Orbit Post Sitemap
Let's do some quick math.
$ARX (Arcium) is currently at 0.196, down over 15% in 24 hours. The perpetual contract traded $3.54 million in the last 24 hours.
The combined depth of the top 400 order book levels is only about $24,000, less than 1% of the daily trading volume. The farthest buy order is at 0.026, which is 13% of the current price — basically just a placeholder.
Worse, ARX is not listed among the 1210 spot pairs on OKX, and CoinGecko shows the spot price at 0.1968. The only way to exit is through this thin order book.
The price dropped from 0.2501 on 11-07 to 0.194, a 22% decline, but open interest rose from 1.08 million to 1.2 million (+10.8%) — new money is still coming in. The funding rate jumped to +0.0171% at 04:00 on 11-08 (normally the floor is 0.005%), meaning longs are paying at the toughest position.
For comparison, $CASHCAT also dropped 10%, with an order book depth of about $11,000; the top 20 levels total less than $1,000, and open interest fell from 1.01 million to 820,000 (-19%). Longs there were liquidated, while here there is turnover.
Remember: stop-loss orders set the price, but execution is uncertain. Before placing an order, check the total depth of the top 400 levels; if it’s less than 10 times your exit amount, don’t touch it. This is purely about execution.
Have you recently been eaten by slippage on a thin order book? $ARX $CASHCAT To start with a cold splash of water, the phrase "bearish dominance" cannot be directly translated as "it will fall further later." I usually look for risks first, but this time I want to remind the bears: don't take a piece of data explaining the decline as the answer predicting the next market move. My judgment is that this news is bearish but is easily overinterpreted.
PANews cited CryptoQuant analyst Axel Adler Jr., who said: Since October 14, the CVD has turned negative, dropping to 105,300 BTC, while the price fell from $84,000 to $76,000 during the same period. He believes the bears still dominate. I have two reservations: first, the deterioration of the indicator and the price drop happened simultaneously, which can show who was more active in this move but cannot alone prove that the subsequent momentum will be equally strong; second, CVD reflects the difference in active buy and sell volumes—more active selling does not necessarily mean more new short positions. Directly equating trade direction with an expansion of short positions is a logical leap.
Of course, he might be right. If active selling continues to dominate and the price keeps falling, I would be more convinced that the bearish advantage persists; if the CVD recovers and the price no longer weakens in sync, I would retract my bearish bias on the trend continuation. What I will watch next is whether the indicator and price can continue to confirm each other, without giving "bearish dominance" a long-term validity stamp.The contrast is painful. In October, the ETF net outflow for the whole month narrowed to just 26 million, and it barely turned positive for the year in the latter part of the month. However, the two weeks in November have reversed all that, with the year-to-date cumulative net inflow turning negative again by 416 million. Funds are indeed withdrawing, but the price has basically stayed pinned between 75,000 and 76,000 all week, without breaking the previous low. The selling pressure is concentra$BTC ETFs ran nearly 1.3 billion this week, yet the price stubbornly stayed around 76K without crashing; funds and market conditions are completely disconnected.
$ETH, on the other hand, is more resilient despite high fees, but the long positions' cost basis is clear, so holding firm doesn't mean there's no pressure.
In the A-share market, the past two days saw a surge in photovoltaic limit-ups and AI applications dancing along, with trading volume consecutively surpassing 2 trillion, but on Friday it flipped completely, with over 4,700 stocks turning red.
Funds quickly fled into agriculture and high-dividend stocks; Oriental Ocean had six limit-ups in seven days, clearly showing a risk-averse stance.
Over in the US stock market, tech stocks were just bloodbath-ed, and next week CPI and CoreWeave earnings will hit together, with the probability of a rate hike in December soaring to 80%.
There is no unified logic now; everyone is running their own race. $BTC ETFs bled $1.28B last week, the worst since June, and $403M of Friday's $412M outflow came from IBIT alone. FBTC still took in $42.8M. That looks like concentrated selling, not the whole bid vanishing. $ETH funds lost $93M Friday too, with tech weak. BTC is holding near $75K. Lose it and $69K is the next level traders watch. Takeaway: don't front-run a reversal until you see a full week of net inflows. Is IBIT-led selling a real top, or just rebalancing?#ASTS推进手机直连卫星服务，商业化进展待披露
What to focus on in the November 9 earnings report
Wall Street's consensus expectation for Q3 is revenue of about $45-46 million, with a narrowed loss per share of about $0.41-0.42. But more important than the revenue figure is the update on the deployment schedule: after the Blue Origin accident, whether management has officially revised the target of 45 satellites to 2027, and whether the revised commercialization service launch window is clear. If the earnings report still maintains the original deployment schedule without adjustment, it may deepen market doubts about its execution transparency.
In summary: ASTS's technology and regulatory foundation have been revealed, but in the chain of "can build it, can launch it, can make money from it," the "can launch it" part is currently the most fragile link; the value of the Q3 earnings report lies not in the revenue itself, but in whether management provides a timeline that matches engineering realities.This weekend, the crypto market did not see a particularly strong rebound, nor did it continue with panic selling.
But I believe the real focus should not be on the weekend's slight ups and downs, but rather on what off-exchange funds are doing.
Let's first look at some noteworthy data:
* BTC hovered around $75,000 over the weekend, with 24-hour trading volume significantly below recent normal levels.
* On November 6, the US spot BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about $411.9 million, and the ETH ETF had a net outflow of about $93.3 million.
* The total market cap of stablecoins dropped about 2.23% over the week, indicating that the on-chain USD liquidity pool is still contracting.
* BTC futures open interest decreased over the weekend, showing the market currently lacks strong leverage-driven buying intent.
Putting these signals together, I tend to think that current funds are not actively bottom-fishing but are reducing risk exposure while waiting for a new direction.
However, one detail is worth noting:
The price not continuing to drop sharply does not mean funds have started to flow back in.
It could also mean that previous longs have been cleared out, shorts are taking profits, and buyers and sellers have temporarily reached a balance.
So, the market on Monday could see three scenarios:
First: Funds flow back in.
If BTC breaks out of the weekend's consolidation range with volume, and ETH and major altcoins follow with gains, and spot buying strengthens, then the weekend's consolidation might be a short-term bottoming process.
