Orbit Post Sitemap
Brothers, the wolf is really coming, and the blade might be faster than expected!
The Wall Street Journal revealed that the famous "number one nemesis of cryptocurrency" Elizabeth Warren is expected to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee as early as January 2027.
This position holds immense power, essentially controlling the lifeblood of the financial world. Previously, Warren could only pressure through letters, and whether the other side responded was up to their mood; once she sits in the chair, she will have subpoena power, able to compel executives to testify and obtain documents. This regulatory scythe might swing down at any moment.
Warren has always been extremely tough on cryptocurrency and has frequently challenged it in the past. She publicly opposed the CLARITY Act, stating, "We need crypto regulation, but it can't be legislation written by the crypto industry itself." Her upcoming investigation list will likely include: crypto consumer protection, insider trading in prediction markets, and conflicts of interest in the Trump family's crypto businesses (such as World Liberty Financial).
Some analysts poured cold water on this: Warren's legislative power is limited by the Senate's 60-vote threshold, making hardcore proposals difficult to pass directly into law; the chairs of the SEC and CFTC remain in Republican hands, so administrative crypto policies won't flip overnight. But just the intensive hearings and investigations will be enough to give exchanges and blockchain companies a hard time.
Times are definitely tough, but how deeply the "wolf" can bite still depends on the tug-of-war among the folks on Capitol Hill. $BTC $ETH $SOL An easily overlooked comparison: As of September 23, Solana has averaged about 95.92 million transactions per week this year; Nasdaq, NYSE, ARCA, BATS, and NYSE American combined average about 657 million transactions per week during the same period. The former is about 15% of the latter.
15% is not impressive, but this is comparing a single public blockchain to the entire major US stock trading venues.
More importantly, the statistical criteria. This only compares the number of transactions, excluding trading volume and individual transaction size. So this 15% reflects not the amount of capital, but the number of times it is used. A single US stock trade is often a large institutional order, while a Solana transaction might just be someone swapping a few dollars worth of tokens or claiming an airdrop.
The mechanism lies here. The value of $SOL is not in how large each transaction is, but in how many actions it can support per unit of time—high frequency, small amounts, automation. This is its ecological niche completely different from traditional exchanges.
My judgment is: the real significance of this comparison is that it provides a traditional financial frame of reference for valuing public blockchains. On-chain activity has grown large enough to be placed on the same chart as mature markets, even if they are not compared on the same dimension. $ETH was compared to Visa back in the day in the same way; the frame of reference is more valuable than the absolute value.
One point worth considering: if we compare by transaction amount instead, how much would this 15% shrink? The answer might be much less flattering, but that is where the money speaks.Although the non-farm payrolls increased market pressure for rate hikes, there’s no time to be sad, friends, because a wave of inflation data is coming 😵 Whether it’s the CPI on November 10 or the PPI on the 13th, the market currently expects increases, making a December rate hike a high-probability event. If that happens, it will be even harder for the Fed to easily pivot to easing. Crypto has already benefited from the market’s pricing of risk assets under rate cut expectations, so if the interest rate path adjusts further, it’s hard not to feel anxious.
That’s all. The importance of next week’s CPI is no less than this week’s non-farm payrolls. Hopefully, we won’t see another major crash. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $PLTR How to verify the replicability of new customer growth in software?
Palantir's U.S. commercial revenue in Q3 grew 148% year-over-year. The quality of expansion depends on whether similar deployments can shorten delivery times and reduce reliance on on-site personnel. If cash collections keep pace and the proportion of delivery costs decreases, the replicability of growth is stronger. If orders require continuous increased customization investment, the profit content of high growth needs to be reassessed.To judge whether stablecoins are truly being used more, do you first look at how much money stays on-chain, or how much has been cumulatively transacted on-chain? In Circle's latest financial report, the growth rates of these two figures differ significantly. Circle's report released on November 4 shows that in Q3, USDC on-chain transaction volume reached $13.9 trillion, a year-over-year increase of 49%. The average circulating supply during the same period was $73.3 billion, up 8% year-over-year. By the end of the quarter, the circulating supply was about $73.9 billion, roughly flat compared to the same period last year. On-chain transaction volume represents the total amount transacted over the quarter, while circulating supply reflects how much USDC is in circulation at a given point or over a period. The same funds can be transferred multiple times, with each transfer counting toward transaction volume, but the balance may not change much. Looking at Circle's own earnings: total quarterly revenue and reserve income were $865 million, up 17% year-over-year, but reserve income was about $658 million, down 8% year-over-year. The company explained that the reserve yield rate dropped by 0.61 percentage points year-over-year, and the increase in average circulating supply only partially offset this impact. In the same quarter, other income included $182 million from ARC token pre-sales. So, to understand why the company's revenue increased this quarter, one must look at the sources of each income component. My judgment is that USDC's on-chain circulation is indeed more active, but to see if usage scenarios have expanded, I will track both circulating balances and payment use cases. Visa's overallToday (November 8, 2026), the four markets did not move in the same direction but were torn apart by the same macro theme: after the US midterm elections concluded, expectations of escalating geopolitical conflicts quickly faded. This theme simultaneously drove an epic crash in crude oil, a speculative sell-off in gold, and a narrow tug-of-war for Bitcoin amid "extreme fear." The stock market, however, showed a completely different logic—local overheating of A-share stocks with consecutive daily limit-ups severely disconnected from fundamentals. --- 🛢️ Crude Oil: Plunged over 16% in one week, marking the largest weekly drop since 2020 This is the most intense anomaly today. The Brent crude oil front-month contract fell a cumulative 16.42% over the week, and the WTI front-month contract dropped 12.76%, both marking the largest weekly declines since 2020. On November 7, intraday New York crude briefly fell below $90 per barrel. The core driver of the crash was a concentrated sell-off by hedge funds. After analyzing CFTC position data, Goldman Sachs' FICC team found that from October 27 to November 3, managed money net sold Brent crude oil positions totaling $6.6 billion, marking the seventh time in the past five years that weekly sales exceeded $6 billion. The trigger for the sell-off was the market's rapid shift from "rushing to price in war escalation" to "rushing to price in war ending" after the Democrats swept Congress—reports indicated Trump favored negotiation over military strikes, Iran's Supreme Leader authorized the president to engage in dialogue, and Qatar-mediated calls were continuously made. Long positions betting on a supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz were forced to liquidate massively, creating a chain reaction of negative feedback. However, the supply side is notLosing everything isn't the scariest thing; mistaking "going all-in on a bet" for "the market is about to take off" is 🫧 Have you ever had that moment: clearly it's just amplified volatility, but you feel like you have to do something immediately? Last night, I saw that post and my heart skipped a beat. The money was gone, relationships fell apart, and in the end, they said they would deliver takeout and wait for a turnaround. I don't want to exploit others' hardships, but it acts like a mirror reflecting a very common misjudgment: mistaking a volatility phase for the start of a trend, then unconsciously increasing position size more and more. $BTC $ETH $ZEC My own observation is that this tug-of-war feeling has been especially obvious lately. BTC sweeps up and down, altcoins occasionally pop up then quickly fade, and old coins like ZEC suddenly get mentioned with a few stories. On the surface, it looks like hot money rotation, but in reality, it's more like emotional exhaustion after volatility is repeatedly squeezed. Many people think "high volatility equals more opportunities," but what volatility really tests is not directional judgment, but rhythm and position discipline. Even if you get the direction right, if you miss the timing, you'll still get swept out. The transmission path isn't complicated. News catalysts ignite emotions first, short-term funds rush in, prices pulse rapidly, then profit-taking and stop-loss orders clash, further amplifying volatility. At this point, BTC's movement determines whether risk appetite can hold steady, ETH follows to see if funds are willing to bear duration, and altcoins amplify greed and fear. Once BTC retracts gains, altcoin rebounds often fail first, leaving those chasing highs behind. There is also a bullish path: if volume can keep up after volatility, BTC holds key levels, ESanDisk: 6x PE, the market is discounting the "cycle length"
Current price $835, TTM PE about 6.1x, analyst consensus target price $2047. The disagreement is not about the authenticity of earnings, but how long the earnings can be sustained. NBM's long-term contract guaranteed revenue is $93.9 billion, with an average term over 4 years, and about 50% of bits locked for FY2027, which indeed improves visibility; however, SanDisk's NAND market share is only 11.7%, ranking sixth, with pricing power still held by Samsung and SK Hynix. Long-term contracts can lock in their own volume but cannot lock in the entire industry's supply discipline. If the leaders loosen contract prices, SanDisk can only maintain volume, not valuation multiples. The November 20 stock split only lowers the entry threshold, not the logic. Monitor NBM's new contract signings and contract price divergence. $PONS Bearish news: The buyback budget dropped from about 18.7 million to about 2 million in one month
Current price 0.1657 USDT, down 13.52% in 24 hours, volume about 3.48 million, lowest seen at 0.1644
According to DefiLlama data verified by Coindoo today, Pons Launchpad's fees were $137.1 million in September, but only $16.8 million in October, a decrease of 87.8%. Protocol revenue dropped from 23.4 million to 2.5 million
According to the EU white paper, the platform keeps 30% of the fees, 80% of which is used to buy back and burn PONS. Using the same calculation, about 18.7 million was used for buybacks in September, but only about 2 million in October
Galaxy Research's daily fee chart on November 6 also shows a drop from about 11.4 million on September 5 to about 250,000 in early November, with market cap falling from over 600 million to about 120 million. The only channel for holders to receive platform income has been almost completely drained.ETF withdrew $1.28 billion in one week! All inflows this year have been lost, are institutions the least faithful?
Really, stop blindly believing in institutional long-termism. The BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $1.28 billion last week, wiping out all net inflows since 2026 and turning it into a net outflow for the year.
This happened in just one week. At the beginning of the month, there were still positive inflows of over a billion, but now they're gone. This is the worst single-week performance since the end of June. Just BlackRock's IBIT alone ran off with more than $400 million on Friday, accounting for over 80% of that day's outflows. Even the most stable leading institutions are rushing to exit. $ETH
Frankly, it's not surprising. The non-farm payroll data exploded, December rate hike expectations were fully priced in, and with the midterm election results settled, funds that had bet on regulatory easing cashed out and fled. Institutions are a hundred times more pragmatic than retail investors; they take profits when they can and exit faster than anyone when bad news hits, without any talk of long-term faith.
No wonder the market has been soft like cotton lately, with every rally lacking follow-through. This rally was originally driven by incremental ETF funds, but now the inflows have turned into outflows. With no one injecting fresh capital, the price naturally can't rise.
Don't listen to nonsense about a strong bottom or bottom-fishing. As long as ETF fund flows don't turn around, all support is paper-thin. Wait until there are consecutive net inflows again before talking about stabilization.#Báo cáo tài chính RocketLab trước thềm: Tiến triển của tên lửa Neutron ra sao? Bitcoin has fallen exactly like the Nasdaq, so where are the buyers when it rises?
On November 5th, three numbers lined up: Nasdaq -5.52%, Bitcoin -5.49%, Ethereum -7.70%. Same day, same direction, almost the same magnitude.
Many still treat it as an independent asset, but its current pricing is based on a single variable: "global risk appetite." The reason is simple — the money buying Bitcoin and the money buying Nasdaq come from the same group, flowing through the same channel: spot ETFs. This week, this channel saw a net outflow of $1.28 billion, and cumulatively for 2026, it has already turned into a net outflow.
What’s even more interesting is the reverse: the next trading day, Nasdaq rebounded 1.09%, while Bitcoin barely moved. When falling, they move in lockstep; when rising, Bitcoin’s buyers are absent.
So don’t ask "Is Bitcoin a safe-haven asset?" Instead, ask "How many Nasdaq-style crashes can your position withstand?"
Is your position allocated for defense or offense? Share your thoughts in the comments.
BTC #Nasdaq #ETFFlows #MarketAnalysisI'm feeling very anxious right now. This weekend, the market has been unusually quiet, too much like the calm before the storm. Tomorrow morning, the Korean stock market will open, and if Hynix performs poorly, $SNDK is likely to plummet. At that point, $NVDA could very well be dragged down as well, and if that happens, the US stock market will explode. If the US stock market crashes, the whole world will suffer. Crypto won't be an exception, and $ETH especially won't be spared. That said, Hynix's performance tomorrow is crucial; if it does badly, a global collective crash might begin. —————————————————— I actually have a concern in my heart right now, which is that crypto might start falling early. In my memory, this has happened before. Honestly, the current contract data for $ETH is still okay; the long-short ratio and open interest are quite high, indicating that many people are still bullish. However, the crypto market is not entirely self-determined, especially in the current situation where crypto's trend depends on the US stock market. The best strategy now is to stay out of the market and wait for Hynix's performance tomorrow. This is a relatively safe approach. —————————————————— I'm currently short. Because I've analyzed previous trends, and a crash on weekend nights is possible. I want to take a gamble. Also, I don't think Hynix will perform well tomorrow, so shorting probably won't lose. I believe that shorting now is likely not to lose, has a chance for huge profit, and a small chance for big loss. In this situation, I think it's worth the risk for me.Every time I see "Hong Kong is going to issue crypto licenses," my first reaction is: Here we go again? After the last round of licenses were issued, the market didn't really react; if it was going to drop, it dropped.
