Orbit Post Sitemap
Why did BTC rise instead of fall when the Democrats took control of both chambers? Bears may have misjudged the expectation gap.
The Democrats secured both the Senate and the House, meaning Trump's subsequent fiscal and regulatory agenda will face more constraints. Normally, this should suppress crypto assets, but BTC did not continue to decline; instead, it quickly rebounded from below $76,000 to around $78,000.
The market is not pricing in a single policy negative. With the election results finalized, the dollar weakened, risk appetite recovered, and funds began to reallocate. On election day, BTC options saw a large nominal volume of about $660 million, with call buying dominant, combined with short covering, accelerating the rebound.
History shows that BTC has averaged about a 53.7% increase in the 12 months following the last three midterm elections, but the sample size is small, so this is only a reference and should not be linearly extrapolated.
My view: short-term shorting is not cost-effective; short positions near $79,488 should have clear stop-loss and invalidation conditions preset. Going forward, closely watch ETF fund flows, the dollar index, and whether the price can effectively break key resistance. Strategies can have biases, but risk management cannot rely on luck.
$BTC
#美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 There's really no need to think that AI has no future just because the Democratic Party won.
To be clear, whether it's the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they are both American political parties. Although the two parties often argue fiercely, AI relates to the future technological strength and global competitiveness of the United States. Such an important industry will not be easily abandoned regardless of who is in power.
Of course, the two parties definitely have differences in regulation, taxation, and specific policies, but that doesn't mean the U.S. will stop developing AI.
For ordinary investors, what truly matters in the medium to long term is the state of the U.S. economy, as well as the revenue, profits, and future growth potential of companies like Microsoft, Google, and Nvidia.
Is it really a joke to think that if the Republicans govern, you should go all-in on U.S. stocks, and if the Democrats take power, you should completely sell out?
Looking back at history, the U.S. stock market has experienced long bull markets under both parties. Some long-term statistics even show that the average returns during Democratic presidencies are higher. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean Democratic governance is better for the stock market, since economic cycles, corporate earnings, and Federal Reserve policies all influence the market.
Ultimately, buying stocks is about the future earning power of companies, not betting on which American party wins."UNI and OP: With technical upgrades, should the coin price really rise?"
Whenever the market rebounds, everyone starts looking for the next coin to double. But what I care more about is: after a project upgrade, are there actually new users and revenue? Today, looking at UNI and OP, both are working on trading infrastructure, but they follow different investment logics.
First, UNI. On October 29, Uniswap announced the TJAR on-chain fee conversion system, and on the 30th released a technical explanation; previously launched aggregator Hooks can incorporate external liquidity into routing. What’s worth watching is the aggregated trading volume, actual protocol fees, and whether UNI token burns continue. The risks lie in declining trading activity, competitors siphoning off volume, and the fact that launching features doesn’t mean token holders immediately benefit.
Next, OP. On October 9, Uniswap announced Unichain’s migration to OP Enterprise, with the mainnet migration planned for October 29. Note, this was a previously announced schedule and should not be written as if completed today without verification. The focus for OP is on network stability post-migration, cross-chain interoperability progress, demand for OP Stack usage, and token value capture. The risk is that technology adoption does not necessarily translate into increased demand for OP tokens.
These two projects remind me: in a bull market, you can speculate on expectations, but what sustains valuation long-term is verifiable usage. Do you favor the trading gateway UNI, or the underlying infrastructure OP?
#UNI #OP Not investment advice Seeing net inflows, the common interpretation is that institutions are back. Yesterday, Bitcoin spot ETFs had a net inflow of $74.61 million, with Fidelity's FBTC inflow at $236.72 million and BlackRock's IBIT outflow at $201.2 million.
Thinking about it the other way, I don't agree that this necessarily means institutions are bullish: the two have opposite flows, so there's no consensus; if funds are migrating between channels, then the inflow may not all be new demand, this is my speculation. Do you think the opposite subscriptions and redemptions of the two can indicate institutional sentiment? Those with opposing views, come argue.Starting from 12 noon, Binance began gradually restoring withdrawal services for some assets in batches, while deposits have remained normal throughout. This is the 8th update on the progress of recovering from the security incident, with very careful wording: it’s not "resuming withdrawals," but "gradually opening withdrawals for some assets."
Look at the granularity of the list. Six chains with 19 withdrawal entries: on ETH there are UNI, AAVE, PAXG, MORPHO; on BSC there are ASTER, PROM, FIL; on BASE there are AERO, VIRTUAL, AVNT; on TRX there are JST, SUN; MATIC only has GNS, and SUI only has MMT.
The grouping logic is noteworthy: it’s divided by "chain × token," not by opening entire chains at once. For example, only 5 tokens are open on the ETH network; the token called $UNI is released on both ETH and BSC chains. The recovery progress follows the security checks of individual assets, not the network.
More importantly, look at what’s missing from the list: $BTC and $ETH themselves are not in the first batch. Priority is not based on market cap; relatively new names like AERO, AVNT, and MMT are actually ahead on the list. Deposits have been normal throughout, indicating the entry point is intact, and the bottleneck is on the withdrawal side.
For holders, don’t consider this a full recovery. For assets on the list, first try a small withdrawal to verify the chain; after it arrives, then move larger amounts. What’s really worth watching is whether there will be withdrawal queues in the next few days and whether mainstream coins will be included in the second batch.#索尼财报前瞻：游戏与音乐业务表现如何？ Sony Earnings Preview: Music is the Ballast, Gaming is the Option to be Realized. Music is becoming the most certain profit engine: streaming, copyrights, live performances, and visual media are all flourishing, with Q2 sales revenue up 21% and operating profit up 28%. Through acquiring music catalogs and increasing holdings in "Peanuts," content assets have been strengthened, and cash flow visibility is far higher than hardware. Gaming is in a "profit shifting period": Q2 operating profit decline mainly comes from non-recurring items like Bungie impairment; excluding these, actual growth is 23%. Hardware is pressured by storage price increases and declining sales, but PS Plus price hikes, subscription tier upgrades, and increased average user spending are transforming gaming from hardware sales into a continuous commission-based service business. "GTA VI" is a potential catalyst. If the market only looks at console sales, it will underestimate music's compound returns; if it dismisses gaming due to a single quarter's impairment, it will also misread the situation. Music is the realized ballast, gaming is the option not yet fully priced.$CAP current price 0.099, close to the 24h high of 0.1003, 15-minute EMA shows a bullish alignment, but volume is clearly shrinking, with strong resistance at the 0.10 whole number level.