Second: The rebound meets resistance and continues to seek support.
If BTC's rebound lacks volume support, ETFs continue to see net outflows, and the stablecoin liquidity pool keeps shrinking, then the rebound might just be short-term short covering rather than a trend reversal.
Third: Continued sideways movement, waiting for signals from US stocks and macro factors.
Funds lack a clear direction, and the market continues to shrink in volume and oscillate. In such a scenario, the most likely outcome is frequent spikes up and down, repeatedly trapping traders chasing rallies and selling into dips.
Personally, I am not in a hurry to define Monday's market.
What really needs to be observed are three signals:
1. Whether BTC spot trading volume rebounds, not just futures volume.
2. Whether US ETFs see sustained net inflows again.
3. After BTC stabilizes, whether ETH and altcoins can follow.
My core judgment: This currently looks more like a wait-and-see phase after a decline in risk appetite. The risk-off sentiment still exists, but it is not yet certain that funds have fully withdrawn.
After Monday's open, whoever puts real money on the table first is more likely to decide the next round's direction. Single-week net outflow of BTC+ETH spot ETFs exceeds $1.6 billion. Are institutions really running away this time?
Looking at the data: Bitcoin ETFs saw a weekly outflow of $1.28 billion, Ethereum $365 million, and IBIT alone had a $400 million outflow on Friday.
BTC has turned negative cumulatively this year, and ETH has been bleeding for six consecutive weeks. Prices have also fallen back to around $75,000-$76,000. Retail investors are still waiting for a rebound, but institutional funds continue to flow out; this divergence is a warning sign.
But don’t just look at the surface. ETF outflows don’t mean institutions are completely bearish. Often, it’s profit-taking, position rebalancing, or opportunity cost considerations under the macro interest rate environment for non-yielding assets. ETH ETFs have no staking yield, making them more disadvantaged when U.S. Treasury yields are high. Funds leaving the ETF channel don’t mean they are leaving the crypto market entirely.
For short-term traders: during such continuous outflow phases, chasing longs is easy to get shaken out, and false breakout probability increases. Focus on the price’s support strength at key levels (like around $75,000) and whether daily ETF fund flows show significant convergence or turn positive. When volatility amplifies, using stop-loss and position control well is more important than betting on direction.
For medium to long-term: cumulative net inflows are still the big picture, and this week’s outflow accounts for a limited proportion of historical cumulative flows. Institutional demand indicators turning negative this year is a phase cooldown or a trend change that requires confirmation from data in the coming weeks. Don’t treat extreme single-week data as a direct signal of market reversal. #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 BTC and ETH spot ETFs saw a combined net outflow of approximately $1.65 billion in a single week, with Bitcoin ETFs experiencing a net outflow of $1.28 billion—the worst single week since the end of June—and Ethereum ETFs seeing a net outflow of $365 million, marking the sixth consecutive week of losses. BlackRock's IBIT was the largest outflow driver, with over $400 million withdrawn in a single day on Friday.
This data directly caused the cumulative fund flow of the US spot Bitcoin ETF in 2026 to turn from positive to negative, with a net outflow of about $914 million year-to-date. On the surface, it appears institutions are retreating, but it is important to distinguish between flow and stock: since the product launch, BTC has still seen a cumulative net inflow exceeding $55 billion, and ETH about $12 billion, with this week's outflow accounting for a limited proportion of the historical total.
This round of outflows is highly concentrated and continuous. ETH has experienced net outflows for six consecutive weeks, with about $2 billion withdrawn since the end of September. The redemption intensity, calculated by asset size, is significantly higher than BTC. Funds are simultaneously leaving both major crypto ETF channels, indicating that the issue is not with a single asset or product, but a systemic contraction of institutional risk exposure.
Driving factors include a decline in risk appetite after the midterm elections, stronger-than-expected employment data pushing up US Treasury yields, cooling expectations for rate cuts, and the opportunity cost disadvantage caused by the lack of staking yields in ETH ETFs. As the most liquid channel, ETFs often become the primary target for institutions to reduce positions when adjusting their portfolios. #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 Before the $NVDA earnings report, which constraint test should be used for computing power growth?
NVIDIA has scheduled its earnings call for November 17. After chip supply expands, the power supply, cooling, and deployment pace of customer data centers will also determine system revenue. If shipment growth is accompanied by accelerated customer production, demand fulfillment will be more stable. If project schedules are delayed, even with strong purchasing intent, recent revenue may fall short of expectations.The scariest thing about trading is not getting stuck,
but that you clearly are in a downtrend
and yet you keep desperately searching for a “support level” to comfort yourself.
Yesterday it surged to 2450, many thought a major reversal was coming, but today a sharp guillotine cut straight down to 2236.
Let's state some objective facts: the highs are continuously moving lower, from 2526 to 2450 and then to 2236, which is a very obvious bearish structure.
The volume below is simply insufficient to support a reversal; a volume-less rebound is just a bull trap.
Don’t use your principal to guess the bottom.
My short position at 2671 can yield 1630% profit, relying not on luck but on position sizing tolerance.
Look at the forced liquidation price at 2699 in the screenshot; this huge safety buffer in the middle allows me to completely ignore short-term shakeouts.
As long as the forced liquidation price is far away and the trend is downward, this money is mine to earn.
What’s next? The idea is very clear. Weak rebounds mean short.
Watch the resistance zone at 2300 - 2320 above; if the rebound stalls here, it’s an excellent entry point for short positions.
Looking further down, breaking 2174 is just a matter of time, and the downside space will fully open. Follow the rhythm and do the high-probability trades.
$BTC $ETH $ZEC
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 15 billion Naira, stablecoins pegged to the US dollar must pay an entry fee to enter Nigeria
New regulations by the Central Bank of Nigeria take effect on November 5
Foreign currency stablecoin issuers must register a company locally and obtain a license
Minimum paid-in capital of 15 billion Naira
Naira stablecoins require 10 billion Naira, other service providers 1 billion Naira
Existing institutions must apply for a license within 180 days
Algorithmic stablecoins are outright banned; reserves must be fully covered plus an additional 2% buffer
My view: licenses exchange for market access, compliance costs will push out small issuers, USDT and USDC can only remain through local entities
Failure scenario: threshold lowered within 180 days, or major issuers receive exemptions
One of two outcomes: this is a necessary path for stablecoins to go mainstream, or emerging markets are shutting their doors?
