Orbit Post Sitemap

South Korea plans to reduce major shareholders' holdings in exchanges to 15%–20%. With this sharp cut, the industry landscape will have to be reshuffled. The Financial Services Commission is pushing for the draft "Basic Digital Asset Act" to be proposed this month, aiming to change cryptocurrency exchange regulation from a registration system to a licensing system. It is considering setting a major shareholder holding cap at 15%–20%, with existing platforms possibly granted a 1–2 year transition period. This means South Korea is shifting from "registration filing" to "licensed operation," marking a regulatory framework change in one of the world's most active trading markets. The licensing system raises the entry threshold, compressing the space for exchanges to rely on major shareholders' capital injections and financial maneuvers. The equity structure, mergers and acquisitions, and expansion pace of leading platforms like Upbit will need to be rearranged; the transition period indicates there won't be an immediate blanket clearance, with the main impact focused on valuation and compliance costs. Scenario one: if the cap is set at 15%, the pressure to rearrange equity is greater; scenario two: if set at 20% with attached rectification conditions, the transition pace becomes more critical. Are you more concerned about the final cap on holdings or whether the transition period includes rectification conditions? Source: Wu Shuo #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 indicates that incremental funds are withdrawing, making it harder for altcoins to remain unaffected. Regarding SKHYNIX, I tend to continue defending rather than bottom-fishing. Looking at the market, the price is 875.1, up only 0.1% in 24 hours, with a high of 882.1 pressing down and a low of 868.1 supporting, both 1-hour and 4-hour charts show a downward structure; the order book's top 10 bid-ask ratio is 0.57, sellers clearly dominate, funding rate is 0.0000%, open interest is 64,000, sentiment is cold with no leverage short squeeze momentum. Strategy-wise, lightly short near 879.6 on a rebound, stop loss at 884.3, target 866.5; if volume breaks below 868.1, short again, stop loss 873.2, target 858.9. Single position no more than 20%, exit if the breakout fails. ——This is only a personal opinion and does not constitute investment advice. Wish you successful trading.—— $SKHYNIX#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 $SKHYNIX Who holds 849,327 BTC? Of course, it's MicroStrategy. Currently, the price is around 75,900, which is near MicroStrategy's cost basis. Every time it hits this cost basis, the screen fills with mockery or panic. Does this Bitcoin reserve train really have a destination, or is every stop just a temporary station to get off? This year, to pay preferred stock dividends, they have already sold about $430 million worth of coins. In 8 to 10 hours, let's see if Taylor tweets to indicate whether to buy or sell this week? We wait and see; this is also a typical sentiment indicator. Just stay tuned! $NVDA Earnings Preview｜OKX Predicts Market 80% Expect Better-than-Expected Results, I Lean Bullish Nvidia confirmed it will release its Q3 earnings after the U.S. market closes next Tuesday (November 17). The prediction market currently shows Yes at 82¢ and No at 20¢, corresponding to about an 80% probability of beating expectations. Supporting this judgment are several points: the company’s revenue guidance is $108 billion (±2%), the market consensus is about $108.8 billion, slightly above the midpoint of the guidance; last quarter’s revenue was $96.2 billion, about 4.6% higher than expected; EPS has beaten expectations in all of the past four quarters. But there are two points to note: first, the 80% probability already factors in most of the good news, with a Yes buy-in price of 82¢, winning yields only about 18¢ per share, while losing means losing the principal, so the odds are not high; second, beating earnings does not necessarily mean the stock price will rise. In the past four beats, the stock price fell after earnings three times, and the company also warned that Q4 gross margin will decline due to rising memory costs. So I am optimistic about the "beat expectations" itself, but I don’t consider it a sure win. I used to think that as long as the direction was right, having a larger position just meant earning a bit more. Only after suffering losses did I admit that the worst thing isn't being wrong about the direction, but pressing the position so hard that you don't dare to admit the mistake, delaying the stop loss again and again. This time, Core Trader 93 used 10x leverage to go long on $SNDK, with a nominal position of about $100,400, and the result hasn't come out yet. My judgment is that this trade should focus more on risk budgeting rather than guessing how confident he is. Roughly calculating by initial margin without fees, if the price moves 1% against the position, the loss would be about 10% of the margin; but since the total account funds are unknown, you can't just judge heavy position by the amount alone. Now I follow two rules: first, set the maximum loss you can bear per trade, then calculate the position size backward from the stop loss distance to avoid being unable to withstand normal fluctuations; second, set the stop loss firmly and don't move it farther away, to avoid turning one wrong judgment into a stubborn hold. Have you ever experienced moving your stop loss farther and farther? What hard rule did you set for yourself afterward? Starting November 17, ordinary people in Russia can buy Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDT through licensed institutions. The central bank's rules have been finalized: for non-qualified investors, each institution can buy up to 300,000 rubles per year, about 3,700 USD, and they must pass a test first. The Moscow Exchange will also start a pilot on December 1. (Source: Cointelegraph, Russian Central Bank) My view: this is a compliance entry point, not a liberalization. Only three coins are allowed, with limits, and P2P trading will be banned starting July 2027; transferring to personal wallets is also not allowed. There is actually little room for people who want to put coins into their own wallets over there. Don't expect too much from the market. The annual quota of 3,700 USD is spread across each institution, so the scale is limited. The real change is that another major country has incorporated crypto into a regulatory framework. These days, the market mainly focuses on the Federal Reserve and US stocks; this news is more of a slow variable. #BTC #ETH #USDT #美加稳定币监管明确收益边界 $BTC The gold market recently experienced a significant adjustment followed by a rebound, but overall volatility remains high. Continuous gold purchases by global central banks, geopolitical uncertainties, and changes in the global economic outlook remain key factors supporting gold's long-term value. From a macro perspective, U.S. employment data exceeded expectations, fueling market expectations that the Federal Reserve will maintain high interest rates. This strengthened the U.S. dollar and Treasury yields, exerting short-term pressure on gold. From the capital demand side, global central banks' net gold