Liquidation heatmap: long liquidations below total $6.53 million, short liquidations above only $370,000, ratio about 95:5. The largest concentration zone is between 0.0888 and 0.089 (around $350,000), about 10% below the current price, posing a risk of a downward wick to sweep liquidity.
4-hour chart: price pulled from 0.066 to 0.099, up 30% in 7 days, with previous high resistance at 0.1018 and 0.1175 above.
Personal advice: do not chase the high. Consider going long only after a volume-backed close above 0.1005. Buy on dips stabilizing between 0.0935 and 0.095. If it breaks below 0.0975 and EMA turns bearish, look to short with targets at 0.093 and then 0.089.Oil prices crashed nearly 9% in a single day! Inflation is easing, so why is $ETH stuck at 2429 and not rising?
Crude oil has really taken a beating these past couple of days. Brent crude plunged directly to around $94, dropping nearly 9% in one day, plunging for four consecutive days and wiping out most of the previous geopolitical premium. The core logic is straightforward: the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, and the leader immediately stated the intention to push for ending the Iran war, using military funding as leverage to apply pressure. The market instantly priced in a cooling of the war risk, and the risk premium caused by the Strait of Hormuz blockade was mostly wiped out in just a few days.
Logically, this should be a solid positive for the crypto market. Oil prices falling means energy inflation eases, reducing pressure on the Fed to raise rates, which should benefit risk assets somewhat. But in reality, ETH got stuck at 2429, oscillating without rising, and $BTC only rose slightly by 0.39%, showing no sign of catching this wave of good news.
Actually, this is normal. The whole market’s focus is pinned on tonight’s nonfarm payrolls. The oil price drop is a slow variable affecting long-term inflation trends; but whether the Fed hikes rates in December depends on the employment data right now. Earlier ADP employment exceeded expectations, and the service sector employment index is also rising. The market still worries that employment is too strong, so the Fed will continue tightening. This big boot hasn’t dropped yet.
I previously opened a 100x long position at 2331, which was losing badly a few days ago, but these past two days, riding the momentum from the election results, it turned profitable. I originally hoped the oil price crash would push it further for more gains, but it seems I was too optimistic. No more reckless moves.$LIT Observation: The 6.2% rise relies on expectations of a CFTC application; the application itself has not yet been submitted.
LIT is currently priced at $3.49, up 6.19% in 24 hours, with a high of $3.57 and a trading volume of $17.9 million.
This rally started on October 21, when the founder of Lighter said in the Q3 investor call that they plan to apply to the CFTC in November for two licenses: an exchange (DCM) and a clearinghouse (DCO). On that day, LIT surged 21%.
As of today, the application has not been submitted, nor has any approval been granted. According to the CFTC's review cycle framework of about 180 days, the earliest result would be in spring 2027.
Another factor supporting the price is buybacks; Lighter spent about $4.1 million on LIT buybacks in October.
Pressure is expected on December 27, when the team and investors’ shares begin to unlock. Out of the total 1 billion, about 250 million are in circulation, with roughly three-quarters still locked or reserved. Before regulatory implementation, the focus is on whether the application can be submitted as scheduled.When I saw this message, my first reaction was: the stock price is pricing in panic, but the bills in the data center might be telling a different story. Rather than "tech stocks fell, will crypto follow?", I want to understand whether the market is actually selling demand or selling expectations of expansion being blocked.
Trader degentrading mentioned that on the previous trading day, cloud giants rose about 10%, semiconductors fell about 10%; H100 rental prices rose 26% year-over-year, GB200 rose 50%, and ORCL disclosed AI infrastructure utilization reached 98%. He is also optimistic about Chinese tech stocks and the crypto market.
My judgment is that this set of data seems more like a rebuttal to "compute demand has collapsed" and is not enough to prove that the crypto market will benefit. Rising rental prices and high utilization indicate that existing compute power is still tight; if new data center construction in the U.S. is blocked, then existing resources become more expensive and incremental chip sales are under pressure, which can happen simultaneously. This is my speculation, and the two are not contradictory.
As for trapped positions limiting the rebound, I think this is a trading-level resistance and cannot replace fundamental judgment. Chinese tech stocks and crypto each have their own pricing logic, and we cannot assume that funds will move over just because U.S. semiconductors are under pressure.
So I would separate "compute power is still tight" and "crypto can absorb funds". Which explanation do you agree with more: is this a case of emotional overselling, or is the market beginning to reassess the ceiling of AI expansion? Thursday, 2026.11.05
Due to the Democratic Party winning Congress in the US midterm elections, although the US stock market rebounded yesterday, investors are worried that future stricter regulations, approval restrictions, and local opposition on AI data center construction may slow down infrastructure pace, which has short-term suppressed related stock prices.
Bitcoin's response yesterday was relatively positive, which is a very good sign.
On November 4, Bitcoin ETF net inflow was 75.6 million, and Ethereum ETF net inflow was 53 million. The ETF data is quite average, so it seems that the bulls inside the market are exerting strength.
Market Analysis
Bitcoin rebounded straight to above 81,000 with a wick before falling back. As mentioned earlier, this looks more like a bull counterattack rather than a trend reversal. The drop from 80,000 to 75,000 was largely due to Binance's black swan event, and partly due to the linked decline in US stocks. There were probably quite a few bottom-fishers this time, and 75,000 could very well be a golden pit. But no need to rush; the market won't reverse all at once. There should be more bottom-fishing opportunities later, but probably not at such low levels. Those wanting to bottom-fish should prepare in advance.
The US stock market's counterattack did not continue; futures after hours today almost closed flat. Macroeconomically, conditions for a reversal are still not in place; it's mostly just a rebound. But I think a rebound should still come in the next couple of days, with the index likely to rebound about 3%, returning to last Friday's level.
Cryptocurrency Fear and Greed Index: 43 (Neutral) What I'm focusing on is whether this capital shift will drive sentiment in the Ethereum ecosystem 👀. According to Farside Investors data, after seven consecutive trading days of net outflows, the US Ethereum spot ETF saw a net inflow of about $53 million on November 4. This is somewhat interesting, but I prefer to see it as a signal of sentiment recovery rather than a collective positive for small-cap tokens.
ETF inflows reflect changes in funds for these products, which does not mean the funds have already entered on-chain; given the previous continuous outflows, a single day turning positive is still insufficient to confirm a direction. My speculation is that if inflows continue, the high-volatility assets in the ecosystem might attract more attention, but sentiment can amplify both opportunities and the pullbacks after expectations fall short.