$USDT $USDC
#USCryptoRegulation: "CLARITY Act" progress stalled, 401(k) rules enter final review First, look at the current $BTC price 75723, buy orders are very weak, order balance 31 versus 69, sell orders are more than double the buy orders, and the most terrifying thing is a buy order worth $24.95 million at 75000, and above it at 75767 an immediate selling wall pressing down, this big order is just a show for you, if the selling actually happens, the main force will pull its orders faster than anyone, and will bury you quickly
Then look at $ETH current price 2233, the situation is similar, 32 versus 68, and the craziest thing is that the largest pending order is a huge sell wall worth 15.3 million at438 million transactions, but to pour some cold water first: I don't think this transaction volume is enough to label the entire Perp DEX sector as strongly recovering. In the material, the number of transactions rose month-on-month, hitting a new phase high, but still below the previous same period level. I tend to see it as an activity recovery rather than demand having reached a new level, so don't get excited too quickly.
I'm stuck on two points. First, transaction count does not equal user count; if growth mainly comes from a few high-frequency accounts, then no matter how frequent the trades, it doesn't indicate ordinary users are flooding in; this is just my speculation, as the material lacks account structure data. Second, transaction count does not equal revenue; the same trade can have different amounts and actual fees paid. Without trading volume and fee data, directly concluding that the protocol's profitability has improved, and then that related tokens benefit, skips two steps. When I read news, I fear this kind of metric substitution the most—there is indeed activity, but the value support may not keep up.
Of course, being bearish is not stubborn denial. If later we see independent active users, user retention, and fee income all improving together, rather than just transaction count rising, I will admit I underestimated this round of recovery. For now, I will put this news on the watchlist and wait for growth quality to catch up before changing my judgment. #After the sharp drop in US stocks, tech stocks rebound, but the Nasdaq weekly chart still falls about 3.4% Why does a "rebound after a sharp drop" occur? This round of volatility is not caused by a single factor, but by three things combined: Increased regulatory concerns after the midterm elections After the Democratic Party won in multiple state-level elections, the market worries that data center-heavy areas like Texas may tighten approvals, energy consumption, and environmental regulations, thereby slowing the expansion pace of AI infrastructure. AI sector valuations are too high and trading is crowded Previously, AI, chips, and optical communications saw large gains, and when funds take profits, it easily triggers a chain decline. On Thursday, the Nasdaq once plunged 5.5%, the S&P 500 fell 4.4%, and the Dow dropped over 1800 points. Nonfarm payroll data exceeded expectations, and rate hike expectations rose again October nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000, unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%, and the previous two months were revised up by a total of 84,000. This raised the probability of a December rate hike from about 67% to about 78%–80%, and the 10-year US Treasury yield returned to about 4.87%. High interest rates still suppress high-valuation growth stocks. Why is the rebound "narrow"? On Friday, the Nasdaq rose 1.09%, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index surged 4.2%, AMD rose over 11%, Intel rose over 7%, and Micron, Lumentum, and others also clearly rebounded. But tech giants are not unified: Tesla rose 4.23%, Nvidia rose 2.87%, Meta and Google rose slightly; Microsoft, Apple, and Amazon closed lower. This indicates the market has not fully "re-embraced tech stocks," but funds are first replenishing.$BTC
This is actually insane
Short liquidations currently outweigh long liquidations by roughly 5:1
There is only one small cluster of long liquidations left around 74k-73k, but besides that, max pain is definitely to
the upside
As I already mentioned, one more sweep below $75k is possible, but ultimately I’m expecting price to go a lot higher and take out the liquidity that has built above price U.S. tech stocks have sharply declined, essentially because the AI market has moved from the “storytelling phase” into the earnings verification period. Coupled with multiple factors such as interest rates, valuations, capital, and regulatory pressures causing valuation digestion, this does not mean the AI industry cycle is completely over, but the market pricing logic has changed. Going forward, key indicators to watch include: the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield, capital expenditure guidance in tech giants' earnings reports, AI-related product paid conversion data, and Federal Reserve policy statements. $SNDK $SOXL $NVDA #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
The Democratic Party swept the midterm elections, losing control of both houses of Congress. The policy benefits that the crypto industry relied on from the Republican Party over the past two years will need to be repriced overnight.
The Clarity Act was originally stalled in September, but now with the Democrats in power, Warren overseeing the Banking Committee and Waters the Financial Services Committee, regulation will only tighten and investigations will increase. This is not a case of "bad news fully priced in," but a real policy headwind.
Looking at Saylor's side, on November 7 he posted that Stretch raised 2.521 billion and bought 21,021 bitcoins. The key point is the timing—this was completed by July 2025.
Bringing up old news shows this is not new buying; it precisely indicates that Strategy's "financing to buy coins" flywheel has long stopped turning. mNAV fell below 1, issuing shares to buy coins is no longer cost-effective, so it doesn't buy, meaning the market loses one of its most prominent marginal buyers. The old ammunition is spent, and the new ammunition hasn't appeared yet, which suppresses sentiment.
Bitcoin is now hovering just above 75,000, and on November 7 ETFs withdrew over 400 million. My view remains unchanged: short-term weak oscillation, still recommend shorting on rallies Brothers, take a look at Brother 800's real trading account. Many people want to ask, after losing so much, can you still sleep at night?
First, let's look at the full account overview: total unrealized loss of 4.15 million U, overall performance drawdown of 93.68%. At its peak, four accounts combined lost over 30 million, and now it's still struggling to recover.
Breaking down the three long positions carefully: The first $BTC long position, 19x full margin, entry price 77624.2, current unrealized loss 30010.83 U, return rate -42.64%; the second $ETH long position, 17x isolated margin, entry price 2278.68, unrealized loss 15313.19 U, return rate -31.83%; the third BTC long position set at a low price, 20x isolated margin, entry price 67701.3, this one is profitable, unrealized profit 183675.26 U, return rate as high as +241.66%.