purchases in the third quarter reached 321 tons, a 42% year-on-year increase. Gold ETFs saw a net inflow of 211 tons during the same period, indicating that institutional and central bank allocation demand remains strong. From the market demand perspective, global economic uncertainty and ongoing sovereign debt pressures continue to support gold's safe-haven demand. However, high gold prices have also suppressed some physical gold and jewelry consumption. In summary: Gold remains supported in the long term by central bank purchases, safe-haven demand, and global debt issues, but faces short-term pressure from a stronger dollar and expectations of high interest rates. Going forward, key focus areas include U.S. inflation data, Federal Reserve policy, dollar trends, and global central bank gold purchases. $XAU First, consider the worst-case scenario. When I see data showing a cluster of long positions, my first question isn't how much more it can rise, but: if the market suddenly reverses, can my margin hold up? Having done risk control, this habit is hard to break. The current long-to-short ratio on OKEx BTC contracts is 2.99, compared to 2.98 24 hours ago, meaning for every 1 short account, there are 2.99 long accounts. I think this is more of a crowding alert rather than a directional signal. ⚠️ I have three concerns: the number of accounts doesn't equal the amount of capital, many accounts don't necessarily mean large positions; the change from 2.98 to 2.99 is very small, so it can't be used to judge a clear rise in sentiment; if crowding continues to intensify and is met with a reverse fluctuation, I speculate that high-leverage accounts will be more passive, but this shouldn't be taken as a definite signal for a drop. Ordinary traders might first clearly define the maximum loss they can bear per trade, rather than using the number ratio as a substitute for risk budgeting. When facing such data showing a long bias crowding, how much stop loss do you generally set for yourself per trade? Lately, people have been asking: With the price dropping like this, who exactly is selling? The answer isn't that mysterious; it's just that someone has been continuously using market orders to push the price down. Since October 14, the active sell volume of $BTC has consistently exceeded the active buy volume, accumulating an excess of 105,300 coins. During this period, the price fell from 84,000 to 76,000. The drop didn't happen out of thin air; there really are sellers, and they're selling patiently. Many people's first reaction is, "Is it another liquidation?" Liquidation-driven drops are like a needle—sharp and quick, then a rebound. This time is different; it's a slow grind downward, selling as it goes, which is even harder to endure because it doesn't give you a clear bottom to buy at. If you're thinking about buying in, first ask yourself: Has the active buying volume returned?$BTC dropped from $84,000 to $76,000, and many people's first reaction was that leverage blew up. But there is another line worth watching during the same period: starting from October 14, the CVD turned negative and steadily declined to 105,300 BTC. CVD measures who is more active between buyers and sellers. Its turning negative and continuing downward is straightforward: during this period, there were consistently more active sellers than active buyers, with a cumulative excess of 105,300 BTC. The price drop is due to real continuous selling pressure in the order book, not a sudden spike in some contract market. Passive limit orders can be withdrawn without leaving traces; active trades involve exchanging real money. Therefore, CVD explains who dominated this period better than price alone. While the price dropped $8,000, CVD steadily declined, indicating persistent and patient selling pressure. Axel Adler Jr.'s judgment is that the bears are applying pressure and currently dominate. The operational implication is specific—until active buying volume turns positive again, any rebound is more likely a recovery after selling pressure release, not a trend reversal. Another point to consider: before October 14, CVD was positive, indicating buyers were pushing. Later it turned negative and price fell simultaneously, meaning most chips changed hands during this interval. The new holders' cost basis is above $76,000, and they want to exit once breakeven is reached, creating resistance above. The focus is not on whether the price breaks a level, but on when CVD turns positive.Can $HOOD's net inflows offset the cooling of retail trading? Robinhood disclosed $16 billion in net inflows in Q3. More client assets benefit brokerage and interest businesses, but activity levels, asset allocation, and interest rates will affect monetization. If inflows are retained and multiple business lines grow, revenue will be more stable. If inflows remain in low-monetization assets and trading volume declines, profit elasticity will be discounted.“The bulls are so crowded, it should reverse.” This is a common interpretation. The current long-to-short ratio for OKEx BTC contracts is 2.99, compared to 2.98 24 hours ago. Thinking about it the other way, I feel it's too hasty to treat this as a bearish signal: first, the increase is only 0.01, which doesn't indicate a sudden shift in sentiment; second, it only counts accounts without considering position size, so more long accounts don't necessarily mean stronger capital. I will wait for position data to confirm before hastily labeling this data as a reversal signal.Elon Musk expects SpaceX's annualized revenue run rate to exceed $100 billion by December. The number is impressive, but my first reaction is to pay attention to the term "annualized." Annualized revenue usually converts the income speed of a certain period into a full-year level. For example, if the monthly revenue is about $8.33 billion, multiplying by 12 results in an annualized scale of about $100 billion. This is a different question from how much revenue has actually been confirmed for the entire year. This does not affect the weight of the target itself. If such a revenue speed can really be achieved, it certainly means the business scale deserves to be reassessed. But next, we need to see which businesses contribute to the growth, whether it can be sustained, and how much capital is required to obtain this revenue. Especially during a high-speed expansion phase, revenue may run fast, but expenses may also run fast. If valuation is calculated only based on annualized revenue while ignoring equipment and infrastructure investments, the model usually looks much better than reality. I am willing to pay attention to this target, but I want to see subsequent financial reports clarify the revenue composition: how much is sustainable and repeatable, how much depends on concentrated delivery, and when the cash is actually collected. The market likes big numbers, which is normal. But for shareholders, beyond revenue scale, investment and returns must also be considered. The more aggressive the target, the more consecutive quarters of fulfillment are needed to reliably raise expectations. #马斯克预计SpaceX年底年化营收突破1000亿美元 43 linked receiving addresses transferred at least 4.06 million USDT from 365 TRON wallets. The same batch of addresses also