Moving forward, I will look at whether ETF funds sustain and whether on-chain activity keeps pace together, reminding myself not to directly apply large asset capital news as a logic for small-cap token price increases.On November 4th, Brent crude settled down about 8.7%, and WTI fell about 8.3%. This has already gone further than the "dropped over 7%" mentioned in the list.
Interestingly, the US and Iran did not announce any agreement because of this. Previously, Iranian officials still stated that there were differences between the two sides regarding the agreement. What oil prices are trading on is another kind of change: after the US election results, the market increased its judgment that the war might end sooner.
This is the frustrating part about crude oil. The actual supply hasn't changed significantly yet, but the estimate of future risks has changed first, and prices can still fluctuate sharply.
But I separate market bets from political reality. Changes in congressional control will not automatically end military actions, nor can they guarantee that negotiation terms will be quickly agreed upon. Prices have removed some risk premiums, but facts still need to be realized later.
If negotiations stall or transportation security is hit again, this part of the premium may also return.
This drop reminds me that going long on crude oil cannot rely solely on "the conflict is still ongoing," and going short cannot rely only on "everyone wants to end the conflict." When prices have already moved significantly in advance, what follows depends on whether both sides' actions can keep up. Hopefully, the quotes can change first; sustained declines still require supply and policy cooperation.
#美伊谈判未突破，油价为何单日跌逾7%？ NVIDIA has dropped 14% from its October peak, and the whole screen is shouting that the AI bubble has burst.
I dug up Cisco, the top player in the 2000 bubble, and compared it with NVIDIA starting from the same baseline, and the result is quite different from what everyone thinks.
The red line is $NVDA, starting from November 30, 2022, the day ChatGPT launched. The dark blue line is Cisco CSCO, starting from December 1994, the day Netscape Navigator was released. The horizontal axis shows how many trading days each has gone through.
By the 984th trading day, which is today, NVIDIA has risen 1121%.
Cisco reached the same day in November 1998, up 812%.
Then it surged crazily for another year and four months, peaking in March 2000 at 4259%, with a forward P/E ratio of about 131 times.
NVIDIA's current forward P/E ratio is about 17 times.
The several big dips in between are also very similar.
Cisco's Long-Term Capital Management crisis in October 1998 dropped its gains to just 497%, before the main rally phase.
NVIDIA's tariff hit in April 2025 dropped gains to 457%, then it surged again to 1314%.
Bubbles always burst in the end; Cisco fell 89% two and a half years after its peak, shown by the gray dashed line.
But following Cisco's pace, this now looks more like the 1998 shakeout, still far from the 2000 peak.$LINK
Is a $5 million ten-times long position considered bullish news?
A quick update around 2 PM said a whale opened a $5.18 million LINK long position two hours ago, with 10x leverage. The numbers sound impressive. I casually checked OKX's pool; the perpetual positions hold 2.21 million tokens. This position equals 450,000 tokens, which, if it landed here, would account for over 20%. But the position only increased less than 1% in two hours, no money came in.
At 11 AM, the 1-hour candle did show increased volume: 253,000 contracts, $2.93 million, about 2.5 times usual. The price jumped from 11.48 to 11.645, then the next three candles shrank back to around 100,000 contracts, hovering between 11.5-11.56 until now. Currently 11.561, up 4.5% in 24 hours, still 0.2 short of the high at 11.8. The fee rate is 0.0092%, close to the benchmark, longs didn't pay extra. The order book ±1% shows 1.11 million buy and 1.15 million sell, both sides equally thick.
This update only proves some are bullish, it doesn't prove money has arrived. Wait until positions really increase.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ $SNDK
The breaking news only mentions the low close of the Japanese and Korean stock markets, with the Korean stock market down over 5%, but I have been watching the SNDK line since early morning. SK Hynix fell nearly 10% intraday, and the Korea Exchange even triggered a halt due to programmed selling; the storage chain was all pressed down together. The token opened at 1129 and dropped continuously to a low of 990.8, currently at 1016, down 10%.
Interestingly, at 2 PM this candle opened at 997, pulled up to 1015.5, with 43,000 contracts traded, the largest since the sell-off at 9 AM. The US stock market is closed at this time, it’s early morning in the US East Coast, so this price is set by the Asian session itself.
I checked the fee rate again, 0.0795%, eight times the benchmark, and the bulls are still losing money holding on. Open interest is 143,000 contracts, 144 million, 30 million more than at noon. Price down 10%, leverage unchanged, fee rate rising, this is not panic selling, someone is holding on to the death.
At this position, I won’t chase shorts; I’ll wait for the main stock to open tonight for the answer.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ $BTC experienced a strong surge last night, jumping directly from 78,000 to 81,000, an increase of over 5%! But the big rally is now in the past; what we care about next is how the market will move! Historically, after a single-day surge, Bitcoin usually consolidates for a day or two before choosing a major direction. Don’t just look at technical indicators and assume it will definitely go up, because after big volatility, technical indicators lose their reference value. Last night, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $74.56 million, with Fidelity net inflow of $237 million and BlackRock net outflow of $200 million. Although it’s a net inflow overall, considering BlackRock’s previous large transfers of Bitcoin into exchanges, I judge that BlackRock might be starting to sell, so we need to be cautious about this! As for where $BTC will go next, I think the most important thing is to watch the sustainability of capital, but given the current macro environment, I believe funds are still focused on risk aversion and conditions are not favorable for incremental capital to enter the market. Therefore, the current strategy is to be bullish but not chase the rally! The significance of the StablR incident for perpetual margin: your collateral might suddenly be worth less than 1 dollar
This perspective might be less common, but I think it’s very important.
Most of the margin for perpetual contracts is stablecoins. The pricing assumption for stablecoins is: 1 coin = 1 dollar.
In the StablR incident, USDR and EURR depegged by 50% at one point. Although the scale was small (market caps of 20 million and 10 million), it proved one thing: this assumption is not always true.
What happens if your margin contains depegged stablecoins?
First, calculating margin at face value actually overestimates your safety cushion. Platforms usually price them at 1 dollar, but the market price might be only 0.5.
Second, once the platform adjusts the discount rate, your position instantly becomes under-margined. At this time, the market is highly volatile, and you are forced to liquidate at the worst price.
Third, depegging often comes with liquidity drying up. You want to swap it out, but you can’t.
So my approach is: only use the two or three most mainstream stablecoins for margin, and spread them across at least two issuers.