But this time the situation is a bit different. Trading, custody, consulting, and management—all four require licenses. Before, they only focused on exchanges; now even "helping you store coins" and "giving you advice" are included.
To put it bluntly, Hong Kong is regulating crypto as a financial industry, not as a tech product. It sounds serious, but in reality, the threshold is higher and fewer people can get in.
For ordinary holders, there probably won't be much impact in the short term; $BTC will still fluctuate as usual. Just remember to ask first when looking for a place to store your coins: Do you have a license?Hong Kong has made it clear this time: by the end of the year, it will submit a crypto bill requiring four types of licenses for trading, custody, advisory, and management businesses respectively.
First, let's look at what it breaks down. In recent years, the most ambiguous regulatory area worldwide has been "custody"—who holds the coins, and who is responsible if something goes wrong has never been clearly defined. This time, custody is singled out for a separate license, which acknowledges one thing: the core that truly needs regulation in the crypto industry is not trading but asset custody. Trading, advisory, and management are independent, indicating that Hong Kong does not intend to use one big license to cover everyone but rather stratifies by risk.
From a mechanism perspective, the consequence of layered licensing is a change in the cost structure. Trading platforms bear the heaviest compliance costs, advisory and management are much lighter, and custody is in the middle but has the highest capital and audit requirements. This will lead to an expected differentiation: licensed institutions handle custody and distribution, unlicensed ones handle traffic entry, and the middle layer gets squeezed.
For mainstream assets like $BTC, the significance lies on the demand side. Once compliant custody is established, the last procedural barrier for institutions entering the market is removed—not because the bill makes the coins more valuable, but because internal control clauses of funds, insurance, and family offices can finally be approved.
One point worth considering: among the four licenses, the most expensive is not trading but custody. Whoever is willing to pay this cost will control the next round of capital inflow. And this cost is unaffordable for small platforms. Berkshire's financial report has been released, and this time I'm more interested in the money it spent.
In the third quarter, the company repurchased about $9.6 billion in stock, more than double the approximately $4.5 billion in the second quarter. Meanwhile, quarterly operating profit was about $12.7 billion, down 5.8% year-over-year. Putting these two facts together is more interesting than just focusing on the cash balance alone: operating performance is under pressure, yet management was still willing to buy back its own shares at the prices at that time.
Of course, buybacks only reflect capital allocation choices during that period; they don't allow us to judge today's price, nor do they guarantee an immediate stock price increase. But at least it is an action that has already occurred and can be verified by the amount.
Whenever the market sees Berkshire's large cash reserves, it likes to write a line saying "waiting for a crash." I think this explanation is too simplistic. The company needs to retain funds to meet insurance and operational needs, while also weighing the attractiveness between external acquisitions, securities investments, and buybacks. The answer is not necessarily just one.
This financial report reminds me that patience and using funds can happen simultaneously. There's no need to force money out just because you can't find a particularly satisfying opportunity at the moment; and when you do encounter an acceptable price, you don't have to wait for all news to improve.
Rather than guessing when it will make a big bottom-fishing move, I prefer to observe the next few quarters: whether buybacks will continue, whether operating profits can improve, and where the funds ultimately go.
#伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 What was stopped: an offline event or the entire onshore promotion narrative?
Around November 6, the Financial Times published a response from a central bank department head: it was monitored that domestic entities displayed Solana branding on the exterior walls of the Citigroup Tower in Lujiazui, Shanghai, which was classified as virtual currency marketing. The People's Bank of China, together with local financial, public security, and market regulatory departments, stopped the "Solana Accelerate China 2026" offline event before it started and will investigate the related organizations and individuals. The official stance is that SOL "is essentially a virtual currency" and also provides technical services for the issuance and trading of USDT and others; according to a February notification from eight departments this year, such promotion is already in violation.
So far, no names, no penalty lists, and no timetable have been released. Foundation President Lily Liu explained around October 16 that the postponement was due to registrations increasing about fourfold overnight, exceeding the venue capacity already filed, and needing to comply with local requirements—both explanations can coexist and do not contradict each other.
This is not a "comprehensive ban on SOL in China," nor an upgrade to a trading ban; it is more like a sample of the boundaries for onshore promotion.
Why it matters: this time provides a verifiable on-site reference point for what overseas public chains can and cannot say onshore.
Confidence level: medium | official media relay, no penalty results yet. Will you focus more on the investigation list later or on whether the foundation has new statements? $SOL Only veterans in the crypto circle know the truth
Actually, the Democratic Party coming to power is a huge positive for crypto
How much liquidity did Trump drain from the crypto circle when he was in office
The Bitcoin ETF was approved during the Democratic Party's tenure
The Democratic Party does not ban crypto, but wants regulation
Trump seemed to support cryptocurrencies, but in reality, he was greedily making money, completely harming the industry!#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
The weekly decline is 3.4%, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunging 12% in a single day before quickly rebounding. Many are debating whether this is a "technical dip," but from an institutional perspective, this is far from a simple emotional release; it is a repricing after the AI narrative has entered the "accounting period."
Sharing three core judgments:
1. The essence of the plunge: from "buying dreams" to "looking at financial reports." The market's concerns about AI data center regulation and the return on massive capital expenditures (Capex) are heating up. In the past two years, any association with AI could boost valuations, but now institutions are doing the math: major companies have spent hundreds of billions on GPUs, so when will this translate into profits? Once ROI (return on investment) is disproven, high valuations are just castles in the air.
2. Why the rebound is so fast? Because of "short covering" plus "denominator-side" games. The rally in Nvidia and AMD is largely due to the previous sharp drop, where some hedge funds hit their "stop-loss" lines and were forced to liquidate, combined with technical buying after overselling. Additionally, if subsequent macro data weakens and rate cut expectations reignite, it is positive for the valuation denominator of tech stocks (long-duration assets).