transferred funds from wallets on Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base, Arbitrum, and other chains, indicating this is a cross-chain coordinated operation rather than an isolated TRON incident. Pattern revealed by on-chain data Hundreds of victim wallets funnel funds to a few collection addresses, a typical characteristic of automated coin-sweeping malware or large-scale phishing toolkits—once a wallet is compromised, its stablecoin balance is quickly drained. TRON’s low fees and deep USDT liquidity make it a primary channel for legitimate transfers as well as the preferred network for illicit fund liquidation; this network has long carried the majority share of global USDT transfers. Bitquery clustering of 43 receiving addresses suggests a single operator or a closely coordinated group behind this. Cross-chain footprints (Ethereum, BNB Chain, Base, Arbitrum) indicate the attackers are not limited to a single chain and likely aggregate funds via cross-chain bridges or swap services. Significance for the stablecoin ecosystem USDT is the primary target. Stablecoins have the best liquidity and are the hardest to track at scale, allowing attackers to instantly swap across various trading venues. TRON remains a high-risk zone. Its popularity in emerging market retail payments means many users and wallets have weaker security protections. Exchange compliance is the key checkpoint. Tether can freeze addresses upon request, centralized exchanges are the main cash-out channels, and coordinated blacklisting is the most effective measure.#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ Next Tuesday (November 10) has two major events on the same day: the US October CPI and SoftBank Group's Q2 earnings report. SoftBank's report is worth a separate look. It is now roughly equivalent to OpenAI's “meal replacement stock”: it has committed to investing $40 billion (net investment $30 billion), and as of the end of March this year, OpenAI's holding fair value was $79.6 billion, with cumulative unrealized gains of $45 billion. The problem is that Ultraman confirmed in September that it will not go public in 2026, so these unrealized gains have no short-term exit channel. Where the money comes from is a hard constraint: last October, it liquidated Nvidia holdings to cash out $5.83 billion; in the previous fiscal year, it reduced T-Mobile holdings to raise $16.25 billion, and it is still carrying a $40 billion bridge loan (due March 2027); in June, it tried to use OpenAI equity as collateral for a loan but was shelved by banks citing “private equity pricing difficulties.” S&P downgraded its rating outlook to negative in March. The market has already pre-judged: down 7.9% on Wednesday, intraday drop over 14% on Thursday, SoftBank's dollar bonds led the decline in Asian investment-grade bonds. The earnings report will focus on three things: how OpenAI is valued on the books, how much the LTV has risen, and where the next funds will come from. This is a factual summary and does not constitute investment advice.Bitcoin at $75,880, just lying there playing dead, down only 0.2% in 24 hours. This isn’t sideways movement; it’s clearly both bulls and bears exhausted, glaring at each other in the narrow alley between $75,500 and $76,100. The ETF side is real combat: $430 million outflow on November 5, another $412 million outflow on the 6th, with BlackRock alone redeeming $403 million, totaling $1.28 billion fleeing in one week. Institutions vote with their feet, retail investors stand firm with faith, caught in the middle is a fear and greed index at 26—scared, but not scared enough to cut losses. I think the $75,556 50-week moving average is the key tonight; if it holds, the five consecutive weekly losses cap can be delayed; if it breaks, the 200-day moving average at $73,191 will have to come in to catch the fall. The $76,125 24-hour high is the resistance; if it can’t break above, the so-called rebound is just handing the bears a knife. Tonight at 7 PM Eastern Time is the weekly close, followed by the November 10 CPI, and the probability of a rate hike in December is already 76.5%. This game leaves little time for the bulls. Which side are you on: hold above $75,500 and keep grinding, or admit defeat and exit if it breaks down? $BTC $ETH #Bitcoin #ETFCapitalFlow After reading, I noted three things and usually start with a checklist: This time, I want to examine the informational value of prediction markets rather than just how lively they are. 1. According to reports, Kalshi claims its trading volume related to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections has exceeded $2.5 billion, nearly double the $1.3 billion of the 2024 election cycle. My judgment is that this is a positive signal for prediction markets as a public information tool, but trading volume can prove participation scale, not prediction quality alone. 2. Kalshi data shows that as of the morning of November 4, popular candidates won 479 events with an accuracy rate of about 98%. I would first put a question mark on this number: How much stronger is it than ordinary polls or simple judgments? Without comparable benchmarks, "high hit rate" and "providing additional information" cannot be equated in my view. 3. I care more about coverage: these elections involve the House, Senate, governors, and also positions like state attorneys general. If elections at different levels can continuously receive sufficient trading, then I speculate that the informational use of prediction markets has the chance to expand from focal events to more local races. I will list scale, benchmarks, and coverage as my observation checklist. What would everyone add as a fourth item: probability update speed, or the information quality of less popular elections? $CORE 🚨🚨B14g has finally announced a user repayment plan, but I believe the crisis cannot be declared over yet. On November 6, b14g announced a new user repayment arrangement. According to their latest statement and media reports: Phase One: 68,146,177.22 CORE previously recovered through the Core network upgrade is planned to be returned to affected orders within 5–7 days. Based on the original affected balances, users are expected to receive about 70.2% first. Phase Two: The remaining unpaid portion will be gradually repaid through 50% of b14g's future Core staking business income, with users able to claim weekly. If more CORE is recovered later from exchanges, it will also be added to the repayment funds. This is a step forward compared to the previous phase which only had progress on fund recovery.Brothers, the market looks calm this afternoon, ZEC dropped sharply by 3.61%, and the order wall is down to only 40 million. 📊 Market Hidden Signals The latest depth difference shows a green bar, with slightly thicker buy orders, but far less than the peak of about 120 million on November 6. Orders near ±1%: BTC has 885 million from three parties, ETH has 1.293 billion from six parties, SOL only 167 million, and ZEC just 40 million. The wall is thin, so when it drops, no one is there to catch it. 