Not because I predict who will have issues, but because I don’t want a technical problem beyond my control to decide the fate of my position.
The same applies to deposits—HyperFill will compare routes and convert directly to USDC for deposit, without me manually swapping coins in between, reducing one step and thus one potential risk.Yesterday, Bitcoin once dropped 2.8%, falling below 76,000, then rebounded to around 77,900.
The price came back, but the liquidation structure will not return.
In this event-driven decline, I focus on three things:
First, the ratio of long to short liquidations. During the recent drop, longs accounted for 68.5% of liquidations. This indicates the decline was driven by "longs being forcibly liquidated," not "shorts actively attacking."
Second, the concentration price level of liquidations. If the liquidation cluster is near a certain round number, that level will form a "magnetic effect"—prices accelerate as they approach it.
Third, changes in the VIX. This time, VIX futures broke above 20, indicating a re-pricing of volatility. As volatility rises, market makers narrow their quotes, depth thins, and the same position will suffer greater slippage.
Together, these three points explain why I didn’t add to my position today.
Price is the result; position structure is the cause. Understanding the cause is more useful than looking at the result.Only about 40 ZEC was transferred out on Wednesday. Slow. For now, I'm focusing on the sentiment. The earliest privacy pool of Zcash, Sprout, is about to be frozen, and there are still assets in the pool.
I judge this as slightly bearish for $ZEC in the short term: the freeze applies to the old pool, but the word "freeze" tends to amplify localized risk into panic. Transferring out does not equal selling, so it can't be directly counted as selling pressure.
My approach is to wait for volatility to release first. If there is a sharp drop followed by a quick recovery, then I'll consider entering; if the rebound lacks volume, I won't reach in. Remind myself: don't take headlines as trading signals.The market looks a bit lively on the surface, but when you peel back the layers, it's still hollow underneath. This rebound— is it a recovery or just a breather before the next dip? Over the past couple of days while reviewing data, I've had a subtle feeling: prices have indeed bounced a bit from the lows, and the atmosphere in the group has relaxed somewhat, but the deeper you look, the more you feel the lack of solid support. BTC's weekly-level correction has dragged on for quite some time, and the rebound strength remains mild; ETH is even more obvious, with short- and mid-term moving averages still pressing down overhead, and RSI for both falling into weaker zones. The problem is, a low RSI doesn't necessarily mean the bottom has been reached; using it as a bottom-fishing signal at this point can easily lead to losses. What concerns me more is the layer of capital preference. On October 30, BTC ETFs saw a net outflow of $643 million, and ETH outflowed $156 million; on November 2, they respectively withdrew another $399 million and $140 million. Continuous large-scale withdrawals don't indicate panic selling but rather that big money temporarily doesn't want to take directional risk at this level. On the surface, it looks like prices are recovering, but underneath, the buying power is retreating—this mismatch is what we really need to guard against. The transmission path is also clear: ETF bleeding first caps BTC's rebound height; ETH, due to higher beta and weaker moving average structure, has greater elasticity in following the decline passively; altcoins have no new preference to support them and can only rely on existing funds for short-term plays, making the rhythm increasingly fragmented. In other words, the market is not trading on the idea that "the bottom has appeared," but rather "the drop has been enough, let's test it first." There is also a somewhat bullish path: prices have already digested one round of adjustment, 7 #BTC enters JPMorgan's long-term forecast, institutional allocation remains cautious
The leader has something to say
When I read this news, I repeatedly cross-checked JPMorgan's 2027 long-term capital market assumptions: for the first time, BTC was calculated — a benchmark annualized return of about 10% over the next 10 to 15 years, outperforming the S&P 500's 7.5% and gold's 5.5%. This is the first time a top Wall Street institution has seriously included BTC as a proper asset in its model, which is symbolically significant. But in the same report, BTC's annualized volatility is 55%, its correlation with the stock market is about 33% and unstable, so it has not yet been included in the main allocation covariance matrix.
My interpretation is: a 10% return with 55% volatility is actually a poor risk-return ratio; this is not a bullish signal, just "finally acknowledging BTC's existence." More realistically, on the other hand — as of November 3, the US BTC spot ETF has had net outflows for three consecutive days, totaling about $1.158 billion, with IBIT alone seeing a $95 million outflow in one day. While the long-term assumptions are being upgraded, short-term funds are withdrawing, and institutions are voting with their feet: they recognize you, but are not yet ready to buy you with real money.
BTC's current price is about 80,400. Today, I took profit on my 30x long position around 10:30, pocketing about 10.15%. My stance aligns with JPMorgan's: not bearish long-term, but not chasing highs short-term. Above 80,000 is yesterday's dense trading zone; until ETF net inflows turn positive, it is normal for the price to rise and pause intermittently; a pullback to 7,900–7,950 to stabilize before resuming is expected. $BTC $ETH $ZEC When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was: newcomers easily equate "how much the industry has spent" with "whether the bill will pass." What I care more about is the difficulty of gathering bipartisan votes, which affects regulatory expectations more than simply looking at which party holds the majority.
According to reports, Sherrod Brown defeated Jon Husted on November 3rd to return to the Senate. The CLARITY Act requires 60 votes to advance, meaning bipartisan support is still needed; Brown has previously blocked stablecoin legislation multiple times, so his return means the resistance to gaining support cannot be ignored.
📌 Using this as an example to explain a concept: investment does not equal results. The $30 million promised by Fairshake and the industry's total spending of over $68 million are different metrics and cannot be added together; political investment also cannot be directly converted into votes from legislators. My judgment is that this adds uncertainty to regulatory progress and does not necessarily mean the coin price will fall. Newcomers often make the mistake of treating political news directly as a signal to open positions. I will continue to focus on the actual vote counts and changes in the bill text. U.S. Stock Market Macro Environment and Core Driving Factors
1. Monetary Policy and Interest Rate Pressure:
• The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has recently remained near a key psychological threshold around 4.9% to 5.0%, operating at a high level. Elevated risk-free yields continue to suppress valuation expansion for high-growth stocks with high valuations.
• The market is closely watching the upcoming U.S. October nonfarm payroll report, ADP employment data, and ISM services PMI to assess the Federal Reserve's subsequent interest rate path.
2. Political Landscape and Midterm Election Effects:
• The counting and finalization of the U.S. midterm election results have become a market focus, with control of both chambers of Congress prompting investors to reassess fiscal policy, AI regulatory frameworks, taxation, and energy policies.
• Historical experience shows that markets often experience seasonal rebounds after midterm elections, but the current macro interest rate environment makes capital highly sensitive to policy changes.