3. Divergence is the main theme going forward. The Nasdaq has rebounded, but the Dow Jones still closed down. This means funds have not fully returned to risk assets but are switching between "weeding out falsehoods within tech" and "defending traditional value sectors."
Conclusion: Don't mistake a single-day rebound for a reversal. $QQQ $BTC dropped to 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidated in 24 hours, longs making up the majority. But the funding rate stubbornly didn’t turn negative, and Binance’s long-short ratio even rose to 2.16; what’s buried is leverage, not positions. The real drag is the ETF, which net ran off 1.28 billion in November, cumulatively turning negative for the year, with no one catching the rebound.
$ETH is the most conflicted. Total staked is 45.2 million, with 1.37 million queued to enter, waiting 24 days, yet the ETF ran off over 1.2 billion in October, and ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low. Those locking coins and those withdrawing funds each tell their own story.
China A-shares saw 100 stocks hit daily limit up, with turnover of 1.78 trillion, looking lively. But banks and coal are the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend; money is only flowing into AI manga dramas and baijiu, with broad-based ETFs seeing 129.5 billion inflows, going into indices, not individual stocks.
US stocks lost 4 trillion in a week; chip stocks rebounded on Friday but the Nasdaq still fell for the whole week. Tuesday’s CPI was the real knife, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%.
All three markets are stubbornly holding on amid divergence. Many people yearn to follow Bitcoin's old path: writing a whitepaper, open-sourcing the code, zero pre-mining, no fundraising, and building a public chain from scratch.
Technically, this process is still feasible today, but the era is completely different. Back then, the field was blank, regulations were loose, and home computers could participate in mining; now, computing power is highly concentrated, regulations are tightening, and launching a new PoW chain from cold start is extremely difficult and prone to 51% hash rate attacks.
The code can be copied exactly, but the consensus, liquidity, and first-mover advantages accumulated over more than a decade cannot be replicated. Even if successfully launched, most can only remain niche experiments and it is hard to replicate Bitcoin's legendary success.
$BTC When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was budgeting for starting a company: just because the business scope is expanded doesn't mean the cash flow is stable. The same goes for trading; input and output must be calculated, and risk reserves cannot be skimped on.
The rules finalized by the Russian Central Bank will take effect on November 17: non-qualified investors can purchase up to 300,000 rubles worth of cryptocurrency per year through each intermediary, qualified investors have no limits, and all investors must pass a mandatory test before trading.
My judgment is that this looks more like a reshuffling of channel business rather than a personal risk cap. The test means service providers have to bear the cost of access management, and whether they can cover the cost depends on the business volume; the quota is calculated per intermediary, which does not equal a cap on an individual's total annual investment. If users spread their purchases across multiple intermediaries, the total exposure could still increase—this is my speculation.
For friends in business, if you encounter such channel-based quota rules, how would you set the line for your total investment and risk reserves? $XAU The trading volume of a certain secure tokenized gold has hit a record high. Simply put, the crypto market has crashed badly, and high-volatility assets are no longer playable. Panicked funds are rushing to find a safe haven to hold on, fully maximizing the safe-haven attribute.
Looking deeper at $BTC, gold has dropped by 30% this year and has only just stabilized around the 4000 mark. There's no real bottom to buy into. This is purely an internal reshuffling of existing funds under extreme panic. It indicates that market confidence is extremely fragile. Chasing gold now has very low cost-effectiveness. Once the market crashes deeply and sentiment warms up, this safe-haven capital will be pulled back in a flash to continue the game.#SoftBank's Heavy Bet on OpenAI: Can Q2 Earnings Deliver Impressive Results? SoftBank Q2: OpenAI's Paper Gains Celebrate, But Single Exposure Risk Remains
On November 10, SoftBank released its FY2026 Q2 earnings report, with the spotlight still on OpenAI. Having invested a total of $64.6 billion and holding about 13% equity; OpenAI's valuation reached $852 billion, generating cumulative unrealized gains of approximately $45 billion, with about $25 billion in a single quarter, making Q2's paper gains highly likely to be impressive.
However, the profit and loss statement is highly tied to OpenAI's valuation: In the previous fiscal year's Q2, net profit was 2.5 trillion yen, and the Vision Fund earned 2.38 trillion yen; in FY2026 Q1, the Vision Fund's pre-tax profit was only 5.4 billion yen, a year-on-year plunge of 98.8%, mainly because OpenAI's valuation remained flat quarter-over-quarter. When valuation rises, profits explode; when valuation stalls, profits nearly vanish.
The funding side is even more concerning: Jefferies reports that OpenAI raised about $70 billion in the past 12 months, nearly 85% (about $60 billion) coming from SoftBank, creating a self-reinforcing valuation loop; SoftBank borrowed another $20 billion in April, partly to invest in OpenAI. Meanwhile, Grab's decline during the same period has offset some gains; Malaysia's $50 billion AI data center remains an intention without formal agreements or timelines.
Assessment: The strong Q2 performance mainly relies on OpenAI's valuation. The key question is whether SoftBank can hedge the extreme single-asset exposure using Arm's cash flow, telecom business, or AI infrastructure deployment. If not, the more dazzling the $45 billion unrealized gains appear, the more underestimated the concentration risk becomes. The on-chain weekend report provided a market forecast for Monday, showing that storage chips are clearly stronger. SK Hynix is expected to open up 4.5%, Samsung about 2.6%, while the overall US stock market is opening flat to slightly weak.
This price is the pre-pricing of Trade.xyz's perpetual contracts. The stock market is closed on weekends, and only this can trade continuously, reflecting market expectations in advance. Popular AI storage stocks like Nvidia, Micron, and SanDisk all quoted slightly below Friday's close over the weekend, showing weakness.
The differentiation is clear: capital is currently prioritizing bets on Korean storage giants. After a sharp drop in the storage sector, capital is speculating on a cyclical recovery, with SK Hynix and Samsung showing greater elasticity. But for US AI leaders, capital is cautious and unwilling to go long. $SKHYNIX
Everyone should understand this is only the advance expectation from on-chain contracts, not a guarantee that Monday's open will follow this trend. It should only be used as a sentiment reference, not an accurate result.
In the crypto space, pay attention as well: weak sentiment in tech stocks will indirectly suppress high-risk assets. The storage sector's isolated strength is a sectoral divergence, not a broad recovery. Don't blindly chase SK Hynix's expected rise; wait for the official open to see real support before making plans. $BTC $ETH
#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum, posted on X, disagreeing with the recent negative reactions to the anti-data center movement, believing that slowing down the hyper-scale expansion of computing power is overall more beneficial than harmful. Coming from the founder of $ETH, this statement carries a different weight compared to environmental organizations shouting for a decade.
