the lease arrangement as a cash-in to chase is the easiest way to get cut.
Today also includes the Federal Reserve decision and after-hours earnings from Alphabet/Microsoft, so chip sentiment can turn at any time.
What I do: Stand firm and observe, not chasing this wave of financing narrative; if it breaks below the daily low of $336.87 and fails to recover, consider this round of "financing-driven positive" invalid.
Wait for the interest rate statement and tonight's big tech earnings to digest before deciding whether to change stance.
Would you take "bank funding and chipmaker residual value support" as a buying point, or first treat it as a signal to observe?
$AVGO $AMD $NVDA
#Broadcom63BFinancingAnthropic #ChipStockRebound #AnthropicIPOApplicationMaySetValuationRecord I don't play with high leverage; when I see a sharp drop, I first get used to identifying where the risks lie. Datavault AI's stock price plummeted nearly 50%, and the company stated that starting from June 2026, it will no longer be able to withdraw the BTC stored with Biconomy. These coins were previously recorded in its wallet through off-chain transfers.
My judgment is that this is a risk alert for corporate coin holding management, not evidence of a long-term deterioration in Bitcoin's value. Off-chain accounting does not mean the funds can be mobilized at any time; withdrawal obstacles may disrupt the company's financial arrangements. The stock also reflects the market's evaluation of the company's management capabilities, so the drop should not be directly attributed to $BTC. As for me, I hold and do not move, but long-term holding does not exempt one from scrutinizing custody risks.
Leverage easily amplifies sudden risks; there's no need to challenge your own tolerance. For friends holding long-term, this incident may reduce your confidence in the coin accumulation model of listed companies, or will you evaluate each company individually?2026.10.28
Last night staged a grand drama of capital plunder, with Brazil, the largest country in South America, seeing its stock index futures plunge 15%, triggering a circuit breaker! Meanwhile, the US stock market was broadly rising. One side was being drained madly to keep the other alive. In fact, it’s not just Brazil that’s falling, but many governments being slowly "disemboweled" by a dull knife. The most dangerous market structure currently is not the absolute level of leverage being too high, but the "quiet and stubborn crowding." The long ratio remains at the 98th percentile (LSR 2.2798), but the funding rate score is only neutral. Long positions are crowded, yet holders are not paying a significant premium — this provides asymmetric fuel for liquidation, just not yet triggered. Bitcoin funding rate is about 0.0067%/8h, annualized about 7%, far from the extreme crowding threshold of 0.03% (annualized 33%). Therefore, leverage itself is not extreme, but the position direction is highly concentrated. Once key support is broken, the chain reaction of forced liquidations could amplify the drop. Federal Reserve interest rate decision. Futures market pricing maintains about a 90% probability of no rate change. The rate itself is not the risk; the policy tone (hawkish/dovish) is. Plus, with AI-driven tech stocks recently abandoned, this can transmit through cross-asset channels to the crypto market.
Bitcoin: Currently still in a bottoming process. Before a volume breakout above 82,000, maintain a strategy of high shorts and low longs. Note: there is a divergence between spot and futures. Spot CVD is still negative (-5.3K) but has rebounded from -7.5K, showing real buying at low levels; futures CVD is -21.6K and continuing downward, indicating leverage selling pressure is still releasing. Meanwhile, retail and large investors’ behavior is seriously diverging: the account long-short ratio is as high as 2.39 and still rising, with many retail investors holding longs, and new shorts actively entering, rather than longs adding positions.
Support: 79,600-79,800, 78,500-79,000
Resistance: 81,000, 81,828, 82,200
Ethereum: Before a volume breakout above 2,400, any counterattack is seen as a rebound, not a reversal. Maintain a primary logic of high shorts and low longs. Currently in a downtrend structure, price is below EMA30, with EMA60 near 2,384 forming a second resistance. On the 4-hour level, after the 2,281 low, a TD Sequential buy setup 1 appeared, MACD formed a golden cross below zero line, and green bars turned red, showing momentum for an oversold rebound is accumulating. The issue is the sustainability of the rebound depends on whether it can effectively break through the 2,370 resistance. If it can close above 2,370 with increasing volume and further reclaim 2,400, the short-term bearish structure will weaken, and the strategy should shift from "shorting the rebound" to "buying the dip"; before that, buying is better defined as a short-term trade against the daily trend.