The holding logic is very clear: the early low-position BTC longs caught the big move and made a big profit; later, more was added at high prices chasing the long, and after the market pulled back, the high-position longs were directly trapped, and the profits from the profitable positions were largely eaten up by the losses from the high-position chasing longs.
This is the harshest part of high leverage: even if you once caught a doubling market, as long as you are greedy and continue to heavily add positions at high prices following the trend, a single pullback will significantly erode profits. Although the margin ratio is still high now and there is no liquidation risk for the time being, the account has already shrunk significantly, and the pressure to recover is huge.Regarding Moderna's financial report, beyond seeing how much profit was made, I am more interested in whether the money has actually been collected.
The net profit for Q3 was $162 million, a turnaround that deserves recognition. However, the company also mentioned that most of the payments from product sales during the quarter had not been collected by the end of the quarter. Accounts receivable at the end of September were about $1.367 billion, a significant increase compared to the end of lastHere's another arbitrage example. Recently, many people have been discussing the pre-listing contracts of Anthropic (ANT) on X.
Binance: prices are based on an assumed 1 billion shares, while hype:ANT is priced per share.
After the prospectus reveals the actual number of shares, Binance will adjust the contracts so both sides align on the same per-share price.
According to online research, there are about 12.7 billion shares. This morning at 6 AM, Binance was at 1,374, which converts to about $108 per share, while hype shows $97.5, a difference of around 11%.
So some people go long on hype and short on Binance, balancing according to share count.
At its peak, the price difference was 25%. As more people arbitraged, it shrank to 5% at one point, and now it's back to 11%, likely because some have taken profits and closed positions. The risk lies entirely in the share count calibration.
If Binance includes all options and such, the share count would be about 16.7 billion, making the per-share price only $82. Doing this would mean a loss of nearly 20% in reverse. In short, both sides are betting on which share count Binance will ultimately use; this is not risk-free arbitrage.
The game point: whether it's around 16.7 billion or closer to 12.7 billion shares. 16.7 billion means Binance goes up; 12.7 billion means Binance goes down. Based on SpaceX's precedent, the 12.7 billion figure is more likely.
This is also why more people are arbitraging based on 12.7 billion. If you still don't understand, better not to touch it. Playing it safe means not playing.The Binance 6.3 billion hack is still being digested, and $BTC is stuck grinding around 75.9K, unable to go up or down [reference:0][reference:1].
On-chain data is quite honest; ETFs have already withdrawn nearly 1.3 billion in November, institutions say it's nothing, but they're quicker than anyone to slip away.
CPI and PPI are coming this week, analysts have drawn a range from 73K to 80K, with liquidation clusters all in between—whichever side hits first will hurt [reference:3].
$ETH is interesting though, outperforming BTC by nearly 24 points in the past month, BitMine has swept up almost ten thousand coins, and over 80% are locked in staking.
But ETH’s own ETFs have also bled a lot; prices rose, but not much money came back.
The A-shares market is a completely different game: media stocks gained 13% in a week, power equipment went crazy, photovoltaics hit a limit-up wave, and turnover surged to 2.12 trillion.
However, the STAR Market plunged 5%, while liquor stocks pulled against the trend; capital rotation is very clear, so it’s not a full bull market at all.
The US non-farm payrolls blew past expectations, pushing the Dow down, but chip stocks collectively revived, with Advanced Micro Devices up 11% in a single day, and Tesla also jumped over 4%.
Right now, the market is everyone playing their own game; don’t expect a single logic to connect it all.Here's another arbitrage example. Recently, many people have been discussing the pre-listing contracts of Anthropic (ANT) on X.
Binance: prices are based on an assumed 1 billion shares, while hype:ANT is priced per share.
After the prospectus reveals the actual number of shares, Binance will adjust the contracts so both sides align on the same per-share price.
According to online research, there are about 12.7 billion shares. This morning at 6 AM, Binance was at 1,374, which converts to about $108 per share, while hype shows $97.5, a difference of around 11%.
So some people go long on hype and short on Binance, balancing according to share count.
At its peak, the price difference was 25%. As more people arbitraged, it shrank to 5% at one point, and now it's back to 11%, likely because some have taken profits and closed positions. The risk lies entirely in the share count calibration.
If Binance includes all options and such, the share count would be about 16.7 billion, making the per-share price only $82. Doing this would mean a loss of nearly 20% in reverse. In short, both sides are betting on which share count Binance will ultimately use; this is not risk-free arbitrage.
The game point: whether it's around 16.7 billion or closer to 12.7 billion shares. 16.7 billion means Binance goes up; 12.7 billion means Binance goes down. Based on SpaceX's precedent, the 12.7 billion figure is more likely.
This is also why more people are arbitraging based on 12.7 billion. If you still don't understand, better not to touch it. Playing it safe means not playing.$LIT surged for several days but gave back some gains today. Coinglass reports 3.25, down 8.1% in 24 hours, falling from 3.55 intraday, yet still up 17% over 7 days. BTC barely moved today; the drop is on $LIT itself.
There are only two reasons for the rise. Coinotag says Lighter repurchased $4.11 million worth of LIT in October, 54% more than in September; founder Novakovski said they will apply to the CFTC this month for exchange and clearinghouse licenses. On Friday it was still at 3.44, and it didn’t follow BTC’s 6% drop that day. But the application hasn’t been submitted yet, and a $4 million buyback in a $810 million market cap is just a drop in the bucket.
Long positions are holding firm in the futures market. Total open interest is $375 million, about 46% of market cap; daily futures volume is $220 million, spot only $27 million. Binance account long-short ratio is 1.73, OKX is 1.83, Binance whales’ long-short ratio is 3.47; no one is giving up despite the 8% drop. Funding rate averages -0.0027%, turning negative on OKX and Gate, shorts are entering. Futures funding net outflow is $74 million over 30 days.
Unlocking is not urgent; team and investor tokens start unlocking only on December 30, at 13.5 million tokens per month. This rally is pinned on the CFTC application; volume spiked around 3.44 before and after submission, only then will the license story have buyers. The application is delayed, price dropped first to 3.1, and whales flipped their 3x long positions to dump the market. The gains this week will most likely be given back. #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 $BTC This is not a "bear trap followed by a big rally" scenario, but a stalemate of a "bear trap shape combined with bulls still alive inside."