3. Market Breadth and Sentiment:
• Although some major stock indices (such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq) have rebounded driven by tech stocks, market breadth remains relatively weak. The number of advancing stocks is often fewer than declining stocks, indicating that the market rally is not broad-based but structurally reliant on leading tech stocks. $QQQ The non-farm payrolls for Friday haven't been released yet, but I want to state my position first: the rate hike is basically decided, and this data won't change anything. The real disagreement is whether there will be a second hike in January next year. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？
Let's first look at last night's small non-farm payrolls, which exceeded expectations by 86,000, higher than the consensus of 69,000, and equal to the revised previous value; the manufacturing PMI is the second highest in four years. Tonight at 21:30, initial jobless claims are expected at 196,000, also lower than expected. The employment rate hasn't dropped, oil prices are still capped at 109, and inflation persists. Under these conditions, why would the Fed pivot?
Looking at the prediction market, Polymarket forecasts a 73% chance of a rate hike, lower than CME's 80%. The money here is betting that if economic data disappoints, the Fed will stop. But non-farm payrolls are highly volatile; over the past year, data has been about half the time much better or worse than expected. Betting on a policy shift based on such unstable data is very risky.
For the crypto community, the real concern isn't December but whether there will be a second hike in January next year. If non-farm payrolls surge above 100,000, the market will immediately start pricing in a second hike, and altcoins will be buried. Bitcoin's $BTC 76,000–78,000 range is a heavy liquidation zone for bulls.
So, the December rate hike is basically a done deal; the real risk pricing is for a second hike in January. If employment exceeds expectations, altcoins will be under pressure, and Bitcoin's $BTC 76,000–78,000 bull danger zone will be triggered. I don't touch high leverage; constantly watching the daily fund reports and flipping back and forth doesn't suit my slow temperament. I just hold and don't move, but the two numbers in this message are only interesting when viewed together.
According to SoSoValue data, as of November 4 Eastern Time, the total net inflow of Bitcoin spot ETFs was $74.5677 million, with Fidelity's FBTC net inflow at $237 million, ranking first for the day. FBTC's historical total net inflow has reached $10.423 billion.
My judgment is: this looks more like a signal to observe funding channels and is not yet evidence of a change in Bitcoin's long-term value. Fidelity alone has an inflow exceeding the net inflow of all products combined, indicating that other products collectively experienced net outflows, so Fidelity's performance cannot be directly taken as new demand for the entire market.
Looking deeper, net inflow records fund movements but doesn't tell us how long holders intend to keep their positions, nor can it distinguish between new allocations and product migrations. If these funds can stay long-term, then in my view, that would be closer to stable allocation demand; this is my speculation, and single-day data can't answer this yet.
Just watch slowly; don't take ETF inflows as a reason to increase leverage, and long-term judgments can't withstand short-term liquidations. For friends holding long-term: what do you want to know more—why Fidelity is attracting funds, or how long this batch of funds can actually stay?I've always been puzzled: over in the US, they say crypto will be heavily regulated to death every day, so why are lawmakers scrambling to express support?
The answer is quite simple—51 senators, 31 states, and in 19 states, two people stand together on the same side. Votes are more honest than words.
Once the midterm elections are over, opposing crypto in their own states comes with a cost, so no one wants to be the one to speak out.
They're calculating votes, not technology. So the story that "crypto will be banned" is becoming harder and harder to tell. Whether $BTC goes up or not is another matter, but at least the wind in Washington has shifted first; the rest depends on when the regulations catch up. Don't be too optimistic or too pessimistic.The proportion of unrealized profits has dropped to 38%, and that number looks quite striking.
Glassnode on-chain data shows that Bitcoin's unrealized profit ratio has sharply fallen to 38%, with short-term chips largely shifting from profit to loss. Leveraged positions have basically been cleared, while dense short liquidations are concentrated above $87,000.
The clearing of leverage means the one-time selling pressure release is nearing its end. The dense short liquidation zone above provides fuel for a rebound. But this is a structural repair, not a trend confirmation. Only a volume breakout above the $87,000 liquidation zone could trigger a short squeeze-style sharp rally; a rise without volume is likely to return to range-bound oscillation, where the strength of the pullback support is the key to short-term success. A low unrealized profit ratio can be seen as a signal that risk release is relatively sufficient, but before demand clearly warms up, it is unwise to rely on a single on-chain indicator as a basis for trend reversal.
Source: Odaily Planet Daily
#BTC
Are you more focused on a volume breakout above $87,000 or the strength of support during the pullback? This chart shows the probability of high US economic growth based on Nowcast IQ, along with the 10-day change in percentage points. It can be seen that this probability rose from about 19% at the end of September to about 41% on November 3, 2026, and the 10-day change has been positive in recent weeks. Currently, this growth direction reversal needs to be monitored closely because the chart records that changes in growth direction often precede US risk momentum by about 1 to 2 months. Seca51 senators, 31 states—this is not an ordinary lobbying news.
More than half of the U.S. Senate now openly supports cryptocurrency, with 19 states having both senators on the same side. Bitwise research director Ryan Rasmussen presented this number with a clear message: cryptocurrency has shifted from a fringe issue to a vote bank that must be addressed in U.S. legislation.
Why after the midterm elections? Because elections turn ambiguous attitudes into costs. Previously, senators could avoid offending either side, but now with supporters in 31 states, anyone openly opposing is essentially alienating an organized group of voters in their state. When the political math is done, positions become clear.
The market mechanism impact is not tomorrow, but two years later. Reduced legislative resistance means that pending matters like the compliance path for spot ETFs, stablecoin frameworks, and exchange licenses will advance faster. The "regulatory uncertainty discount" currently borne by $BTC and $ETH is essentially insurance against unknown risks; as insurance becomes cheaper, prices naturally have room to recover.
But don’t read this as a realized bullish signal. 51 is an attitude, not a bill; turning attitude into legislation still involves committees, amendments, and the next election.
