Orbit Post Sitemap
Weekend Market: So Quiet It Sends a Chill
The weekend candlesticks look like they've been paused, with low volume sideways trading that easily relaxes people. But the contract data tells a different story.
$BTC is hovering around 75913, with the 4-hour long-short ratio still stuck at 3.0, indicating that the sharp drop hasn't forced leveraged longs off their positions; the bottom-fishing crowd is actually growing thicker. With such heavy weight, why is the main force in a hurry to lift the market? The sideways movement looks more like bait.
$ETH is fluctuating around 2238, with 2200 becoming the last cover; the long-short ratio is 3.31, and the bulls are still stubbornly holding on. Once 2200 breaks, stop-losses and forced liquidations could easily trigger a stampede.
$SOL is even more extreme, clinging just below 90 at 89.18, with a long-short ratio of 3.79—the highest leverage crowding; if 88 breaks, the risk of chain liquidations is significant.
So, don’t mistake the weekend calm for stabilization. Leverage hasn’t been cleared yet; treat any rebound as a bull trap first. Controlling your actions is more important than betting on direction. When the new week opens, will the first move cut the bulls or sweep the shorts first?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 That familiar feeling of using traditional finance as a reference has come back from the last cycle. I used to be easily swayed by such comparisons, but now when I see large numbers, I first think: does this indicate that the chain is being actively used, or does it just mean the chain is very busy?
Solana disclosed that as of September 23, the average weekly transactions this year are about 95.92 million, roughly 15% of the average weekly transactions of major U.S. stock exchanges. Unlike the last cycle where it was more about narratives, this time at least activity metrics are presented. However, I believe this is more meaningful for discussing the chain's capacity rather than directly translating into valuation benefits.
Transaction count does not equal capital scale, and comparisons with the stock market also depend on statistical criteria; for ordinary users, no matter how many transactions there are, it ultimately comes down to fees and experience. If these activities can continuously convert into real demand, only then will I see it as a signal that the cycle is moving towards applications. Next, I will focus on the sustainability of demand and won’t rush to hype this ratio.There's something I don't quite understand: gold has dropped by 30% this year, so why are more people buying it?
It's not the price that's rising, but the trading volume. Binance's $XAUT has done $325 million in the past 7 days, the highest since launch except for the initial opening period, with $78 million in a single day on November 5.
So the picture is: the item is on sale, and people are lining up.
I roughly get it—when the market is down, people aren't trying to make money, they're looking for a place to stay. Buying gold tokens settles instantly, the price follows the gold price, and the liquidity is still on-chain, allowing entry and exit at any time.
I can't say how solid the harbor is, but if gold can't hold at 4000, those seeking shelter will still have to run.The crypto market is falling, but gold tokens are seeing increased volume. Binance's gold-backed products have exceeded $325 million in trading volume over the past 7 days. Excluding the initial peak at launch, this is the highest level since they went live; on November 5 alone, $78 million was traded, with cumulative volume surpassing $8 billion.
First, let's explain why this contrast exists. When the market weakens, money doesn't disappear; it looks for a place to hide. There are few assets in the crypto space that can meet safe-haven demand without needing to cash out to banks. Gold tokens are among the few: they track gold prices, are priced in stablecoins, can be traded 24/7, and can remain on-chain to continue serving as collateral. So when the market softens, these products see volume increase first.
However, rising volume does not equal rising prices, which is a common misconception. Gold prices have corrected over 30% since the beginning of the year and are currently stabilizing around $4,000 per ounce. While trading volume hits record highs, the asset remains sideways at a 30% retracement level.
Therefore, this volume surge indicates money is moving, not that the trend is reversing. Some funds are exiting $BTC and $ETH, temporarily parking in $XAUT, waiting for risk appetite to return before moving again. This money is transient, not permanent.
What really deserves attention is this: if gold prices hold at $4,000 and volume continues to expand, then the inflows are not just short-term safe-haven funds, but investors starting to allocate gold as a long-term position. The difference between these two scenarios determines whether the volume is a pulse or a step up.24-hour options trading volume bullish vs bearish exposure: BTC is long, ETH is short, the two major capital directions diverge! The biggest pain points are both exposed, where the market makers want to push the price at expiration is clear to everyone!