Support: 2,333, 2,300-2,309
Resistance: 2,355, 2,370, 2,384, 2,400Just after 2 a.m., I originally wanted to go to the bathroom and then go back to sleep, but I casually opened OKX contract data, and I instantly woke up. Don't be fooled by the sideways movement these past few days—under the appearance of volatility contraction, leverage is stacking to the limit in the same direction. $BTC is currently priced at 80519, hovering around the 80,000 mark, with the 4-hour long-short ratio already surged to 2.38, and open interest stubbornly refusing to drop. Everyone treats 80,000 as a solid bottom, with buy orders layered and ambushed below. With such heavy positions, why would the main force carry the burden for you? Looking at $ETH at 2345, the previous low has already been broken once, but the rebound is weak and feeble. Strangely, open interest has surged dramatically, and the long-short ratio is as high as 2.44—buying more as it falls, retail leverage stacking thicker and thicker. Just a little external pressure will trigger a bloody chain of forced liquidations. $SOL at 100.77 is stuck tightly at the 100 integer level, the 4-hour long-short ratio has soared to 3.16, and the funding rate remains positive, with longs lining up to pay fees to hold positions. Once this thin barrier breaks, the consequences are unimaginable. My judgment is straightforward: with bullish sentiment so crowded, once liquidity enters, it’s easy to trigger a one-sided shakeout. The most typical outcome of this structure is a two-way fight—first sweeping away the long positions piled below, then reversing to harvest the short positions chasing the market. Anyway, I firmly refuse to hold positions and just watch the show. The real confirmation signal worth watching is not the price itself, but whether open interest can be digested during the sideways movement and whether the funding rate turns from positive to negative. Until then, sideways movement is not stability; it’s leverage holding its breath. 🫧 #OctFOMCDecisionThisWe Last week, a16z Crypto officially renamed itself a16z Frontier, expanding its investment scope from the crypto industry to a broader frontier technology field. However, the firm stated it will continue to invest in crypto projects. Similar changes are not isolated cases; since the beginning of this year, crypto investment firms like Paradigm and Framework have successively broadened their investment scope to include AI, robotics, fintech, and other areas. Capital that once firmly bet on the crypto industry is now turning its attention to a wider market. This inevitably raises the question: has the golden age of crypto entrepreneurship ended? I believe that if the so-called golden age refers to an era when a new concept or a token economic model could attract massive funds and rapidly boost valuations, then that phase is indeed passing. But if one thinks the crypto industry no longer offers worthwhile entrepreneurial opportunities, that would be overly pessimistic. What has truly changed is the logic of capital investment and the market's demands on projects. In recent years, the biggest attraction of the crypto industry to entrepreneurs has been its relatively unique financing mechanism. By issuing tokens, projects can obtain funds and liquidity in advance, and when market sentiment is high, even if the product is not yet mature, it can still achieve a good valuation based on future expectations. The problem is that as more projects adopt similar models, the market finds it difficult to continue paying for homogeneous products. When the market is good, these issues are easily masked by rising token prices, but once the market cools, whether projects can sustain operations becomesThe crypto tape is splitting into two markets, and the divergence is becoming harder to dismiss as noise. $BTC is trading near $79,940, back below the $80,000 line after a session range of $79,338 to $80,673. $ETH sits around $2,319, still unable to reclaim $2,340. Yet $ZEC is changing hands near $1,231, having run from $1,178 to $1,265 in the same window, outpacing both majors by a wide margin. That gap tells a story about where capital is actually going. The external backdrop was constructive:I noticed that Solflare's staking service provider experienced a security incident involving validator node keys, which is still under investigation; node rewards are paused, but users' delegated $SOL is controlled by their own keys, so funds are unaffected.
This is somewhat interesting, but I judge it as more of an emotional negative rather than actual fund theft. If panic spreads, high-volatility small coins might be mistakenly sold off, and there is also a risk of misinterpreting sentiment.
I will monitor the investigation progress to distinguish between node failures and ecosystem risks. Which sectors have you all been paying attention to recently, and will they be affected by this kind of news?👀The interest rate meeting at 2 a.m. Beijing time on the 29th is basically set not to raise rates; the real question is whether there will be a hike in December.
The Federal Reserve just raised rates once in September, and the current rate is 3.75%–4.00%. According to futures prices, the probability of no change this time is about 90%, but the probability that rates will be higher than now in December is about 82%, with about 74% for just one 25 basis point hike (1 basis point = 0.01%).
A common misunderstanding is "no rate hike = positive news." In fact, no rate hike has long been priced in, so the crypto price won't gain extra buying pressure because of it.
There are two factors that can truly change expectations.
First, how many people vote for an immediate rate hike. Rabobank expects Hammack, Kashkari, and Logan to vote against, as they did in July. If there are 3 dissenting votes, it indicates more internal urgency, and a December hike is basically confirmed.