One point worth considering: when supporting crypto becomes something neither party wants to oppose, the "clear rules" the industry most desires may actually come slower than expected, because no one wants to take responsibility for the details.🔗 On-Chain Outlook
🐋 HL Smart Money
▪ 0xfc667adb ($13.1M, down from $22M): 8 positions diverged — BTC 136 LONG, XRP 2.94M LONG, added NEAR longs, still short ETH/SOL/HYPE/ZEC, multiple PAXG gold hedges
▪ 0xc926ddba ($1.2M, surged from $30K): all long BTC+UNI+ZEC
▪ Overall judgment: whales flipped from "all short" to "mixed long and short," BTC/XRP clearly flipped from short to long, bulls significantly increased positions
📊 Volume Panel
▪ Volume and price: BTC +3.34% above $80,436
▪ Trading: 24h $1.53B / 19,208 BTC; price back above MA20 (80,261)/EMA26, but still below MA60 (81,354), MACD -939 still bearish, RSI 46 neutral
▪ Trend: rebound on shrinking volume, mainly driven by contract funds
🐋 BTC On-Chain
▪ No unconfirmed transfers ≥100 BTC (spot market quiet); OI 95,800 BTC, funding rate 0.009% neutral
Whales flipped from short to long, pressing BTC, but on-chain is so quiet there isn't even a single large transfer of 100 BTC — this round is contract-driven pump, spot market watching, both sides waiting for the other to show their hand first. Calculate it: reducing block time from 75 seconds to the target 25 seconds theoretically triples the block production frequency. Zcash's NU7 upgrade is expected to take effect around 9:30 PM Eastern Time on November 5. At that time, about $16 million worth of ZEC in the Sprout pool will no longer be spendable; from my perspective, the migration risk should be prioritized over the speed increase.
① There are about 12,226 ZEC remaining in the pool, with $16 million estimated at $1,300 per coin. These coins are still counted in the total supply. I do not consider "unspendable" as equivalent to burning, nor do I assume a price benefit from this; restoring access is also uncertain.
② About 10,000 ZEC were migrated out last week, and by Wednesday, about 40 had been migrated out. A decrease in migration does not mean the risk has been eliminated. I am more concerned whether the remaining holders are aware of the migration requirements; a slowdown in fund flow cannot be taken as confirmation of safety for them.
③ Block time is shortened from 75 seconds to the target 25 seconds, while the old transaction format is eliminated. I believe reducing complexity and security risks is a positive aspect of the upgrade, but the block time acceleration cannot be directly equated to an actual improvement in user experience.
My judgment is that the technical direction is positive, but old pool holders bear the most direct impact; for me, verifying the pool where assets are held and the migration requirements is more practical than focusing on the so-called "locked coin benefits."💻 When I saw this message, the first thing that popped into my mind was a code review comment: the old interface can be deprecated, but unresponsive users should not be considered as having confirmed.
According to CoinDesk, Zcash's privacy pool Sprout, launched in 2016, is about to be frozen. The pool still holds about 12,200 ZEC, worth approximately $16 million. About 10,000 ZEC were transferred out in the past week, with only about 40 ZEC transferred out on Wednesday.
My judgment is that the process change is what should be reviewed most carefully this time. The transfer volume only proves that some people took action; it does not prove that the notification reached everyone. A slowdown in daily transfers also cannot directly lead to the conclusion that the remaining users are actively choosing not to move. The potential bug here is treating on-chain silence as user authorization.
If it were me, I would list notification coverage, operation thresholds, and freeze impact as pre-launch checklist items. Please help me review: for wallets inactive for a long time, what counts as fulfilling the notification obligation?"*🔥 $BTC pulled up to 81,100, don’t call a bull comeback!*
Price rose 4%, but the truth is:
*Shorts were liquidated for 533 million, but positions dropped 4.36%* - Old shorts are exiting, new longs haven’t arrived, volume up but positions down means a cleanup!
*ETF funds fled 1.157 billion in three days, BlackRock alone withdrew 734 million* - Institutions are running during the rise!
This rally is a bullish candle created by short covering, not spot buying!
*Key levels:* Resistance at 81,300, support at 75,839, break below targets 70,000!
Chasing longs at 81,000 means you’re buying the remnants of short stop-losses! $BTC current price is $78,445.60, up 1.98% in 24 hours — this increase seems moderate, but on-chain whale position data reveals a counterintuitive gap: 939 short whales are collectively under pressure, with unrealized losses swelling to $99.13 million, while long whales, though also deeply in the red, are quietly easing their pressure. The market is brewing a position structure rebalancing around $79,200. First, let's look at the real picture of the long and short camps. A total of 1,239 whale addresses hold $3.92 billion in positions, with a nominal long-short ratio of only 23.54%. Shorts dominate in volume — $3.17 billion versus $747.7 million, a ratio close to 4.2 to 1. But this volume advantage is currently becoming a burden: shorts' average entry price is $75,996.95, and after the price rebound, unrealized losses have expanded to $99.13 million, compressing the return rate to 39.29%. This means a large number of low-position shorts are "trapped," and with each upward price test, the pressure for forced liquidation increases. On the long side, the situation is different. 300 whale addresses have an average cost as high as $84,449.85, with unrealized losses of $57.23 million and a return rate of 54.33%. High costs mean heavy overhead for breaking even above, limiting breakout momentum; however, this rebound has partially repaired their unrealized losses, and the most panic-driven selling phase may be over. The long and short sides show a very clear divergence: one with "high cost, eased pressure," the other with "heavy positions, acute losses." The key variable is at $79,200. Above this level, short stop-loss and clearing accumulate To be honest, when I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was "fear of missing out." I used to easily take a rising market as a safety signal, but after suffering losses from that mindset, I realized that a red index doesn't mean your own risk is low.
This MSX observation states that with the Democrats taking both houses of Congress, the Dow Jones rose 3.03% on November 4; healthcare and clean energy led the gains, while oil and defense were under pressure. I think this is more like a reshuffling of industry rankings, not a reason to generally increase risk.
The fading election uncertainty can explain the improved sentiment; but with different future budgets and regulatory directions, each industry faces different financial realities. Ordinary people tend to overemphasize the former reason and overlook the latter difference.