A true bear trap bottom usually comes with negative funding rates, a sharp drop in long positions, and active buying volume. None of these three conditions are met right now. If the 75,500 level is pierced again, it may not trigger the "last shakeout" but could be the second round of liquidation of long leverage positions that have not yet been cleared.
Before the funding rate turns negative or the price recovers above 76,210 (the 1-hour long-short boundary) with volume and holds steady, treating every lower wick as a "bear trap" to buy is betting on having more patience than the market, not being smarter than the market. #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 Bitcoin is said to be heading to ten thousand, but I'll go boil some water first
Today is Sunday, it's cold, and before the water boiled, I glanced at Bitcoin, which was still at seventy-five thousand, over 75,700, down 2.6% for the week.
Then I saw that message: Bloomberg's McGlone said again that Bitcoin is going to ten thousand.
He said this last year when Bitcoin was still above one hundred thousand, with the condition that if the S&P dropped 20%, Bitcoin would "lose a zero."
But the S&P has only dropped 6% so far, still far from 20%. The Nasdaq has dropped more than 10%, halfway there, but Bitcoin is still at seventy-five thousand, sixty-five thousand away from ten thousand.
Melker summed it up in one sentence: halfway there, Bitcoin is still seventeen or eighteen thousand higher than the low point, so dropping to ten thousand doesn't make sense.
I also don't dare say McGlone is definitely wrong. In October, nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000, and the market's probability of a Fed rate hike in December is close to 80%. Money is tight, and Bitcoin's days are tough.
Below seventy-five thousand is seventy-three thousand, then sixty-nine thousand five hundred. If it can't hold, the story will be rewritten.
I recall "River Snow": A lone boat, an old man in a straw raincoat and hat, fishing alone in the cold river snow. Fishing in the snow, there's nothing but waiting.
The crypto world is also waiting now. Waiting to see if seventy-five thousand is the bottom or just halfway up the mountain.
Those shouting ten thousand started when it was one hundred thousand, and now it's still seventy-five thousand.
The water is finished; I'm going to cook now.
I'm still watching these three: $BTC to see if seventy-five thousand can hold, $ETH to see if 2,237 can stabilize, and $SOL to see if it follows the market. 过去 24 小时十大亏损最严重的巨鲸仓位，能够看出行情不只是价格图表呈现的样子，亏损压力大多集中在多头一侧。十笔大额亏损仓位里有七笔为多单，比特币（$BTC）、以太坊（$ETH）的多头承受了主要损失，其中四笔比特币多头合计约 2886 BTC，三笔以太坊多头大约持有 72500 $ETH，加杠杆的多头资金遭到明显打击。 不过市场并不是单边下跌，两个规模不小的 HYPE（$HYPE）空头同样陷入亏损，合计大约 170 万个代币，名义价值超 1.32 亿美元，这也让单纯看空的判断不再成立。原油 BRENTOIL（$BRENTOIL）一笔价值9670万的多单是本次单笔最大亏损，也提醒我们这类巨鲸的持仓并不局限在加密市场，跨资产仓位会干扰行情判断。 当前市场更偏向分歧，而非一边倒的投降。多空两边都出现亏损，边缘流动性收紧，价格大概率在区间内反复震荡，很难走出清晰的趋势。接下来的关键要看哪一方先扛不住：如果比特币、以太坊多头持续失血，行情有进一步下行的可能；倘若 HYPE 的空头率先止损离场，则有可能触发轧空行情。目前还没有出现极端单向情绪，行情方向需要等待新催化因素来打破平衡。 $BTC $On November 5th, American drone delivery company Zipline completed a $1.5 billion financing round, with a post-investment valuation of $21.5 billion, led by Paradigm along with WCM and Layer Global. Its valuation was only $7.6 billion in January this year, nearly tripling in less than a year.
What really stands out is the lead investor. Paradigm's most famous past achievements were Coinbase and Uniswap, starting out by researching token economics and smart contracts. But in the past year, its focus has shifted to drone flight safety, factory production efficiency, nuclear reactor power generation, and even space defense. In July, it also launched a new $1.2 billion fund.
The reason is simple: the exit paths in the crypto primary market are narrowing, and the returns driven by token narratives are diminishing; hard tech, however, has verifiable operational data. Zipline has completed 150 million miles of commercial autonomous flights, with over 1 million orders in Dallas this year, a median delivery time of 19 minutes in October, while traditional delivery takes over 30 minutes. This kind of data can be incorporated into valuation models, unlike whitepapers.
For the secondary market, this is not just about a single down day. Top VCs are shifting their attention, and long-tail assets have fewer investors willing to tell stories. $BTC and $ETH are supported by ETFs, $UNI is a stockpile position, and the hardest hit are projects waiting for the next round of VC takeovers.
It’s worth considering: when the people who understand token design best start researching flight safety and nuclear reactors, the bull market narratives may no longer come from them.$BTC ETF saw a net outflow of $1.28 billion last week, the worst week since the end of June. More importantly, this week alone turned the year's account negative. On Monday, the year-to-date net inflow was still $368 million, but by Saturday it had become a net outflow of $914.1 million.
$ETH is even worse, with ETF net outflows of $365.3 million last week, marking the sixth consecutive week of net outflows, totaling about $2.02 billion over six weeks
#XAUTGoldReservesUp59% I see this rate annualized blend,
annualized return -692%, shorts are paying longs. This morning it was over -800%.
It settles every four hours; if tonight it changes to every 2 hours or 1 hour, the shorts might be doomed.
The control rate is still 98%.