Second, what Chairman Warsh says about December during the press conference. If he does not rule out a December hike, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield will likely stay near 5%; if he emphasizes "watching the data, no rush," the probability of a December hike will fall, giving risk assets some breathing room.
Additionally, at 8:30 p.m. on the 29th, Q3 GDP and September PCE (the Fed's most watched inflation indicator) will be released. September CPI year-on-year has already reached 3.7%. If PCE exceeds expectations again, the tone just set at the meeting could be overturned within a day.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 $BTC To start with the conclusion: I’m not very confident that tonight’s interest rate decision will lead to a "positive news landing and then a takeoff." I reviewed the first six interest rate decision days this year, looking from the opening on the decision day to the close on the third day. BTC fell 4 times, ETH also 4 times, and SOL was even more extreme, falling 5 times out of 6. The only decent rally was in September, when all three coins rose together, with SOL up 16% in three days. The other times were basically "news comes out, price goes down." Of course, six samples are pitifully few, so taking this as a rule would be naive. But it at least shows one thing: the interest rate decision itself is not positive news; the market cares about the expectation gap. Looking at the current market: BTC daily closes around 80,774, pressured below the 20-day and 60-day moving averages, price hugging the lower Bollinger Band, RSI at 44.9, MACD still moving downward below the zero line. To put it bluntly, it’s weak but not collapsed yet. ETH and SOL are more interesting. ETH’s 4-hour Bollinger Band lower band is right around 2300, a level tested several times this week. SOL is only 1.4% away from 100, also a line everyone is watching. What really makes me hesitate is the positions. The long-short account ratios are BTC 1.88, ETH 2.13, SOL 2.91, meaning long accounts are 2 to 3 times the short ones, with SOL the most crowded. The funding rates for all three are around 0.01%. When bulls cluster, if the news is slightly below expectations, the bulls are usually the first to be shaken out. So my view tonight is: if the result matches expectations, the probability is high #Off-exchange leverage What a pity, this teacher took a loan of 400,000 to buy meme coins and altcoins that halved in value. If he had used it to accumulate BTC, it would have been much better. Buying hyperliquid:native is also not bad. I woke up and checked my HYPE holdings, and surprisingly, they have nearly 10% unrealized gains...
Leverage, if you find a profitable strategy, it accelerates making money; otherwise, it accelerates losing money.
Off-exchange leverage has no risk of liquidation on the exchange. Since you have already added off-exchange leverage, you should choose an extremely conservative strategy on the exchange. My advice is to go all-in on BTC; there is no better choice. We still need to respect risk and remain humble about things beyond our understanding. Of course, back in 1994, I also took loans to buy many altcoins, but now altcoins on the main chain of US stock blockchain are no longer a universal dividend; it is extremely fragmented. Only a few altcoins might perform well and survive. In these two cycles, almost no altcoin has outperformed BTC, not even the altcoin leader Ethereum. The industry environment has changed drastically. Buying the wrong altcoins this cycle is not just losing money; it is annihilation, with no chance of recovery.Does stopping inflation equal good news? Osmosis's move isn't that simple.
The Cosmos ecosystem's leading DEX Osmosis passed Proposal No. 1053 with a 91.07% approval rate. OSMO will stop new minting, and staking rewards will be fully supported by protocol revenue, including transaction fees and taker fees. This cuts off the old path of subsidizing LPs and stakers through inflation.
The disappearance of new selling pressure is clearly bullish, but since rewards are now paid by real income, staking yields will fluctuate with trading volume. The logic of retaining users with high APR no longer holds. The valuation anchor shifts from "inflation rate" to "protocol fee revenue." Whether fees can continuously cover rewards and whether trading volume can be maintained are key to whether OSMO can develop an independent market trend.
Observation 1: Changes in actual protocol revenue over the next few cycles; Observation 2: The volatility range of staking APR.
Are you more concerned about the disappearance of new selling pressure or that rewards are now paid by income?
Source: Wu Shuo💻 I treat this message as a code review: The input is Janus Henderson and Centrifuge launching a tokenized Nasdaq-100 fund on Stellar, targeting eligible non-US investors, providing exposure to the Nasdaq 100 index.
My judgment: This is a concrete step in institutional tokenization business expansion, but it should not be directly translated as a positive impact on public chain coin prices. The demand is reasonable, but the delivery quality still depends on how the fund operates; the system’s success cannot be declared just because the interface is online.