📊 24-hour trading volume + biggest pain point breakdown
✅ $BTC: 24h trading volume bullish 55.43% vs bearish 44.57%
Bullish volume 5579.81 BTC, bearish volume 4486.91 BTC
Open interest bullish 57.13% vs bearish 42.87%
Biggest pain point: 84000, nominal amount 667 million
✅ $ETH: 24h trading volume bullish 46.87% vs bearish 53.13%
Bullish volume 74551.31 ETH, bearish volume 84509.04 ETH
Open interest bullish 62.14% vs bearish 37.86%
Biggest pain point: 2800, nominal amount 73.0899 million
Core interpretation:
The so-called biggest pain point is the strike price at expiration that causes the most option buyers to lose money. BTC 84000 and ETH 2800, both pain points hang above the current price, providing upward traction reference for the market.
The most obvious now is the divergence of the two major capital directions: BTC short-term 55.43% bullish, while ETH short-term has 53.13% bearish, one quietly going long, the other quietly hedging, a big divergence; but looking longer term, both still have bullish open interest dominance (57%, 62%).
Also, BTC’s nominal amount at this expiration is 667 million, much larger than ETH’s 73.089 million, so the pain point traction and pinning battle on $BTC will only be fiercer.
But remember, pain points are only references, not iron bottoms or tops; news can break them anytime. Ordinary people must never use high leverage recklessly; proper stop-loss to protect principal is more important than anything!
Just personal opinion, trade at your own riskAs a strong $BTC bull, turning bearish is never easy. However, I believe in sharing my honest market perspective rather than ignoring the warning signs. After checking the BTC long-short ratio, I noticed that the overall positioning is approaching 3:1, suggesting that longs heavily outweigh shorts. Many traders seem eager to buy every dip. This isn't necessarily bearish if leverage remains low. But excessive leveraged long exposure could create serious liquidation risks. My biggest concern is tBrothers, I looked at this chart three times tonight before daring to post it. Big bro Maji's account shows a total profit and loss of −37,396,400, a seven-day loss of −314,900, and a thirty-day loss of −1,583,200. The curve has been sliding down from over 40 million in September 2025, all red, like seaweed hanging on rocks after the tide recedes. He is still holding a long ETH position: 540 ETH, 25x full margin, nominal 1,209,800 USD, opened at 2,304.23. Floating loss is −34,500, −71.23%, and he has paid 15,200 just in funding fees. Available margin is 0. The liquidation price is 2,204.16. ETH current price is 2,238. The 24-hour range is 2,206 to 2,254, with tonight's low at 2,223. That means, in this 7/7 bearish directional board tonight, the two ETH take-profit levels at 2,212 and 2,196 are right around his liquidation price. If it goes down another 34 dollars, these 540 ETH will no longer be his. This is not a prediction, but a fact laid out on the market: below around 2,204, there are many stop losses and forced liquidations, so the price will only move faster there. Looking at the news, there is nothing to save him. On Thursday, BTC spot ETF net outflow was 430 million USD, ETH about 100 million, IBIT had over 1 billion outflow for 5 consecutive days; Nasdaq was down 5.52% on Thursday and only rebounded 1.0 on Friday #SoftBank's Heavy Bet on OpenAI: Can the Q2 Earnings Report Deliver Impressive Results?
The sharp decline in U.S. tech stocks is indeed somewhat related to the Democratic Party's victory, as they are pushing for legislation to strictly limit the construction of AI computing power centers.
Many people are mocking the Democrats as crazy, but this is actually a very popular move. Americans, regardless of red or blue, oppose building AI computing power centers. More precisely, they oppose having these things built in their own cities.
For example, in the Greater Los Angeles area, many cities have been protesting for a long time. Some cities have passed laws that "permanently prohibit the establishment of AI computing power centers in this city." Some cities are still fighting. And recently, the governor signed a law imposing strict restrictions, which also aligns with the residents' demands.
Why do residents oppose building these things? Because they consume a huge amount of water and electricity, causing local water and power shortages or price increases. If there is a fire or explosion, it would cause severe pollution. When a computing power center appears in a region, property values in the entire area depreciate.
If that's the case, why not build computing power centers in deserts or other uninhabited areas? The U.S. has plenty of wasteland.
Because computing power centers require massive amounts of water and electricity, and densely populated areas already have sufficient water and power infrastructure. Also, computing power centers definitely need staff, and if built in uninhabited areas, their living needs must be met, requiring infrastructure construction. In short, building in uninhabited areas costs a lot more.
But building near residential areas saves capitalists a lot of money. $BTC bulls are not really afraid of bad news, but of overcrowding
$BTC now has a signal more worth watching than the candlestick: retail long sentiment has reached its highest in nearly five months. Calculated by two consecutive weeks of long-short dimensions, this is the most crowded in 8 months. The last similar situation was at the end of January, when BTC was still around 90,000, then it fell below 60,000.