Now I follow two rules: never increase leverage temporarily based on a single macro news; when encountering policy-driven market moves, first check how your holdings are affected, then look at how much the index has risen. Have you ever experienced "the market rises, but you still get stuck in a pit"? Would you be willing to share a rule to avoid chasing hot trends?This chart shows the Power Law Decay Channel Oscillator, an indicator that measures Bitcoin's price position within the power law channel on a scale from 0% to 100%. It can be seen that the oscillator peaked near 100% in 2011, 2014, 2018, and 2021, while at the end of October 2026 its value dropped to the range of 0% to 5%, close to the cycle's lowest level. Historically, an oscillator falling near zero often appears in the cooling phase after cycle peaks, and this condition needs to be closely monitored as tBitcoin ($BTC), Ethereum ($ETH), and SOL ($SOL) simultaneously experienced a rebound, but this round of gains is more of a short squeeze rather than a broad market bullish consensus. Bitcoin peaked at 78,520 and has slightly pulled back; Ethereum's gains are close to Bitcoin's, while SOL's gains are noticeably weaker. The core driver of this rally is short position liquidations. Within a short time window, a large number of short orders for Bitcoin and Ethereum were forcibly closed, while long liquidations were minimal or even zero, indicating that the price rise mainly came from forced buybacks of short positions rather than new buyers actively absorbing selling pressure. Interestingly, leverage has not decreased accordingly. The long-short ratios of all three coins have declined, but open interest continues to rise, meaning the liquidated short positions are being replaced by newly opened long positions. Currently, all three have positive funding rates, meaning longs must continuously pay shorts the holding cost. There is a notable divergence here: SOL has the highest long-short ratio and the highest funding rate among the three, yet its price performance is the weakest, suggesting crowded longs may not realize the expected upside gains. Looking ahead, the 78,520 level for Bitcoin is a short-term key point; if it holds, the squeeze may continue; if it breaks, longs bearing holding costs face a significant risk of pullback. Additionally, Ethereum has not experienced long liquidations this round, so there is also a possibility of a decline when funding rate settlements occur. $BTC $ETH $SOL Running a small company, my biggest fear is mistaking incoming payment notifications for profit statements. The same habit applies when looking at transactions: of course it's good when money comes in, but how to calculate input-output, whether cash flow can be connected, and how much risk reserve to keep must be viewed separately.
According to SoSoValue data, on November 4th Eastern US time, the total net inflow of the US $ZEC spot ETF was $3.4295 million, all from ZCSH. As of press time, the total net asset value of the related ETF was $757 million, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $218 million.
My judgment is that this inflow is a positive signal for capital acceptance but cannot be a reason to reduce the risk reserve. ETF net inflow reflects changes in funds after subscription and redemption, not operating profits earned by the underlying assets. Using it directly to prove input-output improvement, I think the accounts are mixed up.
Looking at cash flow again, cumulative net inflow is the account accumulated in the past, and single-day inflow is the account of that day; neither equals stable future income. If redemptions occur later, the acceptance capacity must be re-examined, which is my speculation. Net asset value is also not a standby fund kept aside to cover losses at any time; just because the fund size is large does not mean someone will automatically cover the risk.
I will record this news in the capital observation account without changing the risk budget. Friends in business, if you hold such volatile assets, when you see this ETF net inflow, will you lower your reserve or keep the money according to the original stress scenario? Yesterday's performance was fully loaded.
But in the trading market, there is a phenomenon I have always found very worth being cautious about.
In a choppy market, some people watch others repeatedly stop out and trade back and forth, yet they are extremely confident in the Martingale strategy. After several times of holding through losses, they believe their method has a very high win rate, even exceeding 90%.
But the problem lies exactly here.
The Martingale strategy most easily creates an illusion: small moves keep making money, losses lead to adding positions, and rebounds recover the losses. Over time, it’s easy to mistake luck for skill and holding through losses for technique.
But the market will not always be choppy.
The real risk is not how many times you lost before, but when a trend suddenly starts and your position size is out of control, a single one-sided move can wipe out all previously accumulated profits or even cause liquidation.
Trading is not about who wins more times, but whether you can survive and exit when your judgment is wrong.
A 90% win rate, if it comes with an unbearable loss, means this system cannot be considered truly stable. $BTC $ETH $SOL #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ #Tether's XAUT Gold Reserves Grow by 59% On November 4th, spot gold climbed back above $4000, then surged over $200 the next day, rising more than 3% in a single day—the largest daily gain in three months. Why such a sudden surge? The direct trigger was the U.S. midterm elections, where the Democrats took control of both chambers of Congress, which immediately pushed the dollar index down, causing funds to flood into gold as a safe haven. More hardcore data behind this: global central banks net bought 321 tons of gold in Q3, a year-on-year surge of 42%; gold ETFs also saw net inflows of over 200 tons. Even Tether's gold token XAUT increased its physical gold reserves to 25.7 tons, up 59% from the end of last year, valued at $3.44 billion. On the market, gold tokens XAUT and XAU both rose nearly 1.8%. My personal view: buy gold in chaotic times; institutions are all looking for a fallback. Democratic control of both chambers means a sharp increase in uncertainty about U.S. fiscal policy and inflation trends going forward. Big money fears this uncertainty the most, so it immediately pulls out of the dollar and rushes to embrace gold. Tether's move is especially intriguing—they are aggressively hoarding gold with the interest they earn, a form of "de-dollarization" self-hedging. USDT is originally backed by U.S. Treasuries, and now with solid gold added, it’s like double insurance, maximizing risk resistance. This also serves as a reminder: RWA is not just hype; when real safe-haven demand erupts, on-chain gold is the real deal #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？
Regarding tomorrow night's big nonfarm payrolls, if we don't consider tonight's unemployment claims, I lean towards a moderate strength.
My core logic:
ADP exceeded expectations.
Manufacturing employment is still expanding.
Service sector employment components are improving.
The US economy currently shows no clear signs of employment recession.
Therefore, I am more inclined to see the big nonfarm payrolls meet or slightly exceed market expectations, rather than a result significantly below expectations.
If this scenario plays out, the expectation of a rate hike in December will be further solidified, and the market will start trading on rate hike expectations.
The US dollar will strengthen, and US Treasury yields will rise! Expectations of tightening US dollar liquidity will increase, which is usually unfavorable for crypto assets, especially BTC ETH.
Short-term traders still need to take profits and cut losses in time to control risk! The semiconductor trend is really making people nervous. @八佰哥爱理财 is clearly overexcited!
$SNDK SanDisk is about to break the weekly support, this market is so bad that it even drains the energy to curse. Looking at this chart, I don't even have the desire to catch a falling knife. $SOXL
The daily chart is sliding down along the lower BOLL band, and the huge bearish candle on the weekly chart is directly pressing down to the support level around 1000. Whether it breaks or not is another matter, but judging by the volume of this bearish candle, the bulls basically have no resistance.
But what really chills me to the bone is not the candlestick, but the underlying logic behind this crash. Last quarter, price increases contributed two-thirds of the revenue, but this quarter the CFO himself lowered the guidance to 40%, adding that there will only be "moderate price increases" going forward. Translated, it means: the price hike engine has stalled after just one quarter. Looking at Japan's Kioxia, NAND price increases have sharply dropped, and consumer revenue fell nearly 30% quarter-over-quarter, what does this indicate? No matter how strong data centers are, they can't withstand the bleeding on the consumer side.