What he offers is not "AI is dangerous so don't build it," but rather a timeline misalignment. With algorithmic progress, the AI capabilities that will require larger-scale data centers in the next two years might be achievable within about four years, or even less, using existing data centers. To translate: the demand priced today as "computing power is never enough" might be cheaply eliminated by algorithms tomorrow.
From this, he draws a second point—the anti-data center movement may not cause catastrophic consequences. What to do with the time saved? His answer is that the world needs more time to address cybersecurity threats and biosecurity risks.
There is also an easily overlooked sentence: scientific research is constrained by factors beyond AI, so a one-year slowdown in AI development causes an actual delay in scientific progress of less than one year. This breaks the equation that "slowing down equals an equivalent loss."
For the market, what’s worth pondering is the scarcity premium of computing power. The AI infrastructure valuation over the past two years has been based on the assumption of "constant new construction," but if algorithms can spread out the two-year demand, the foundation loosens.
One question remains: is the money currently paid for "computing power is never enough" actually paying for a demand that might never come? The Georgia House of Representatives has a total of 180 seats; obtaining 91 seats constitutes a majority. Before the memory card vote supplement, preliminary counts estimated the Democratic Party would secure 93 seats (a safe margin of 2 seats). If this one seat is ultimately certified and reversed, the Democrats would have 92 seats, still exceeding the 91-seat majority threshold, thus retaining control of the state House but with a majority reduced to just 1 seat, making it extremely narrow.
Market reversals usually come with news; awaiting results #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Can the money saved from $ABNB customer service automation be retained?
Airbnb disclosed that its customer service cost per order in Q3 dropped by more than 17% year-over-year. Improved handling efficiency can enhance profits, but error resolution might shift costs to refunds and complaints. If subsequent repurchases remain stable and the refund rate improves, the savings will be more solid. If the issue escalation rate rises, the net benefits of automation should be reassessed.$CORE ⚠️ Important Reminder
1. No fixed timetable
Zeroing out (price approaching 0) is not a fixed point in time; it is a process of liquidity gradually disappearing:
It doesn't suddenly become 0 on a certain day. The usual path is: exchanges successively delist → depth worsens, slippage becomes huge → only niche OTC/on-chain scattered trades remain → almost no one takes the position, price approaches 0 indefinitely.
If the core support remains (mainnet blocks normally, exchanges still keep trading pairs, community nodes continue running), it can linger at a low level for a long time, months or even longer without zeroing out; but if negative triggers concentrate, the decline will be rapid.
2. Several key triggers that accelerate this process (these are the red lines you watch on your dashboard)
- Multiple mainstream exchanges officially announce batch delisting of CORE trading pairs
- Deposits and withdrawals remain closed for a long time with no clear recovery plan
- Remaining stolen large chips concentratedly dumped
- Large number of validator nodes exit, causing chain operation issues
As long as these signals do not erupt simultaneously, it will not quickly approach zero; once multiple appear at the same time, the risk will sharply increase. CORE Short-Term Risk List
Summarizing the four major short-term risks currently facing CORE, holders need to pay close attention. First is the supply security risk: after the b14g token theft incident, about 19 million tokens have yet to be recovered, compounded by ghost tokens created from the August reward loophole overflow, resulting in long-term selling pressure expectations; two major security incidents occurred consecutively, with unclear compensation plan details, continuously suppressing market sentiment.
Second is the governance trust crisis: there are only about twenty active validator nodes, the project team can quickly coordinate hard forks to intervene in on-chain accounts, casting serious doubt on the decentralization narrative; core members have announced their exit from the DAO, but there is no verifiable handover plan for the treasury and code permissions, and the previously anticipated revenue buyback has yet to materialize.
Third is liquidity risk: Bithumb will delist CORE at the end of November, further shrinking liquidity, thinning market depth, making flash crashes and stampedes highly likely, while there is also potential risk of other exchanges following suit.
Fourth is pressure from the sector and the broader market: Babylon and Merlin continuously divert BTCFi staking funds, and if BTC weakens, the consensus-fragile CORE is very likely to experience a larger pullback than mainstream coins.
Technical bugs are minor issues that can be fixed; the most fatal risks are consensus collapse, liquidity decay, and being caught in downward momentum.$BTC fell below 75,800 in the afternoon, the panic index climbed from 25 to 28, still in the panic zone [reference:0]. Nearly 100 million liquidations in 24 hours, but the funding rate hasn't turned negative, and the long-short ratio even rose to 2.16; what's being washed out is leverage, not positions.
The real awkwardness is with ETFs; in November, a net outflow of 1.28 billion occurred, no one is catching the rebound, and the whale's replenishment volume is just enough to fill the gaps.
$ETH is even more typical; Grayscale ETF just pledged 850,000 ETH, locking nearly 3.9 billion USD. But the ETF overall is still bleeding; the staking lock-up and capital withdrawal are completely out of sync.
A-share media sector gained 13.4% in a week, power equipment 9.3%, but banks and coal stocks closed down against the trend; all the money is betting on elasticity, no one wants the heavyweights.
US chip stocks violently reversed on Friday, AMD jumped 11 points, but the nonfarm payroll of 165,000 pushed interest rate bets to 70%, and the Dow alone dropped 237 points.
All three markets are stubbornly holding amid divergence; whoever can't hold first will be cleared out first. Oil prices plunged 16% in one week, but has the Middle East situation really eased?
After the US midterm elections, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. The market once bet on a cooling of US-Iran conflicts, pushing international oil prices down more than 16% in one week. On Friday, Brent crude oil ($BZ) remained above $97, while WTI hovered around $90.
But the reality is not so optimistic.
Oil tankers near Oman were attacked in succession, explosions reoccurred around the Strait of Hormuz, and the US's third aircraft carrier strike group is also heading to the Middle East. Trump stated that he does not rule out taking military action against Iran again. Both sides are conducting diplomatic communications through Qatar, but significant differences remain in the negotiation terms.
Meanwhile, Rapidan Energy believes the probability of a renewed US-Iran conflict is as high as 80%. If the war restarts, oil prices may break through $100 again.
My view: This round of oil price decline is more about the market trading peace expectations in advance rather than the actual disappearance of geopolitical risks.