Logically, traditional index exposure now has an on-chain carrier, giving those who want to allocate traditional assets on-chain more options. However, "eligible" is a permission check, not all wallets can directly access it; for ordinary users, eligibility might affect experience even more than operational convenience.
The potential bug lies in the connection between assets and tokens. I would focus on checking subscription and redemption rules, fees, custody, and transfer restrictions. Being recorded on-chain does not mean the underlying assets can be redeemed at any time; if these links are unclear, tokenization might just be a frontend change, which is my concern.
If I were to make changes, I would first put the admission criteria, fees, and redemption process in a prominent position before discussing the on-chain experience. Please help me review: For this type of product, should admission, redemption, or circulation be solved first? I put "usability" before "on-chain"—are there any loopholes in this?Brothers, the FOMC decision lands tomorrow night. Don’t rush to bet on the direction yet; first, see who lets go first.
$BTC: Range-bound between 79,400-80,800. Support at 79,400-79,600, obvious selling pressure at 80,500-80,800. ETF net outflow of $772 million over two days; institutions proactively reducing risk before the event—not a panic selloff, just unwilling to bet. If 79,400 holds, consolidation continues; if hawkish tone combines with rising oil prices, the 77K PUT defense line will be targeted.
$ETH: 2,313 is key. The ascending trendline at 2,350 has been broken; funding rate dropped 56% in 24 hours; whales turning bearish. Below 2,313, over $670 million in leveraged longs are clustered, with high liquidation density. Technical expectations disappointed combined with four weeks of ETF outflows, increasing downside momentum for ETH.
Strategy in one sentence: Don’t chase longs or bottom-fish before the FOMC. Watch BTC at 79,400 and ETH at 2,313. A hawkish pause will first wash out leverage, delaying directional moves; a dovish tone combined with ETF inflows will make rebounds more credible, but still not the bull market starting gun.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #美伊讨论霍尔木兹开放方案，油价回落 October 28 SUI Watch: No Fees, Who's Covering the Cost for You?
At 09:10 this morning, OKX's SUI spot price was $0.9298, up about 1.27% from the platform's rolling 24-hour starting point. When the price rises, the app's phrase "no gas fees" can easily mislead people into thinking that on-chain transactions no longer require SUI.
Sui's sponsored transactions address who pays: users do not need to hold SUI in advance; the sponsor provides the SUI objects to pay the fees. The fees still exist, but they are transferred from the user's account to the sponsor's budget. The app lowers the usage threshold, but the network does not magically eliminate computation and storage costs.
Paying does not mean replacing the user's decision on how assets move. According to official documentation, sponsored transactions require both the user and the sponsor to jointly sign the complete transaction data, including the fee data in the signature scope. Who pays the fee and who initiates what operation are two things that need to be understood separately.
Risks lie in the execution phase: if the transaction is submitted by the sponsor, the other party may delay or not broadcast it; reusing the same object version may also cause the transaction to be rejected. The "free" interface promise cannot replace verifying the transaction content, signature scope, and actual execution results, nor is it a guarantee of asset security.
$SUI #SUI
For informational purposes only, not investment advice.If I were to write a strategy, I would add a rule: if the same internal wallet can create and arbitrate some prediction markets, then treat these markets as one group of permission risks rather than independent events. I haven't fully grasped quantitative analysis yet, but I'm increasingly wary of "seeming decentralized." 🤖
According to The Defiant, Myriad Markets' internal admin wallet used for automatically creating and arbitrating some markets was compromised. On October 26, the attacker manipulated the outcomes of 10 prediction markets and claimed rewards; the platform subsequently voided these markets, and affected users will be automatically refunded.
My judgment is that this incident serves as a warning about the reliability of prediction markets, which is more important than which popular topics are involved. If multiple outcomes are controlled by the same permission, then diversifying participation across different topics does not necessarily diversify the underlying risk.
The advantage of this rule is that it shifts the focus from "how popular the topic is" to "who can change the outcome." Automatic refunds help with remediation, but refund arrangements and arbitration mechanisms being trustworthy are two different matters; one cannot substitute the other.
The flaw is that the rule might be too coarse: having admin permissions does not mean the permissions can be used arbitrarily; it also depends on the scope of authorization and the design of checks and balances. I will next focus on whether there are verifiable explanations for permission isolation and arbitration constraints, clarify this condition first, and then discuss the model.【Crypto revenue plummets 55%, Robinhood relies on prediction markets to save the day】
$HOOD The earnings report is a bit disappointing. Crypto trading revenue was cut by 55% year-over-year, down to only $120 million, and quarterly crypto trading volume also dropped 38% year-over-year to about $50 billion. As Bitcoin cools off, the first to suffer are platforms that make money from frequent retail trading.