💰 Capital Flow BTC spot net inflow is 44.8971 million, contract net outflow is 76.5473 million; ZEC spot net inflow is 6.2174 million, contract net outflow is 28.1152 million. ETH contract net outflow is 128 million, spot net outflow is 29.4993 million; SOL contract net outflow is 56.5539 million, spot net outflow is 2.5688 million. Spot buyers are stepping in while contracts are withdrawing, the only sign of warmth. ⚠️ ZEC Concerns ZEC closed at 1262, down 3.61% in one day, the worst among the four coins. Open interest dropped 4.41% in 24 hours, but turned positive by 0.53% in 1 hour, the only short-term rebound. Some short-term buyers are returning, but positions are still moving out over the day. Don't overextend your bottom-fishing hands. 🎯 Position Battle SOL closed at 89.15, still 1.15 above 88, haven’t taken half profits yet, continue holding. ETH short positions remain unchanged, 2235 is getting smoother to hold. BTC at 75819, stuck here grinding, direction not chosen yet, no adding or cutting for now. Until the order wall thickens, chasing ups or downs is just giving money to the wall.#RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？ Brothers, good weekend. The market these past two days can be described as "both bulls and bears suffering, specifically targeting the stubborn ones." Taking advantage of this weekend's downtime, let's calm down, set aside emotions, and deeply review the current market purely with data and logic, as well as strategies for next week. 📊 1. Macro: Nonfarm payrolls blew past expectations, rate cut expectations completely dashed The biggest shock this week was undoubtedly the US October nonfarm payroll data released on Friday. · Added 165,000 jobs, completely crushing the expected 65,000; · Unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%, labor market remains strong. Once the data came out, market bets on a Fed rate hike in December instantly heated up. You should know that the crypto market's previous rebound relied on expectations of "rate cuts" and "liquidity easing." Now, the strong nonfarm data locks out short-term rate cuts, with a macro hammer hanging overhead, risk assets (including US stocks and crypto) simply can't catch a breath in the short term. Coupled with BTC ETF net outflows exceeding $1.1 billion over multiple days recently, institutional funds are also retreating from highs, the overall environment is definitely bearish. 📉 2. Technical: BTC's "false breakout" and "moving average meat grinder" Looking at the current 15-minute and 1-hour charts, BTC is oscillating around 75,900. The 24-hour high and low range is between 76,350 and 74,800. 1. False breakout to lure bulls: Last night the price rebounded from 74,800, reaching a high of 76,216, then quickly formed a long upper shadow and dropped. Technically, this is a classic "false breakout," intended to I used to easily mistake "everyone is watching" for "I understand it myself," the more lively it was, the more afraid I was to miss out. The lesson is, after watching for a long time, people really do take others' confidence as their own judgment. Kalshi reports that the market trading volume related to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections exceeded $2.5 billion, nearly double the $1.3 billion of the 2024 presidential election cycle. As of the morning of November 4, popular candidates won 479 events with an accuracy rate of about 98%. I think the easiest thing to amplify from this news is the impulse of ordinary people to participate. High trading volume indicates active trading but does not mean personal judgment is more reliable; the overall high hit rate of popular sides also cannot be directly applied to the specific event you chose. This reminds me of past hot market trends where everyone felt the answer was right in front of them. Now I stick to two rules: write down a counterargument before making a judgment; no matter how high the heat, do not increase the originally set risk limit. Have you ever been misled by a high hit rate, and what rule did you add for yourself afterward?Liquidations reached 800 million, but one market has already started to "reverse" Good afternoon. CoinGlass data: total liquidations across the network hit 812 million, with longs accounting for 668 million. But looking closely at the structure, one coin is moving completely opposite to the overall market. SOL's funding rate is negative. It dropped 5.9% that day, and now shorts have to pay longs. This is the only mainstream coin where the crowd has truly reversed. To translate: SOL shorts have become so crowded that they need to pay to hold positions. If $89 holds, these shorts will fuel the next rebound. What about BTC and ETH? Longs are still paying to hold and haven't surrendered. Despite the same drop, the position structures are completely opposite. My judgment: the bottom for BTC/ETH is not confirmed yet, so don't rush to bottom-fish; the short structure of SOL is worth watching separately. My ZEC short position remains on hold, and SanDisk is also showing minor fluctuations. In the same market, two groups of people, two directions. Don't use one framework to fit all coins. Do you have short positions on SOL? $BTC $ETH $SOL #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 Once the data came out, I only did one thing: reduce risk exposure but did not go fully out of the market. October added 165,000 jobs, while the market expected 65,000, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%—this data blocked half of the path for December. The tone on interest rates turned tighter; the first to run were not stocks but the crypto spot channels: the net outflow for the month has already exceeded $1.2 billion, withdrawing for the second consecutive trading day. There is a counterintuitive point here: strong employment should be good news for risk appetite, yet money is flowing out. The market fears not this interest rate decision, but the lack of room for rate cuts afterward—once liquidity tightens, the first to be cut are those with the highest leverage and no intrinsic cash flow. My judgment: the 75,800 level for Bitcoin is a short-term watershed; only if it stands above can we talk about a rebound, otherwise it will continue to grind. For longs, I only touch assets with real cash flow and no crowding; for shorts, I focus on those with high positions and absurdly positive fees. This round, I hold TRX, BNB, and LINK longs, with fixed take-profit and stop-loss levels; if the position is wrong, I exit without arguing with myself. Are you holding spot waiting for the next data, or betting on direction with contracts? #US October nonfarm payrolls beat expectations, December rate hike bets heat up Still expecting the bull market to reverse soon? Don’t rush to dream just yet. The clearest signal in the current market is that funds dare not enter, and trading sentiment continues to cool down. The weekend market disappointed again. $BTC remains suppressed below $76,000, with rebounds lacking strength. Although the bears haven’t made much profit, they at least maintain the advantage; on the other hand, many long positions are still in floating losses. According to past market rhythms, after a big drop on weekdays, some degree of recovery usually occurs over the weekend, and a $2,000 rebound is not uncommon. But this time, not even a decent bounce appeared. $ETH is also weak, continuously oscillating below $2,250, with clearly insufficient buying