Next, focus on three key signals:
1. Whether WTI can hold $90; if it effectively breaks below, it indicates the market's confidence in peace talks is strengthening.
2. Whether the situation in the Strait of Hormuz further deteriorates, which directly affects global crude oil supply.
3. The US November CPI and December Federal Reserve interest rate decision; a rebound in oil prices may push inflationary pressures higher again.
For $BTC, rising oil prices may exacerbate inflation concerns, compress the Federal Reserve's room for rate cuts, and thus affect liquidity in risk assets. CORE DAO's "Darkest October": Two Security Incidents, Founders Exit, Can It Still Carry the BTCFi Banner?
October became a defining dark period for Core DAO: first, the official announcement that two core contributors, Rich Rines and Brendon Sedo, stepped down from their DAO positions, externally framed as a move toward decentralization; at the end of the month, the b14g protocol suffered a major vulnerability, with hackers exploiting a zero-amount withdrawal logic to steal 97.05 million CORE tokens. Although about 70% of the assets were recovered through a hard fork, the tracing of the remaining tokens remains uncertain. Coupled with an underlying vulnerability from August involving validator reward overflow, security risks have been repeatedly exposed.
Under multiple shocks, the market has begun to reassess whether CORE can continue to lead the BTCFi sector. The project's biggest pain point is not merely code bugs but a governance trust crisis: the ability to quickly coordinate nodes to push hard forks to modify account states confirms network power centralization, continuously damaging the decentralization narrative. Meanwhile, competitors like Babylon and Merlin continue to divert BTC staking funds, intensifying internal competition within the sector.
Even though the underlying narrative logic of BTC staking remains, the consecutive incidents have severely damaged confidence among institutions and retail investors. To reclaim the leading position in the sector, it is not enough to rely solely on technical fixes for vulnerabilities; transparency of the treasury, transfer of governance rights, and implementation of compensation plans are all indispensable. Security incidents can be remedied, but once consensus is lost, rebuilding becomes extremely difficult.If you ask which is easier to pump, memes or technical narratives, I think in the short term, memes are indeed easier to ignite. Technical projects talk about architecture for a long time, but listeners are still looking up terms; a random dog posts a picture, and the group can immediately start playing along. When it comes to spreading, technical narratives are at a disadvantage. But being easy to spread doesn't mean the buying side can hold on. I really like memes, but when I encounter projects that even write their roadmap as jokes, I get a bit suspicious: are they just messing around, or did they never intend to do any real work?#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% 【闪迪（SNDK）1拆8观点】Lowering the threshold to unlock liquidity, short-term profit prevention, long-term focus on computing power
SanDisk (SNDK) is implementing a 1-for-8 stock split, which does not materially change the company's market value or fundamentals, but will have a direct impact on market trading logic and psychology:
1. Significantly lowers the threshold, releasing retail liquidity: The high single stock price makes it difficult for retail investors and employees to hold shares. After the split, the stock price drops to 1/8 of the original (down to around a hundred dollars), greatly lowering the trading threshold, directly stimulating retail participation and turnover rate, significantly enhancing intraday liquidity.
2. Triggers short-term chip game, preventing emotional exhaustion: Stock splits are often seen as a signal of management's confidence in long-term performance. However, the split itself is a non-profit adjustment, and the market may experience a short-to-medium term "good news realization" emotional pullback and institutional profit-taking, causing short-term volatility to increase significantly.
3. Premium transmission to AI storage and Crypto sectors: As an important support for AI data centers and high-bandwidth physical flash memory, SanDisk's split enhances market attention on the storage cycle, and this heat will also positively transmit to decentralized storage infrastructure (such as FIL, AR, and other DePIN ecosystems).
Summary: The stock split is a catalyst for optimizing chip structure and liquidity, with short-term focus on sentiment and turnover, and medium-to-long term still depending on the actual supply and demand of physical storage chips for AI data centers. $SNDK Today (November 8), Bitcoin is around $75,776, down 39.9% from the high of $126,102 on October 6, 2025; Ethereum is around $2,235, down 54.8%.
On the US stock side, on November 5, the Nasdaq dropped 5.52% in a single day, falling 11.9% from the October 6 high, just entering a technical correction; the S&P fell 5.7%.
■ Three scenarios
Scenario A: Bottoming out: ETF outflows stop the decline + the Fed does not act in December, BTC oscillates between 68,832 (200-week moving average, -45.4%) and 75,000.
Scenario B: Typical bear market intensity: a retracement of 60%~68%, corresponding to $40,350~$50,440.
Scenario C: A repeat of the November to December 2018 period (which was -50.6%): about $37,500.
■ Buying pressure is the key variable this round
■ Focus on four signals only
1. Whether ETF weekly net inflows can turn positive; 2. Whether the 68,832 200-week moving average breaks; 3. Whether the Fear and Greed Index (currently 28) can drop to extreme levels and trigger short-term holder loss selling; 4. Whether the 10-year US Treasury yield will break 5%.#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ #软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ Regarding this question, the simple explanation is that SoftBank is betting heavily on OpenAI, using borrowed huge sums to buy a "large stake" in the ChatGPT company. Whether the financial report looks good mainly depends on how much this stake has "appreciated on the books." How much has SoftBank actually invested? SoftBank Group has cumulatively invested about $64.6 billion in OpenAI, holding approximately 13% of the shares. This means that for every 10 dollars OpenAI's value rises, SoftBank earns a bit more than 1 dollar. This money was invested in several rounds, with an additional $30 billion added this year, paid in three installments of $10 billion each, the last one completed on October 1. Much of the money was raised through debt issuance. What does this have to do with the Q2 financial report? A large part of SoftBank's profits does not come from selling phones or running businesses, but from "valuation increases" of the companies it invests in recorded on the books. When OpenAI's valuation rises, SoftBank can record an "investment gain" in its financial report. In previous quarters, OpenAI's valuation soared from several tens of billions to $852 billion, and SoftBank earned a huge profit from this. So, will Q2 be "impressive"? Most likely not, and I believe there is a possibility of underperformance. The reason is simple: the latest round of financing raised OpenAI's valuation to about $1.25 trillion, but this$BTC fell below 76,000 in the afternoon, closing at 75,800, with SOL and HYPE dropping even more sharply. The fear and greed index climbed from extreme fear to 28, but the funding rate remains positive, stuck at the floor level. Bulls are taking hits while paying interest, and the cleanup is far from over.