Fortunately, Robinhood no longer relies solely on crypto trading. Options revenue grew 31% to $399 million, prediction market revenue reached $173 million, a year-over-year increase of over 6 times, and overall trading revenue still grew 19%. The problem is that trading volume is growing faster than revenue, and the prediction market may just be existing players betting in a different place, without bringing in new customers of the same scale.
Earnings per share were only $0.51, below the expected $0.55, and operating expenses increased 16%. This is why the stock fell more than 7% after hours: the new business can indeed take over, but it has not yet fully offset the cooling crypto business and rising costs. For HOOD, what needs to be proven next is that the growth engines have truly diversified, rather than just moving the same batch of retail investors' money from one pocket to another.
#Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？ #Strategy pauses additional purchases, Strive and BitMine expand reserves
"MicroStrategy hits the brakes, Strive buys against the trend"
Recently, Bitcoin has stabilized above $80,000. MicroStrategy, which used to issue bonds daily to increase holdings, suddenly stopped, with no new purchase disclosures for several consecutive days. Many have started to wonder if the main buying force has cooled off.
However, cash flow in the market has not dried up. Strive Asset Management has directly raised its Bitcoin allocation limit, and mining company BitMine has converted mining net profits into spot holdings.
The old leader is slowing down, while new forces are stepping up to support. MicroStrategy's next regular quarterly report is in early November; the report will reveal the details then. $BTC [SK Hynix to distribute dividends and repurchase shares worth 100 trillion KRW in one year; memory shortage expected to last until 2030]
AI money has already started flowing into the pockets of chip manufacturers' shareholders. SK Hynix $SKHY reported Q3 revenue exceeding 104.6 trillion KRW, operating profit of 83.3 trillion KRW, with an operating margin as high as 80%. The average DRAM selling price rose over 20% in a single quarter, making this business exceptionally profitable. The company also plans to return about 100 trillion KRW to shareholders this year.
Hynix expects the memory shortage to continue until 2030, with DRAM demand growth exceeding 20% in 2027, and capital expenditures set to increase significantly. From 2027 to 2028, more than half of the production capacity is already locked in by long-term supply agreements. AI data centers are still competing for inventory, giving memory manufacturers both short-term pricing power and order visibility.
However, the 100 trillion KRW is not entirely new repurchases; it includes a previously announced and completed 40 trillion KRW repurchase plan. What truly deserves attention is that while Hynix returns profits to shareholders, it must continue investing heavily in capacity expansion. As long as AI demand holds up, memory manufacturers may continue to benefit from tight supply; if future supply catches up with demand, this round of high profits will also face challenges.$BTC shorts were squeezed overnight, with Binance's Beijing time 5 AM spike directly hitting 81,300, now retreating to around 80,640, up 0.37% in 24h, with spot trading volume at 1.06 billion USD.
TRdesk reports a total liquidation of 140 million USD across the network in the past 24 hours, with shorts at 96 million and longs at 44 million. This time shorts were forced to buy, with BTC liquidations at 34.5 million USD, 79% of which were shorts, the largest single liquidation being 2.6 million.
$ETH followed, rising from 2,297 to 2,364, now at 2,342, with 36.6 million USD liquidated in 24h, even more than BTC, 84% of which were shorts.
Binance BTC contract open interest peaked at 98,100 contracts at 11 PM last night, then dropped steadily to 94,800, now at 95,800 contracts, funding rate at 0.0045%, and the long-short account ratio fell from 2.39 yesterday to 2.02.
My view is that this move was mainly driven by passive short liquidations pushing the price up, not new money entering the market. Before the Federal Reserve's interest rate decision comes out early tomorrow morning, if the 81.3k spike doesn't hold, I won't chase it. $OP
Layer-2 competition is increasingly about more than reducing transaction costs. Optimism’s OP Stack offers infrastructure for building Ethereum-compatible networks, creating opportunities for ecosystem expansion. Yet, more chains do not automatically mean stronger economics. Fragmented liquidity, competition between rollups, and uncertain value capture remain important considerations. The long-term test is whether expanding infrastructure generates durable demand for the ecosystem.$FIL
Decentralized storage has a practical use case: preserving and retrieving data without depending entirely on conventional centralized providers. Filecoin’s challenge is making that alternative competitive on reliability, cost, and ease of access. Storage capacity alone does not prove strong customer demand. The more important indicators are sustained paid usage, useful integrations, and whether storage providers can operate economically over time.