pressure. What’s more worrisome is the funding side: BTC spot ETFs continue to experience outflows, with a cumulative net outflow of about $416 million this year. Meanwhile, U.S. stocks are under pressure, concerns about Federal Reserve rate hikes are heating up again, and risk assets naturally struggle to attract new incremental funds. So at this stage, my strategy is very clear: Don’t rush to bottom-fish, don’t blindly chase longs, prioritize shorting on rebounds at high levels. The true market bottom requires confirmation from both funds and trend, not just emotional guessing. Do you think BTC will continue to dip, or is it already close to reversing? #BTC #ETH #CryptoMarket #USJobsBeatExpectations Earnings exceeded expectations, but the stock price dropped nearly 10%. Circle's Q3 report was released on November 4, with total revenue of 865 million, a 17% year-over-year increase, higher than the expected 778 million. Adjusted earnings per share were $0.84, while the expectation was only $0.37, more than doubling. But there's some fluff: 182 million came from a one-time ARC token presale; excluding this, revenue was negative year-over-year. Reserve income was 658 million, down 8% year-over-year, with interest rate cuts eating into the core business. USDC trading volume rose 49% to 13.9 trillion, circulation remained flat at 7.39 billion; volume increased but money did not. The stock price was honest: before the earnings report it was 75.22, it surged to 76.12 on the day of the report but only held for one day. On Thursday, it plunged 8.72% to 69.48, hitting an intraday low of 64.81, then fell another 2.3% on Friday to close at 67.88. A three-day drop of 9.8%, more than halving from the 52-week high of $140. Wall Street followed with price cuts: Wells Fargo from 115 to 101, JPMorgan from 110 to 100. Waiting and watching, no chasing. The beat was propped up by a one-time presale; the core is shrinking, and the stock price has voted with its feet. Only a return to 76.12 would count as a re-pricing; falling below 65.71 means weakness continues. Earnings beat but stock price fell—do you trust the books or the stock price? $CRCL #CircleEarnings The U.S. elections are over, and the Democrats have taken both chambers. My friend's first reaction: It's over, tightening is coming. Actually, not a single existing regulation has been repealed. The $BTC spot ETF will open as usual tomorrow; subscriptions and redemptions proceed as normal. What has changed is the "instruction manual" — the CLARITY Act, which aims to clearly define who between the SEC and CFTC regulates what. It missed the 60-vote threshold by a few votes on September 15, but now with new people, the draft will be debated again. The most awkward are the products waiting for approval: more categories of ETFs, complex derivatives, and DeFi stuff. $UNI relies entirely on regulatory definitions to survive, so it can only wait. Retail investors won't feel anything in the short term and will keep guessing. Between fighting and talking, the market is waiting for "safe passage" rather than "action" Mearsheimer's probing question still hits the mark: previous military actions have not resolved the Strait of Hormuz dilemma, so can limited US strikes on Iranian air defense facilities really reopen the strait? Qatar is still mediating US-Iran talks, but differences over reopening conditions remain unresolved, forcing the market to repeatedly price between "fighting" and "talking." The three benchmarks show divergent trends: BZ at $98.32, up 0.03%, with supply premiums still supported due to blocked safe passage; CL at $90.83, up 0.34%, with prices constrained not only by Middle East risks but also US inventories, production, and demand; BTC at $75,746.93, down 0.26%, where high oil prices boost inflation expectations and compress rate cut space, indirectly pressuring risk assets. The key is not the military action itself, but whether the energy corridor can truly be restored. BZ and CL depend on the recovery of physical supply and transportation, while BTC depends on changes in inflation and liquidity. Whether negotiations can be finalized is the common switch for the next moves in all three markets. $BTC $BZ $CL #美军扩大对伊朗封锁，霍尔木兹重开仍存分歧 #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Here’s my take: first, let’s review the recent timeline — the neighbor got hacked (crash, hitting market confidence) — stabilize (combined with election expectations, retail investors thought it was a pullback continuation and kept shorting) — election results announced (rally, making retail investors think the bad news is over, bulls follow) — sharp drop (breaking through retail investors). Overall, this looks like a deliberate harvest coordinated by CZ. The evil capitalists don’t see us retail investors as people, just as dogs to be walked. What’s next? I personally think the crypto sector will see another wave of decline. The financial market hasn’t stabilized, panic is rising, bulls have limited support, and liquidity is insufficient, so the wick is long. Regarding storage, the DPP is cooperating with capital to harvest through proposals. Many say storage has entered a cycle and is cyclical; I will agree with that view in three years. Currently, storage is definitely not done; demand remains, and the great power competition continues. If the US gives up on AI, it’s like cutting off its own arm. Impossible, the DPP is not stupid. The next two weeks will still see significant volatility, friends must In the U.S. midterm elections, the Democratic Party took control of the House of Representatives and flipped several seats in the Senate. The "manual" that the crypto community was waiting for has moved further away. On September 15, the CLARITY Act failed to reach the 60-vote threshold in a procedural vote in the Senate and has stalled. Its goal is very specific: to clearly define the jurisdiction boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, so that trading platforms and token issuers have clear rules to follow. The sticking points are how to calculate stablecoin yields, whether they will compete with bank deposits, and conflicts of interest involving officials participating in crypto businesses—issues on which the two parties cannot agree. Now that the Democrats control the agenda-setting power, investigative authority, and hearing rights, they want to add tougher measures: stricter anti-illegal finance provisions, consumer protections, and restrictions on officials leveraging their positions to engage in crypto business. Whether DeFi protocols should bear broader responsibilities may be the core of the next round of disputes. But don’t get the focus wrong—the current framework has not been overturned. Spot ETFs for $BTC and $ETH continue to operate as usual, and tokenized stocks and funds remain within the bounds of the law. What becomes truly complicated are products awaiting new approvals: more categories of ETFs, complex derivatives, and DeFi-related financial products, whose discussion cycles will clearly be extended. Institutions will not withdraw; they will choose their paths. Without the market structure bill passing, asset classification, custody responsibilities, and compliance costs remain unresolved, so capital prefers to flow into tracks with clear legal foundations. The operation of the new Congress in January 2027 and how committee chairs are assigned will determine whether this bill has a chance to return.