$ETH is the most conflicted, with 45.2 million tokens staked, 1.37 million queued to enter with a 24-day wait, diluting yields to 2.2% and still blocked. However, ETFs ran off over 1.2 billion in October, ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low, and those locking coins and those withdrawing funds each have their own story.
The A-share market saw 100 stocks hit the daily limit and a turnover of 1.78 trillion today. AI manga and liquor stocks took turns leading the rally, but banks and coal stocks closed down against the trend. Broad-based ETFs saw inflows of 129.5 billion, with money flowing into indices rather than individual stocks.
US chip stocks rebounded on Friday, with AMD jumping 11 points, but the Dow still closed in the red. Nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, with Tuesday's CPI being the real test. Each of the three markets follows its own fate; anyone trying to force a single logic will get hit.In the contract accounts, the number of long positions is about 5.2 times that of short positions. However, among the top traders, the long positions are only about 0.72 times the short positions.
On one side, the number of people is overwhelmingly long, but on the other side, the positions are actually more short-biased. The number ratio looks at how many accounts are on the long side, not which side has heavier combined positions. The spot market also dropped about 1.4% in the last 24 hours. Just looking at the number ratio, it cannot be concluded that the bulls have already stabilized the market.
$DOGE $APP Is the high cash flow driven by advertising efficiency or industry tailwinds?
AppLovin's latest quarter disclosed about $1.4 billion in free cash flow. The more stable the advertiser returns, the more likely budgets will stay on the platform, but seasonality and client concentration can amplify single-quarter figures. If reinvestment and cash conversion remain during the off-season, efficiency improvements are more credible. If budget withdrawals coincide with rising traffic costs, growth projections need to be adjusted downward.$BTC is hovering around 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidations in 24 hours, mostly long positions, yet the funding rate stubbornly refuses to turn negative, and Binance's long-short account ratio has even risen to 2.16. What’s buried is leverage, not faith, but ETFs saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion in November, the rebound lacks institutional support, and the whale buybacks are just enough to fill the gaps. $ETH is struggling at 2,244, the Glamsterdam upgrade testnet has been delayed again, ETFs had a single-day outflow of over 90 million, and the staking narrative can’t save the short term.
This week, the STAR 50 index in A-shares gained 7.95%, media led with 13.6%, and the CSI 1000 outperformed the CSI 300 by nearly four points. But banks and coal stocks closed lower against the trend; the gains are all sentiment-driven, not a broad bull market, as funds only bet on elasticity, not on heavyweight stocks.
The Nasdaq has fallen for four consecutive weeks on the weekly chart, down 3.37% cumulatively. Nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 have pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, and Tuesday’s CPI will be the real test. Chip stocks bounced back on Friday, but that was an oversold rebound, not new money entering the market.
Each of the three markets follows its own fate; anyone trying to force a single framework will get hit.$ACT now looks more like a squeezed game phase rather than a comfortable rally phase. Are you also watching that batch of buried long positions? I reviewed the situation: ACT current price is 0.011768, up 13.41% in 24 hours, with a 15-minute high touching 0.012950 before sliding back down. KDJ is at a low level, short-term momentum is a bit exhausted, and the upper Bollinger Band is also pressing down. The most critical signal is in derivatives: total liquidations in 24 hours are 280,100, with short liquidations accounting for 55.5%. This rally is essentially shorts being squeezed out, not new longs actively entering. Looking at liquidation liquidity, about 125 million is below, only 30.06 million above, with the largest concentration near 0.01, which could be triggered by a 5.89% drop. In other words, short liquidation is basically complete, but there is a large chunk of long positions buried below, upward space is constrained, and the risk of downward spikes is actually greater. From the sector strength perspective, ACT's rebound looks more like an emotional repair rather than a signal of overall capital preference shifting to altcoins. There is also a bullish logic: selling pressure above is relatively light, as long as the 0.01 area holds, short covering can still provide a pulse. But note, the expectation for this rise has already been priced in, so those chasing highs are catching the tail end of the squeeze, not the starting point. If BTC and ETH risk appetite declines, small caps like ACT are more likely to be pulled out of rhythm first. My judgment is: this phase is a mix of shakeout and game, not a rally phase. If you want to buy, beware of downward spikes; if you want to sell, you can wait for a rebound #US Military Expands Blockade on Iran, Disagreements Persist Over Reopening of Hormuz
The US military has launched a new round of strikes against Iran and has specially formed the "Iron Gate" task force, extending the blockade from the sea to land and the Caspian Sea, significantly intensifying the blockade.
On one hand, there is continuous military pressure; on the other, diplomatic negotiations are progressing simultaneously. The US side does not rule out military options, while Iran demands sanctions be lifted first. There are major disagreements between the two sides regarding navigation and blockade conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, with intermediaries like Qatar continuing to mediate.
Many people's first reaction is to go long on crude oil and simultaneously speculate on Bitcoin's safe-haven rally. But it is important to note that recent Middle East conflicts have changed the market's feedback:
Currently, capital prioritizes pricing in the Federal Reserve's interest rate hike expectations; geopolitical news mostly causes short-term pulses and rarely leads to sustained trends. Oil price premiums fluctuate repeatedly with negotiation news, and risk assets like $BTC and $ETH often get pushed back by liquidity pressures after surging.
Simply put: conflict escalation can trigger a wave of sentiment, but don't treat it as a main trend. Going forward, focus on two points—the actual obstruction of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and whether oil prices will continue to strengthen. Without a real supply cutoff, this is mostly short-term sentiment speculation; avoid heavy positions chasing news. The non-farm data disappointment didn't cause a crash, but after the sideways deadlock over the weekend, could there suddenly be a waterfall tonight?
I'm on the bearish side watching, and the current calm doesn't look like a shift to strength, but more like a brief equilibrium after a decline. After the stronger-than-expected non-farm data, the market first fell then recovered, but BTC is currently at 75,882.90 USDT, down 0.20% in 24 hours; ETH is at 2,234.60 USDT, down 0.49% in 24 hours. Neither has escaped a weak structure: BTC's daily MACD is still a death cross with a super trend downward; ETH retains a short-term MACD golden cross but remains in a bearish moving average alignment and a downward super trend.
More importantly, the volume. BTC's daily volume is only 0.19 times the 7-day average, ETH only 0.11 times. This narrow sideways trading over the weekend indicates bulls haven't launched an active attack, and bears haven't continued to apply pressure; once liquidity returns, the previously compressed volatility could be quickly released.