So this drop is not due to a sudden collapse in profits, but because the pricing logic based on "price hike expectations" has been completely dismantled. After the weekly break, the orange box below is the previous base. Whether it holds depends on when NAND spot prices stop falling and when the consumer side stops deteriorating. Before these two turning signals appear, even if there is a rebound, I will only treat it as a short-covering pulse and definitely won't easily catch it. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ I've heard this sentence many times before, but only now do I truly understand it.
The balance you see on an exchange is essentially an IOU from the company to you; it is not an actual coin you own. The coins are in the company's wallet, and what you hold is a creditor's claim.
This implies two things:
First, in case of trouble, whether compensation is possible depends on the company's balance sheet, not the numbers in your account. Mercado Bitcoin promises "customers will not lose assets," but that is a promise, not an audited reserve certificate, and it has not set a date to reopen deposits and withdrawals.
Second, there is no deposit insurance to cover losses. Banks have deposit insurance if they fail; exchanges do not. Your only protection is whether the company is willing and able to compensate you.
To compare: Binance says it covers losses with its own balance sheet and has already made up the shortfall; Mercado Bitcoin says it will compensate but has not yet proven it.
The same sentence, one company has a record of fulfillment, the other does not. That is the difference.
So the real question is not "Is this exchange safe?" but "If it fails today, what will it use to compensate me?"
Following this question leads back to where assets should be stored: assets for trading go on exchanges, assets to be stored go in self-custody, and assets needed immediately go where they can be withdrawn instantly. PayAll solves the last layer.$BTC Everything seems as if nothing happened, billions of dollars in virtual currency were stolen, but it only killed a wave of bulls and then quickly pulled back, which is quite intriguing.Yesterday BTC rebounded, and many people started shouting a full bullish outlook again, but I'm not that optimistic.
The election ending did indeed remove some political uncertainty, oil prices fell, US Treasury yields declined, risk appetite recovered, and BTC leveraged this to pull back from 75,700 to 80,000. But looking at the funding side separately, this move seems more like an emotional recovery after overselling and short covering—ETFs are still experiencing net outflows, contract positions haven't decreased, spot buying is not active, and institutions haven't seen large-scale replenishment.
So in the short term, you can follow the rebound, but don't let your guard down in the mid-term. On the chart, 81,800 is a recent strong resistance; if it can't break through, it will return to 80,000, and if it breaks down, look at 79,300, with 75,700 as mid-term support further down.
What really determines the next phase is not whether it rose above 80,000 today, but the data in the next two days: Non-farm payrolls to see employment resilience, CPI to see if inflation is recurring. As long as the data is on the hot side, the December rate hike expectations will be pressed back, the dollar will strengthen, liquidity will tighten, and BTC will still struggle to have an independent rally.
The current state is: panic has retreated a step, but funds haven't taken over yet. The rebound can go on for a while relying on short covering, but to reverse, ETF inflows must turn positive, spot support must thicken, and macro interest rate expectations must ease. Until these three things align, trade the trend for the short term and don't mistake the rebound for a bull market. $BTC $ETH ETH rose 6% in a week to hit $2439, but Wall Street ETFs haven't bought a single day in 23 days
The price rebounded from the $2200 trendline, reaching the 0.618 retracement level at $2439
However, the US spot ETH ETF has had zero net inflows for 23 consecutive trading days since September 29, setting the longest record since its launch
In October alone, $1.61 billion flowed out, the largest monthly outflow since its July 2024 launch
On November 3, another $85.35 million flowed out, totaling $515 million outflows in the past 7 days
On-chain activity is also quiet: the 14-day average of active addresses dropped to about 365,000 on October 17, the lowest since December last year
During this rise, trading volume has been declining
I think this rally looks more like a short squeeze rebound rather than institutions coming back
The invalidation point is if the ETH ETF shows a single day of net inflow or volume surges above $2439
Which side are you on: will the rebound hold above $2439, or will it drop back to $2200 first?
$ETH $BTC
#以太坊草案EIP-8363引争议 ORCL disclosed AI infrastructure utilization at 98%. My first thought is the worst-case scenario: if expansion is blocked, high utilization might mean growth is stuck rather than profit accelerating.
Chip rental prices are rising, yet semiconductor stocks are falling. I don't directly count tight computing power as a crypto positive: the uncertainty of expansion hasn't disappeared, and the cross-market benefit logic hasn't been proven.
My risk control habit is to first calculate how much loss related positions could incur together in a drawdown, not to treat holding different assets as natural diversification.$53 million, I’d rather use this figure to explain "net inflow" to newcomers than rush to call a reversal. Farside data shows that on November 4, the US Ethereum spot ETF turned to a net inflow after seven consecutive trading days of net outflows. I see this as an improvement in capital flow, but it’s not enough to serve as a basis for opening $ETH contract positions.
📌 Using this data as an example: a net inflow of about $53 million refers to the net difference between subscriptions and redemptions, not that only this amount of funds subscribed that day, nor that the same amount will directly translate into a price increase. It reflects the movement of a certain type of capital but cannot calculate the drawdown space after entering the market for you.
A common misconception among newcomers is translating "funds have returned" into "it’s time to leverage up." But ETF flows won’t bear the volatility of contract positions; the higher the leverage, the less room there usually is for price to move against you. My reminder is: use news to gauge direction, but assess your position size based on how much drawdown you can personally tolerate. I do not agree with the phrase "institutional retreat." IBIT alone had a net outflow of about 201 million USD, which is indeed eye-catching, but the overall US spot BTC ETF still had a net inflow of about 74.6 million USD. After excluding IBIT, the remaining products actually had a combined net inflow of about 275.6 million USD. This structure looks more like flagship product funds dispersing and rotating positions, rather than institutions collectively exiting the market.
Spot BTC has reached about 80,575 USDT, up about 3.34% in 24 hours, with a high touching 81,200. More interestingly, ETH ETF had a net inflow of about 53 million USD, ending a continuous 7-day net outflow; spot ETH rose about 5.71%, with strength even higher than BTC. The funds are not uninterested, just the direction of relay is no longer so singular.
Of course, the opposing side has a strong argument: if IBIT's outflow is the real signal, the inflows of other ETFs might just be short-term absorption. But I currently lean more towards the "rotation" side. Do you think this is fund dispersion, or is IBIT's outflow the real alarm? #BTC进入摩根大通长期预测，机构配置仍谨慎 $BTC $ETH