$COIN ETF redemptions have amplified trading volume. Can this improve exchange revenue? Coinbase's latest quarterly report shows a 10.7% share of crypto trading volume. High volatility may increase trading frequency, but revenue elasticity is determined by trading structure and fee rates. If the volume increase coincides with active retail participation and stable effective fee rates, profitability is more likely to benefit. However, if the incremental volume is concentrated in low-fee trades, the volume figures may overstate profit elasticity.The most vulnerable link in Ethereum is actually not the direction, but the leverage structure. When a 25x full-position long is liquidated, who exactly is the market punishing? Seeing that position record, my first reaction is not "who is right or wrong," but that this structure is too fragile. Majid opened a long position of 540 ETH at $2304, about $1.2 million, with 25x full leverage, and the liquidation price was set at only $2203. The price didn’t even move far before he was liquidated. On the other side, a large short holder holds about 5180 ETH short positions, with a nominal value close to $11.94 million, also 25x leverage, average price $2269, but the liquidation price is far away at $8303. Two directions, same leverage, but one is instantly liquidated while the other still has a huge buffer; the difference comes from position structure and entry point. What’s really worth watching here is which side the capital preference is leaning toward. The longs use full-position high leverage to bet on a very near rebound, indicating willingness to take risks but with extremely low tolerance for error; the shorts built positions around $2269, with unrealized profits accounting for more than 60% of their gains, holding a thick safety cushion and can wait patiently. The market at this moment looks more like a divergence phase rather than a clean start or smooth continuation: the bulls are rushing the pace, the bears have profits as protection, and neither side wants to back down first. Every time ETH price dips a bit, those who exit first are often not the ones who chose the wrong direction, but those who are over-leveraged and too close to the liquidation line. Translated to the market, I will pay attention to two points. The bullish path is: this kind of The Democratic Party's impeachment of the Secretary of Defense is the result, while Trump's move against Iran is the cause. Next week's crude oil market will be unsettled. Conclusion first: CL US crude oil will still rise a bit more, no rush to short. Oil didn't open over the weekend; everyone is waiting for a signal to act, so the after-hours market is also quiet. After losing both houses, Trump launched a small strike against Iran on Friday, hitting Iran's Qeshm Island with two missiles, while deploying over 50,000 troops, more than 20 warships, and over 200 aircraft. Iran, having lost in the midterm elections due to Trump, has started negotiations for greater benefits. 1. This means Trump and Iran are in a tough stance, increasing the probability of conflict escalation in the Strait of Hormuz, tightening crude oil flow, and raising the chance of conflict heating up again. This is a bullish signal for crude oil. 2. The Democratic Party impeaches the Secretary of Defense, Trump defends him; internal struggles will push Trump to resolve internal conflicts by uniting against an external enemy. This strategy was used by Germany before World War I and Japan during the Great Depression. As everyone knows, crude oil flowing through Hormuz accounts for 30% of the global supply. If conflict escalates, the crude oil shortfall could increase by 10 million barrels per day, greatly increasing the probability of a price rebound. Even just verbal escalation, policy uncertainty, or minor frictions are enough to push crude oil back above 95. Only if substantial geopolitical conflict escalates and incremental funds enter the market to speculate on geopolitical expectations will the short-term rebound push crude oil back near 96 for trading, with short positions between 96-98. Impeachment and tough stance on Iran are both tactics in the game between Trump and the Democratic Party. In the short term, they can support a rebound in crude oil. The height of this rebound is limited, so be prepared to short crude oil once it exceeds 96. Don't forget, we've never lost when shorting crude oil.The US employment data has blocked the December path halfway back: 165,000 new jobs in October, waiting for 65,000, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%. With the numbers landing, risk assets collectively froze, Bitcoin broke through 76,000 intraday and closed sideways at 75,800, with the fear and greed index just above 30. What’s pressing it down isn’t sentiment, but primary funds still withdrawing — the spot channel saw a cumulative net outflow of about $1.28 billion in November, marking the second consecutive trading day. First, a report on the last round, I never start with a story: TRX long from 0.3203 to 0.3204 (+0.02%) with take profit at 0.3216 and stop loss at 0.3196, neither hit, direction correct; ZEC short from 1,254.23 to 1,262.69 (+0.67%) with stop loss at 1,274.49, not hit, no success; LINK long from 10.781 to 10.726 (-0.49%) with take profit at 10.95 and stop loss at 10.68, neither hit, no success. One out of three correct, two missed, both orders stuck just above stop loss — no one got stopped out, no one made money. There’s a counterintuitive point here: the heaviest blow was the employment data, but the first money to be pulled out was from crypto spot channels. The interest rate side just tightened its tone, but the money is really withdrawing. Are you fully invested waiting for the next data, or sitting empty watching the show? For this round of three picks, I’m all long — not because I’m bullish on the market, but because each of these three has its own reasons. First, TRX A heavyweight trader known as Maji, with a portfolio of about $61.55 million, is seeing shorts making money while longs are bleeding — this contrast itself is the most honest thermometer of the current market 🌡️. $BTC short positions (40x leverage) have an unrealized profit of $562,800, with funding fee income of $186,700; $ETH long positions (25x leverage) have an unrealized loss of $1,812,300, with funding fee expenses of $108,300; $HYPE short positions (5x leverage) have an unrealized loss of $1,665,200, but funding fee income as high as $1,229,700. Three positions, three fates, pointing to the same question: when directional judgment diverges from the funding fee structure, who is really paying for the positions? First, look at the most glaring comparison. $BTC shorts are the only "double-winning" position — unrealized price gains combined with positive funding fee income indicate that the market's long sentiment is still paying the shorts. This is not a simple bearish signal but evidence of leverage structure imbalance: high-leverage shorts can simultaneously benefit from price differences and funding rates, meaning there is persistent