ZEC had an independent rally earlier but is now at 1,260.53 USDT, down 3.75% in 24 hours, having clearly retraced after the spike, with capital flow turning to net outflow. It still maintains a bullish moving average alignment but hasn't escaped the downward super trend pressure. My bearish scenario isn't a definite call for a waterfall but a watch: if major coins break below the weekend balance on volume, ZEC's catch-up decline pressure could amplify simultaneously; if volume returns and it reclaims the mid-term moving averages, the bearish thesis needs to be reconsidered. $BTC dropped to around 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidated in 24 hours, longs dominating, yet the funding rate stubbornly stayed positive, and Binance's long-short account ratio even rose to 2.16. What’s buried is leverage, not faith, but ETFs ran off 1.28 billion in November, no one caught the rebound, and the whale's replenishment volume barely fills a gap.
$ETH is in a bind, with 45.2 million staked, 1.37 million queued to enter waiting 24 days, yields diluted to 2.2% and still stuck. But ETFs saw a net outflow of over 1.2 billion in October, ETH/BTC clings to three-month lows, on-chain locked coins and traditional withdrawal channels each telling their own story.
The A-share market today had 100 stocks hitting the daily limit, turnover of 1.78 trillion, AI manga dramas batch at 20CM, but banks and coal stocks bucked the trend and closed in the red, rotation is as fast as flipping pages.
The US Nasdaq has fallen for four consecutive weeks, nonfarm payrolls pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, and Tuesday's CPI is the real deal.
Each of the three markets goes its own way; anyone forcing a single logic will lose out.Recently, options traders' bets have been diverging, with the trading structures of Bitcoin ($BTC) and Ethereum ($ETH) sending different signals. In the past 24 hours, Bitcoin options call volume accounted for 54.00%, puts 46.00%, slightly favoring the bulls overall, but the bullish strength is not strong. Ethereum ($ETH) has clearly shifted to a defensive stance, with put option volume reaching 55.90% and calls only 44.10%, indicating short-term capital flow has turned bearish. Each asset has a key pain point price: 84000 for Bitcoin and 2800 for Ethereum, both above current prices, which will exert upward pull near expiration. However, the nominal bet sizes differ greatly, with Bitcoin's nominal scale reaching 660 million and Ethereum only 72.88 million, indicating the focus of speculation is concentrated on Bitcoin. This structure is worth noting. Bitcoin's call share barely exceeds half, not indicating a large capital inflow; Ethereum's higher put ratio means many traders have already positioned for downside risk. Although overall open interest still leans bullish, capital is quietly hedging, showing strong defensive intent despite optimism. It is important to note that the pain point is only a reference level, not a solid support. If Bitcoin's 84000 magnet price fails to attract buyers and capital continues flowing into put contracts, the subsequent market volatility could be further amplified. Nonfarm payrolls night clashes with SanDisk breakdown, oversold rebound possible, but it's too early to talk about a reversal
Dear shareholders, tonight at 21:30 is the nonfarm payrolls release. $SNDK hit a low last night breaking below 800 (reaching 793.7), now pulling back near 880, with extremely volatile intraday swings.
Let's talk about nonfarm first. The market expects an increase of only 60,000, but the ADP and ISM data from the past two days were actually not weak. Don't treat tonight's nonfarm as a signal for rate cuts—the data being too weak will first trigger hard landing panic; if the data is too strong, it will directly raise rate hike expectations, causing US Treasury yields to spike and Nasdaq and crypto markets to get hammered. Tonight will most likely be a meat grinder with spikes up and down.
Now about SanDisk. Why did it break below 800? Because of the Nasdaq plunge, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index crash, and concerns about tighter AI regulation after the Democrats took both houses, dragging the whole sector down. SanDisk's Q1 earnings were actually very strong (revenue 11 billion, EPS 49.51 beating expectations), completely dragged down by macro sentiment overreaction.
My judgment: oversold pullback can be watched, but definitely don't treat it as a reversal.
The MA lines above are still diverging downward, and trend pressure remains heavy. The real mid-term turning point is the 1-for-8 stock split on November 19; before that, any sentiment recovery can only be considered a rebound, not a reversal.
With nonfarm landing tonight, I will stay put in my live trades and not catch a falling knife. No matter how much rebound there is, I won't go heavy without seeing a right-side stable candlestick. This is not investment advice. Shareholders, do you think 800 can hold tonight? #非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ Looking at the latest lending data, one thing is becoming increasingly concerning: leveraged long positions are heavily dominating the market. $BTC longs borrowed 1,864.85 coins, compared with just 50.9 coins on the short side. $ETH long borrowing reached 17,600 coins, while both long and lending activity in $SOL continue to increase. This imbalance raises an important risk. When too many traders position themselves in the same direction, even a relatively small price correction can trigger cCircle's Q3 report and Stripe stablecoin payments are heating up on Orbit.
Circle officially disclosed that in Q3, USDC on-chain transaction volume reached $13.9 trillion, a 49% year-over-year increase, with total revenue and reserve income of $865 million, up 17% year-over-year. Guotai Haitong Overseas Technology said revenue and profit exceeded expectations, but part of the other income came from ARC pre-sales, so daily settlements are not as full as the books show.
Simply put, stablecoins are more like becoming a payment collection channel. The West Securities computer team wrote that AI Agent payments are often counted in cents per transaction and can reach thousands per day. Traditional card organizations charging per transaction are not very cost-effective in this scenario. Friends connecting with US clients or making agent tools can ask if the other party can use Stripe to send USDC to wallets. Official documentation states the receiving end covers over 160 markets, usually settling in minutes, and small cross-border payments can save on wire transfer costs.
Currently, I am more focused on how to use this channel to save fees; no matter how good the numbers look, I don't take it as a direction. Friends handling overseas orders, can your clients pay with stablecoins now?
Just my opinion
#CircleQ3营收超预期，USDC链上交易量增长49% I've never understood one thing: why would someone hold a short position losing 20 million and not close it?
This whale is exactly that. $HYPE short position floating loss of 20.91 million USD, I would have cut losses long ago. But he doesn't stop because there's one line — accumulated funding fees collected of 4.66 million.
Oh, turns out he's not betting on direction, he's collecting overnight fees. The longs pay daily to keep his short position alive; if the price doesn't rise, he just takes it for free.
By the way, those two short positions on $BTC and $ETH also made a profit. This guy knows something, but unfortunately, I only get anxious watching the floating losses in my account.