Waiting for those shorting this coin to break, the short positions will either flee or explode $BLEND #BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 周末本该是加密市场喘口气的窗口，这次却安静得反常。$BTC 在76000下方持续弱势震荡，$ETH 同样被压在2250以下，过去那种“周内大跌、周末反弹两千点”的节奏彻底失灵了。 这不是普通的横盘，而是一个信号：市场里已经没人愿意接货了。空头虽然没吃到多少利润，但至少还浮在水面上；多头则基本处于浮亏状态。这种“谁都不敢动”的僵持，恰恰说明信心比价格跌得更快。 真正值得警惕的是资金流向的变化。ETF已开始持续撤出，年内整体转为净流出，累计约4.16亿美元。这不是孤立事件——美股同步走弱、加息预期升温，整个风险资产的流动性都在收缩。当宏观大环境不再提供增量资金，加密市场内部自然也没有承接盘。 很多人还在等一个“技术性反弹”来确认底部，但历史经验这次可能失效。过去周末反弹的逻辑建立在场内资金愿意抄底的基础上，而现在连ETF都在撤退，抄底资金的来源本身就在枯竭。换句话说，当前不是“跌多了该反弹”的问题，而是“谁来买”的问题。 我的判断很直接：在这个位置，逢高做空的风险收益比明显优于抄底。不是因为看空加密资产的长期价值，而是因为短期市场结构已经失衡——没有承接盘的价格，反弹只是给空头更好的入场点Binance notifies users in Spain, France, Italy, and Poland to withdraw funds promptly: Starting November 29, a monthly fee of 0.025% or 10 USDC (whichever is higher) will be charged on unwithdrawn balances, and accounts will be closed on December 31, 2026. A spokesperson confirmed that this is due to the gradual restriction of services after the MiCA transition period ends; deposits are already limited, withdrawals are still allowed, and assets remain accessible.
The core issue is that Binance has not obtained the full MiCA license and cannot serve the entire EU; French users were previously announced to have their accounts closed by the end of the year for the same reason. Assessment: This is bearish for Binance's European operations but neutral for the overall market. MiCA moves the EU from individual licensing to unified licensing, and exchanges that have not completed compliance upgrades must face this regulatory threshold.
Practical advice: Affected accounts should withdraw funds promptly to avoid monthly fees starting November 29; the 10 USDC minimum fee is especially unfavorable for small balances; long-term inactive accounts will be passively closed by the end of 2026. The short-term impact will be on Binance's European market share, liquidity, and listing pace, rather than immediate sell-offs; attention should be paid to whether the MiCA license can be obtained, and whether withdrawal channels and limits become congested. This involves BNB and the Binance platform, with the platform outlook bearish and the market neutral.
Source: PANews
#BNB #USDC
Have you withdrawn your assets yet? Recently, the US tech stock sector has become increasingly interesting. On Thursday, AI-related assets experienced a significant sell-off, as the market began to worry about data center investments, financing costs, and the cash flow of AI companies. However, on Friday, there was a collective rebound: $NVDA closed at $188.70, up 3.91%; $AMD closed at $448.14, up 10.82%; $CRWV closed at $46.54, up 6.60%; $TSLA closed at $359.40, up 4.57%; $MSFT closed at $531.40, down 0.85%. $AMD rose more than 10% in one day, which looks very strong. But the question is: can a one-day rebound solve the valuation issues of the AI industry chain? I don't think so. What the market is really worried about now is not whether there is demand for AI, but: how much money will be needed for the continued expansion of data centers? When will these investments convert into revenue and free cash flow? Can highly leveraged computing power companies withstand higher financing costs? If the AI industry chain continues to rely on capital expenditure to drive growth, the market will sooner or later start to question: is revenue growth real, or is debt growing faster? Nvidia's orders and computing power demand remain strong, AMD continues to attract market attention, and giants like Microsoft, Meta, and Oracle are still investing huge sums to build AI infrastructure. So I wouldn't simply say the AI narrative is over. First, let's pour some cold water and even if you're bearish, don't jump the gun. I usually look for risks first, but when I see this kind of policy warning, I tend to guard against interpreting "possible" as "inevitable" too readily. My judgment is: this news is enough to cool down legislative optimism, but not enough to prove that the entire industry's policy environment has shifted.
The US midterm election assessment report released by Galaxy Research warns that if the Democrats win both houses of Congress, the crypto industry may face stricter congressional oversight; research director Alex Thorn expects that key digital asset legislation will have little substantive progress. I'm not in a hurry to draw a fully bearish conclusion for two reasons: the report discusses scenarios corresponding to election outcomes, not policies already implemented, so omitting the conditions would exaggerate certainty; legislative progress and rulemaking are not the same line, and the material clearly mentions that the SEC, CFTC, and banking regulators can still formulate and clarify rules based on existing authorizations, so congressional gridlock should not be equated directly with a complete halt in regulatory work.
Of course, a bearish interpretation could also be correct. According to my speculation, if the political scenarios in the report come true, oversight intensifies, and regulatory rules continue to tighten, then the pressure will be more than just emotional. I would therefore lower my judgment rather than stubbornly remain optimistic. Next, I will focus on actual oversight actions and rule content, and not let a scenario assessment prematurely judge the market.向极端，不等于趋势已经反转，如果现货买盘没有跟上，价格仍然可能继续横盘或向下寻找流动性。那买盘到底跟没跟上呢？我们来看： $BTC ETF上周净流出12.8亿美元，是6月底以来最差的一周，更关键的是这一星期直接把今年的账打负了，周一时年初至今还是净流入3.68亿，周六就变成净流出9.141亿，机构撤离的速度已经可以用狼狈来形容了 $ETH 更惨，ETF上周净流出3.653亿美元，连续第六周净流出，六周合计约20.2亿。如果说BTC是这一周突然加速，那ETH就是连续六周一直在流出了，这种缓慢的失血应该是让人更难熬的 综上，市场目前的状态还是更像杠杆降温，而不是市场已经重新进入牛市节奏，至少先等等看下周的CPI咋说吧#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出75,569 In that moment, I stared at the market a bit dazed 🌙 A weekly outflow of 1.28 billion USD, yet the price only fluctuated less than 700 points—what kind of sell-off is this? The US spot BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about 1.28 billion this week, the heaviest week since the end of June, and the second consecutive week of bleeding. What's more interesting is that, as of Friday this year, twelve funds combined have a net outflow of about 914.1 million—meaning that at the start of this week there was still a net inflow of about 368 million, but within one week all the positive gains for the year were given back. On Friday alone, about 411.9 million left, with BlackRock IBIT accounting for about 403 million. But what concerns me more is the market's "non-cooperation." $BTC is now around 75,950, with a 24-hour high of 76,251 and low of 75,569, and a funding rate of about 0.007%. Volume was low over the weekend; last night it was pushed down to 75,569 but then pulled back, and this morning it has been grinding between 75,700 and 75,950; after surging to 76,251 yesterday afternoon, it hasn't been able to go higher. This combination, to me, is a typical sign of narrative fatigue: selling pressure is real, but buyers are not panicking, the price is being held down but not smashed through. Psychologically, those chasing longs fear CPI, while those out of the market fear missing out, so everyone is staying on the sidelines watching—trading is light, volatility is suppressed, and FOMO is actually showing up as "not daring to move" first. Looking at sector strength and weakness through this lens, the signal is actually quite straightforward: the ETF channel is withdrawing, saying Why is CORE currently in a "fundamental repair period"? Three signals reveal the truth
After consecutive incidents of underlying reward vulnerabilities and the large-scale theft of b14g coins, many opinions believe that CORE has entered a passive fundamental repair window, but repair does not equal reversal; three major signals need to be objectively identified.