long crowding above the spot price. $ETH longs are the exact opposite, suffering both unrealized losses and funding fee expenses, with position costs under 25x leverage eroding principal exponentially. What is truly intriguing is $HYPE: the short direction is wrong, with an unrealized loss of $1.66 million, but funding fee income of $1.22 million almost offsets more than half the loss. This reveals a truth overlooked by many — in extreme funding rate environments, being wrong on direction is not necessarily fatal; being on the wrong side of funding fees is. From this, one can distill a possible outflows of $416M dominate the discussion. That resilience is notable, but it leaves the market dependent on whether flows stabilize rather than on a broad risk-on impulse. A renewed acceleration in outflows would challenge this read. Not financial advice.Starting this week, there was still a net inflow of about 368 million for the year before last, but within one week, all that inflow for the whole year was given back. On Friday alone, about 411.9 million left, with BlackRock IBIT withdrawing about 403 million. $BTC is currently priced around 75,950, with a 24-hour high of 76,251 and a low of 75,569, and the funding rate is approximately 0.007%. Volume over the weekend was not large; it was hammered down to 75,569 overnight but was bought up again. This morning it has been grinding between 75,700 and 75,950. The surge to 76,251 yesterday afternoon still hasn't been surpassed. 1.28 billion was withdrawn over the week, the yearly account has turned positive, but the market is only fluctuating within less than 700 points. I don't think the buying side has returned. Next Tuesday there is also the October CPI, and the rate hike expectations are still hanging.This is the largest single-week outflow since late June, and also the second consecutive week of outflows. As of Friday, 12 funds have had a cumulative net outflow of about $914.1 million this year. Starting this week, there was still a net inflow of about $368 million within the past two years, but in just one week, all the inflows for the year were given back. On Friday alone, about $411.9 million left, with BlackRock IBIT withdrawing about $403 million. $BTC is currently priced around 75,950, with a 24-hour high of 76,251 and a low of 75,569, and the funding rate is about 0.007%. Weekend volume is not large; it was dumped to 75,569 overnight but was caught, and in the morning it has been grinding between 75,700 and 75,950. The surge to 76,251 yesterday afternoon still hasn't been surpassed. A total of $1.28 billion was withdrawn in a week; the annual account has turned positive, but the market is only fluctuating within less than 700 points. I don't think the buying side has returned.$BTC is holding near $75,784 even as BTC ETF outflows of $416M dominate the discussion. That resilience is notable, but it leaves the market dependent on whether flows stabilize rather than on a broad risk-on impulse. A renewed acceleration in outflows would challenge this read. Not financial advice. #BerkshireQ3Buybacks9.6B ETF is speaking: BTC institutional funds turn cold This week, BTC and ETH spot ETFs saw a combined net outflow of $1.65 billion. More notably, BlackRock's IBIT experienced redemptions for five consecutive trading days, with a cumulative outflow of $1.04 billion. The continuous "bleeding" of products under the world's largest asset manager is hard not to interpret as institutions reducing their exposure. Looking over a longer period, since 2026, BTC ETF fund flows have turned to a net outflow of $502 million. In other words, institutions have redeemed more BTC through ETFs than they have invested. BTC's gains this year have basically been wiped out. Price declines can be attributed to sentiment, but the sustained ETF outflows represent real money decisions. This does not necessarily mean everyone is bearish, but it directly reflects the stance of some institutions. A slight exception is Fidelity's ETF, which still saw inflows this week, indicating that funds are not all withdrawing but more like BlackRock's clients are taking profits. For the market, ETF flows remain the most important institutional thermometer to watch. $BTC $ETH #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Non-farm data is stronger than expected, raising rate hike expectations, putting pressure on high-valuation tech stocks. Some funds are fleeing the AI sector and buying into the healthcare sector as a safe haven. Healthcare valuations have now caught up to the S&P average level and are no longer at a discount as before. Institutional funds continue to hedge their positions. From a crypto perspective, $XLV strengthening often indicates a decline in overall risk appetite. Funds prioritize moving into stable defensive sectors, which means high-risk assets will face liquidity pressure. Of course, it is not steadily rising either; healthcare policies, new drug approvals, and continued rate hikes can interrupt this rally at any time. Next week's calendar is packed. From November 9 to 15, five events are squeezed into one week: an infrastructure upgrade, two US inflation data releases, a token unlock, plus an industry summit. On November 9, Polymarket Protocol V2 mainnet will switch over. This won't immediately affect prices but will impact the ecosystem and liquidity of the prediction market going forward. On November 10, the US October CPI will be released, the most significant macro observation point of the week. From November 11 to 14, Aptos enters its token unlock window. On November 13, the US October PPI will be published. These events have completely different transmission mechanisms. CPI and PPI affect expectations—the market's judgment on the Fed's future interest rate policy moves first, then the funds follow. $BTC and $ETH are most sensitive to these expectations because they carry the logic of institutional allocation. Meanwhile, $APT's unlock affects supply; whether the new circulating supply can be absorbed depends on the depth of buy orders at that time. So the judgment must be separated: inflation data determines whether money is willing to come in, unlock determines whether the supply will increase. With these two forces pressing in the same week, the most common mistake is to confuse them as the same negative factor. The initial reaction after the CPI release is often not the final reaction; PPI should be viewed together with CPI. What really needs confirmation is not the price change but whether institutional funds have reflowed into $BTC and $ETH.Conclusion first: When pricing Circle, don't use 865 million, use 658 million. Q3 revenue plus reserve income is 865 million, up 17% year-over-year, but 182 million is from the presale of ARC tokens; the real reserve income that supports the business—Circle earning interest from USDC underlying assets—fell 8% to 658 million, with interest rates down 61 basis points to 3.5%, and a 5% layoff. The market ledger is shrinking: DefiLlama shows global stablecoins at 292.35 billion, down 6.66 billion (-2.2%) in the past seven days, the steepest week in 2026, with seven consecutive days of decline only turning positive today by 40 million. $USDT down 2.8 billion (-1.56%) in one week, $USDC down 1.21 billion, USDS down 12%, Sky TVL down 13.7%. For the wallet, it's one thing: stablecoin yield is essentially an interest business; the issuer's price is dropping, and the on-chain pools are shrinking. $CRCL dropped 8.7% on 11-05 (the AI market crash isn't entirely its fault), then fell another 2.3% after the 11-06 earnings report, a total of -10.8% over two days; OKX perpetual currently at 67.45, with a position of 26.85 million USD, funding rate 0, slowly pricing in. Do you think the pool shrinking by 6.6 billion in a week means a lack of money = opportunity, or money is exiting?What I'm focusing on is the "impact on certain third parties," not the entire wallet sector. Web3Auth disclosed a security issue and temporarily suspended its embedded wallet service, while the Trust Wallet CEO confirmed they were unaffected. This is somewhat interesting, but what concerns me more is: will the sentiment around small-cap coins amplify a localized problem into a negative for the entire sector? 👀 My judgment is that this news is more likely to suppress narratives around applications that rely on embedded wallets. The more an entry point depends on external services, the easier it is for users to worry about availability. The opportunity with these highly volatile assets lies in sentiment potentially unfairly punishing different technical approaches, while the risk is mistaking clarifications for business recovery; this is my speculation, not a market trend that has already emerged. I will observe separately based on service dependencies and then see if related applications are actually affected, rather than lumping everything under the "wallet concept." Among the wallets, blockchain games, or social sectors that everyone has been paying attention to recently, which one relies most on this hassle-free login entry?A nominal position of $100,400, but let me pour some cold water first: a large amount does not equal solid evidence for a bullish stance. Core Trader 93 is using 10x leverage to go long on SNDK this time, but what concerns me more is whether this position can withstand a reversal, rather than how impressive it looks. My judgment is that this monitoring alone is not enough for me to turn bullish. The nominal amount includes leverage and cannot be directly taken as a vote of confidence in real money; roughly calculated at 10x leverage, the initial margin corresponds to about $10,000. Additionally, if the price moves 5% against the position, the loss would be about half of this initial margin, excluding fees and additional collateral. Even if the direction is ultimately correct, the intermediate drawdown could make a high-leverage long position uncomfortable. Of course, he might have caught the right timing. If the price continues to strengthen and the drawdown can be absorbed, I will raise my evaluation of this long position. For now, I want to see if it can withstand adverse fluctuations and not open a large position just to boost confidence.A short seller who says he opened at 2600 and held through every rally to 2233 is less interesting for his profit than for what his position reveals about $ETH right now. His realized gain was 14.34U. The 1356% floating return is theater. What matters is the structure he is trading against: spot Ethereum ETFs bled a net $93.3 million in a single day, with BlackRock's ETHA leading the exodus. That is institutional money leaving, not rotating. The one-hour chart tells the same story in price. $ETH When will storage stocks recover? It's not about the earnings reports Storage stocks like $SNDK have been falling for so long, and many people are watching the earnings reports waiting for a turnaround. How is this number calculated: long-term funds buy five-year U.S. Treasury bonds, reliably earning a 5% return per year. How does the money come in: building data centers is a bet on making money ten years from now, but buying bonds requires no such gamble. In other words, money isn't flowing into tech stocks not because of a lack of confidence, but because there's no need to take the risk. My guess is, before interest rate cuts and liquidity easing, these kinds of stocks will likely continue to decline for a while. The real turning point won't be at the earnings call. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #$SNDK Seeing Core Trader 93 open a long position on $SNDK with 10x leverage, the nominal position is about $100,400. Many might think "the big player is bullish." On the other hand, I don't take this trade as a bullish signal: first, the nominal amount is amplified by leverage, which doesn't mean the same amount of principal was invested; second, a single long position doesn't reveal whether there's any hedging, so you can't infer the overall direction. Do you think this single trade is enough to indicate bullishness, or should we check other positions? Opposing views are welcome for debate.I used to see a sharp increase in on-chain data and always felt that opportunities wouldn't wait, eager to find myself a reason to enter immediately. After experiencing setbacks, I realized that the easiest thing to misinterpret isn't the numbers, but mistaking the hype for certainty. According to DefiLlama, the stablecoin issuance protocol M0, mainly on Ethereum, has a TVL of about $247 million, with a weekly increase of approximately 39.2% and a single-day change of -0.2%. I think this is worth studying, but it can't yet be taken as evidence of stronger stablecoin demand. TVL is influenced by token prices, so growth isn't necessarily all real capital inflow; a clear weekly increase but a slight daily decline also indicates that you can't simply extrapolate the weekly pace forward. This reminds me of the old atmosphere where "any bright data could be interpreted as bullish." Now I follow two rules: look at locked value, first distinguish between capital changes and price effects; don't use data that isn't well understood as a basis for contracts. I'd rather be slower than fill in a whole story just to justify a percentage.First, consider the worst-case scenario: if the election result is opposite to your judgment, the contract investment could be completely lost; if you rush to exit but lack counterparties, you might be forced to accept even worse transaction prices. This is the stress test I would perform first. Kalshi reports that the trading volume related to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections has already exceeded $2.5 billion, nearly double the $1.3 billion volume of the 2024 presidential election cycle. I believe this indicates increased participation enthusiasm, but it does not mean the risk is lower. ⚠️ What concerns me more are two things: cumulative trading volume does not equal the current capacity to absorb a particular contract; if multiple concurrent elections are influenced by the same political factors, seemingly diversified positions could also be impacted simultaneously. This is my risk assessment and does not mean it has already happened. A practical reminder for ordinary people: first, combine the related contracts to calculate the maximum possible loss you can bear, rather than just looking at each individual amount. I will carefully review the exit conditions and settlement rules before evaluating this excitement.