Signal 1: Major vulnerability has completed a technical closed loop. Regarding the theft of 97.05 million CORE from b14g, the project team successfully recovered about 70% of the stolen tokens through a hard fork and completed contract patches to prevent similar vulnerabilities from recurring. The BTC staked underlying assets remain secure, and the most extreme systemic risk has been temporarily eliminated.
Signal 2: Risk has shifted from an "unknown black box" to a "known risk." From the concentration of validator nodes, hard fork intervention in the ledger, the scale of ghost chips, to Bithumb's delisting schedule, most negative factors have been fully exposed and priced by the market, reducing uncertainty.
Signal 3: The BTCFi sector narrative foundation still exists. The product framework based on Bitcoin staking has not completely failed. If transparency in the treasury and governance solutions improves later, there is theoretically still a possibility to re-attract funds.
However, it is important to clearly recognize: the repair period is merely a bottoming phase after all negative factors have been exhausted. Core hidden risks have not been eradicated; remaining stolen chips, decentralization trust fractures, and competitive diversion pressures still exist long-term. Repair is a necessary condition to stop the decline, but by no means a sufficient condition for an uptrend.Warren possibly taking control of the Senate Banking Committee is the detail I care about most in Galaxy's assessment. Let's consider the worst-case scenario: if both chambers change hands, supervision might tighten, but legislation could get stuck.
My judgment is that expectations propped up by policy fulfillment are more fragile: first, the legislative waiting period is hard to estimate; second, regulation can still proceed legally, so no movement in bills doesn't mean rules remain unchanged.
My risk control habit is to first write a list of losses I can bear per trade, not loosening boundaries based on news. During such policy uncertainty periods, how much stop loss do people generally set for themselves per trade?About 160 million ALLO, with the window roughly around November 11.
Tokenomist still marks the next unlock on this day, targeting Early Backers and Core Contributors. According to the official proportions, these two categories together account for 48.55% of the 1 billion cap, with a full 12-month lockup followed by a one-time release of 33% each, totaling about 160 million, approximately 16% of the cap. Some trackers include small linear releases during the same period, so their figures might be slightly higher.
The official rules are stated but no fixed calendar date: lock for 12 months, release 33% at the milestone, then linear release over the remaining 24 months. November 11 is calculated by pushing one year from the mainnet/token listing on November 11, 2025; this is an estimate, not an official announcement. The window is about 3 days away.
Unlocking does not mean immediate selling.
Why it matters: this is a relatively large cliff supply calendar compared to the cap; first, see if there is an actual on-chain release.
Confidence level: Medium | Estimated calendar (Tokenomist + official tokenomics; the foundation has not announced specific dates). Are you more concerned about whether the tokens will be transferred on-chain at the milestone, or just the countdown on the tracker? $ALLO $11.39 million, 7x leverage, fully invested in a single long position on $BTC. Entry at $75,880, liquidation at $62,047. What’s worth noting in these numbers isn’t the size of the position, but the distance between entry and liquidation.
7x leverage means most of this over ten million is borrowed, not his own money. This level of leverage on-chain is considered "daring but with a way out," unlike 25x or 50x where the liquidation price is right next to the entry price—just a small move and it’s gone. So this position isn’t currently considered dangerous.
Now look at this person. Cumulative profit of $821,600, with $755,400 earned in the last 30 days. The recent month’s profit accounts for the vast majority of total profit, indicating that he is very close to achieving real results; for a long time before, the account was flat. This doesn’t mean he’s not skilled, but the label "cumulative profit of $821,600" carries more weight than it seems.
A 7x long position with a liquidation price near $62,000 essentially bets that this correction won’t drop back to $62,000. This is different from "I’m bullish on $BTC." The former is risk budgeting, the latter is a directional view. The most common mistake in copy trading is mixing these two up—if you get the direction right, you add more, but you don’t die from a wrong call, you die from volatility.
So the judgment is: the safety margin of this position comes from leverage restraint, not from support at a certain price level. If it really drops to $62,000, that distance isn’t wide in extreme market conditions.
One last point to consider: what you see on-chain is always the positions others want you to see.Historically, the proportion of altcoins falling below the 200-day moving average at the end of June has reached 84%, now at 70%. Some have started shouting "extreme oversold, reversal is coming." But note: it was only 10% at the beginning of October, then surged to 70% in one month. The decline is sharp, not prolonged. After a sharp drop, there may be a rebound, but that does not mean a trend reversal. If you want to bet on a rebound, you can. But don't mistake a rebound for a reversal, and don't turn a rebound into a belief.Polygon is currently discussing a "balance rewrite" hard fork: directly removing approximately 70.49 million POL (about $6.5 million) stolen in the Polymarket and Binance incidents on October 29 from the attackers' addresses.
Confirmed: The proposal was released on November 4 in the form of a PIP, involving 5 addresses that have been blacklisted by block-producing nodes—23.86 million from the Polymarket incident (entry point was a third-party service provider), 46.63 million from Binance hot wallets, and 6.19 million USDT from the same batch has been frozen by Tether. The blacklist only freezes funds without returning them; the attacker is still attempting to test with 219,000 POL in fees and is suspected to have contacted validators. The mechanism is to zero out the balances of the 5 addresses at the activation block and credit the equivalent amount to the recovery addresses of the two companies, keeping the total supply unchanged, accounting for about 0.66% of the circulating supply.
Pending: A governance call on November 5 demonstrated the proposal, but no voting results yet; even if passed, it will require about two weeks of development and testnet rehearsals. The real controversy in the community is not the $6.5 million but the precedent— the last time this was done was Ethereum in 2016, and the chain that did not follow later became Ethereum Classic.
A reminder: The official side has no "migration" or "claim"; any such notices are phishing attempts.
Sources: crypto.news, CryptoTicker, CoinStats, CoinGeckoCan $DIS streaming profits support the entire group?
Disney is scheduled to release its annual and Q4 earnings on November 17. Streaming price increases can improve revenue per household but may also drive cancellations. Theme park attendance and per-guest spending still impact the group's cash flow. If subscription profitability improves in tandem with park performance, the upside is more credible. If profits are mainly driven by reduced content spending, retention will become the next test.Is the storage industry still viable?
The hottest topic among foreigners over the weekend!
Taking Micron as an example, its forward PE is only 3.6x, while Walmart's is as high as 45x. Which one is really worth investing in?
The bulls' logic: If Micron can earn hundreds of billions of dollars in profit in the next two to three years, why should it still be valued based on past storage cycles? The storage cycles back then fundamentally did not have structural demand growth like AI! Now with the explosion in demand for HBM, DRAM, and NAND, AI is reshaping the entire supply and demand relationship of the storage industry.
Micron has exceeded earnings expectations for eight consecutive quarters, and UBS analysts have proposed buybacks exceeding hundreds of billions of dollars in forward scenarios. The bears' logic: Even if Micron earns hundreds of billions of dollars in profit in the future, the cyclical nature of the storage industry cannot be ignored. The reason is simple: memory prices will inevitably crash, and gross margins will collapse accordingly. The storage cycles over the past decades repeatedly prove that even if fundamentals continuously exceed expectations, they cannot change the cyclical fluctuations of the storage industry. Now neither bulls nor bears can convince each other.US spot Bitcoin ETFs have seen net outflows for two consecutive days, with $411.9 million leaving on Friday alone, of which BlackRock accounted for $403 million. Strategy's coin buying speed has also dropped from 20,000 coins per week at the beginning of the year to just two or three hundred. Institutions are pulling back, while retail investors are asking, "Can we catch the dip?" It's not that institutions are always right, but when you are going against a monthly outflow of $1.28 billion, at least you know who you are standing opposite to.
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 ETH current price is 2,234, with a 52-week range from 1,507 to 3,657. It has dropped nearly 40% from its peak and is down 24.8% year-to-date. Technical analysis signals a "strong sell." But the question has never been "Is ETH still good?" It's "What is your cost basis, how large is your position, and how much more can you endure?" Instead of asking if you can buy when it falls, first ask yourself: if it drops another 10% tomorrow, can you still sleep at night? Regarding Moderna's financial report, beyond seeing how much profit was made, I am more interested in whether the money has actually been collected.
The net profit for Q3 was $162 million, a turnaround that deserves recognition. However, the company also mentioned that most of the payments from product sales during the quarter had not been collected by the end of the quarter. Accounts receivable at the end of September were about $1.367 billion, a significant increase compared to the end of last year. There is a period between revenue recognition and cash receipt that needs to be continuously monitored.
This does not necessarily mean there is a problem with customer payments. Concentrated sales, differences in shipping and settlement times can all cause this phenomenon. After seeing the impressive profit figures, the next step is best to also follow up on the cash collections.
The company’s operating activities still had a net outflow of about $2.715 billion in the first three quarters, which also includes factors such as litigation and seasonal working capital. Breaking down these expenses is necessary to judge how subsequent cash consumption will change.
I acknowledge this improvement, but I do not want to overlook that the entire business is still adjusting just because of a single quarter’s turnaround. Especially for R&D-focused companies with long investment cycles, how long the improvement in the income statement can last requires coordination between sales and expenses.
If accounts receivable gradually recover and operating cash flow improves accordingly, the basis for this rebound will be more solid. The revenue already confirmed in the financial report ultimately needs to turn into money the company can continue to use, and I will be watching this step very closely.
#ModernaQ3扭亏为盈，上调全年营收增长预期 In the past 24 hours, the crypto derivatives market exploded by $1.27 billion, with longs liquidated over $1.1 billion. It's not that retail investors don't want to hold on, but leverage doesn't allow it. BTC slid from above 80,000 to 76,000, and every rebound was pushed back by ETF outflows: since November, BTC ETF net outflows have reached $1.28 billion, with BlackRock's IBIT running $400 million in one day. Institutions are withdrawing, and you're catching. Ask yourself: are you catching an opportunity or a flying knife? Recent news related to Bitcoin:
1. ETFs are seeing outflows. On Friday, despite the US stock market rising, the Bitcoin ETF still had outflows of over 400 million, and buying hasn't returned.
2. Interest rate hike expectations. Non-farm payrolls were too strong, and the probability of a rate hike in December is now 76.5%.
3. Altcoin money is retreating; statistics show that about 70% of altcoins on Binance have fallen below their 200-day moving average. The total stablecoin supply is $291.6 billion, down by $5.8 billion in one week.
4. Bitcoin is already close to the Strategy's cost price. Its average holding price is about $75,451, now only two or three hundred dollars higher. On Wednesday, MSCI will decide whether to keep it in the index.ETF net outflow of $1.647 billion in one week — does that mean the entire crypto space lost $1.647 billion? This calculation cannot be equated directly.
According to Farside's daily aggregation, from November 2 to 6, the US spot BTC ETF had a net outflow of about $1.282 billion, and ETH about $365 million.
This is not a trivial matter: the net demand through the ETF channel is indeed weakening. But "net outflow in this channel" and "all institutions are fleeing" are not the same conclusion.
ETF is just one of the holding tools. The subscription and redemption data of fund shares do not cover all institutional position changes, nor do they represent the total capital flow of the entire market.
My judgment: this set of data is worth being cautious about, but it is not enough to conclude the market trend. The more useful questions going forward are: whether the outflow continues, which funds are concentrated in the outflow, and whether demand from other channels has compensated.
Rather than rushing to call bull or bear, I want to know: who is reducing, who is taking over, and for how long.
Analyzed according to Buffett's framework, this does not constitute investment advice.