So unanimous retail bullishness is not necessarily good for the bulls. Sentiment indicators are not starting pistols, but more like reverse thermometers: they don't tell you when the market will turn, but they tell you which side is too crowded.
If the main force wants to shake out these bulls, I guess there are three possible moves:
• Directly down: deleveraging fastest, but it easily gives retail a chance to add positions at low prices;
• First up: a false breakout to lure more longs in, then reverse to smash, causing greater damage;
• Combination of up and down: first create the illusion of a "breakout," then sharply drop to clear leverage, and finally rebound to make short-sellers uncomfortable.
Personally, I lean more towards the combination rather than a one-sided drop. Because when bullish sentiment is too unanimous, simply smashing the market is less effective; first luring longs, then killing longs is more efficient.
Next, don't just focus on sentiment; pay attention to funding rates, open interest, and spot absorption. The biggest risk for bulls now is not being wrong about direction, but overcrowded positions.
Not investment advice, just personal market thoughts. #BTC高位回落，黄金联动受考验 $ATOM
Cosmos is built around interoperability rather than forcing every application into one blockchain environment. Its ecosystem allows independent chains to communicate through established interoperability infrastructure. Yet ATOM faces an important economic question: how much value does ecosystem expansion actually capture for the token itself? Network growth and token value are not automatically the same thing.Thirty thousand transactions can't support 750 million
The bullish case for $AKE can't even stand at the first step
That 750 million is derived by multiplying thirty thousand by 2.5
Thirty thousand is the number of transactions, not the amount of money
A single transaction can be large or small, so the multiplied number has no basis
How is this number calculated: number of transactions times a coefficient, which does not equal capital
During sideways movement, a dip triggers short sellers to enter
Stop losses pile up below, so when the price retraces, it first sweeps out these people
Only after clearing them does the direction come into play
If it were really going to drop, it wouldn't signal so many people first
For this wave of $AKE, it sweeps out the shorts before discussing direction
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
#$AKE Hacker's “Exchange Rate Short Position”: More Intriguing Than a Sell-Off
A hacker address received 3100 ETH from Tornado 9 hours ago, sold it via Cowswap for 6.93 million USDC, then deposited into Hyperliquid to open a combined position: 20x short 8945.744 ETH and 20x long 263.81 BTC, with a notional value of $19.98 million. In simple terms, this is a bet on the ETH/BTC exchange rate declining, rather than a pure bearish stance on ETH.
Interestingly, why didn’t the hacker just dump ETH directly but instead went through contracts? One explanation is that spot selling causes large impact and high slippage, while leveraged contracts can better amplify directional gains; another possibility is that this position is only part of a hedge or strategy combination and should not be simply equated with a long-term bearish view. The repeated cases of hackers actively opening contracts indeed indicate that on-chain fund operations are becoming more “professional.”
As for whether this means a plan to sell ETH has started, there is currently insufficient evidence. The hacker holds the ETH and thus the initiative, but position direction does not equal selling pace. What is truly worth watching is the linkage among such large addresses across DEXs, perpetual contracts, and mixers.
$ETH $BTC Actually, when I saw the US military attack on Iran's Qeshm Island yesterday, it made me feel a "relief" inside, not because the scale of this attack was small,
but because since there is a small-scale military strike, the priority of a large-scale military strike can be downgraded, which is a good thing for the current US-Iran situation assessment.
The logic is very simple. The US-Iran situation is like a high-pressure environment. If both sides remain silent and do not act, I would actually worry about a direct large-scale military conflict. But once there is a "pressure release" action, such as a small-scale military strike, increased economic sanctions, or Iran canceling the 2000 km ballistic missile limit, etc.,
these actions, from my perspective, are "pressure release" moves regarding the US-Iran situation. After all, for the internal systems of both the US and Iran, if there are no military or tough diplomatic actions externally, the internal pressure will become very high, and once the internal hardliners accumulate enough pressure, it is very likely to push for large-scale combat.
So, having actions, I actually think is a good thing. The current US-Iran situation is still not very clear, with too much noise in the information and key agreement drafts not fully disclosed. Both sides have no clear stance, and the "underwater covert" game is still very frequent. We maintain a cautious attitude and wait!
Going forward, we also need to pay attention to Israel's Netanyahu election and the US impeachment issue regarding Hegseth! #美军扩大对伊朗封锁，霍尔木兹重开仍存分歧 According to historical patterns, during the start phase of a bear market, the red line valley value hits a low point, representing a concentrated release of loss positions; even if the price hits new lows afterward, the valley value gradually rises, indicating that panic selling pressure is no longer keeping up, and only when the indicator turns green can a bear market cycle be considered complete. The 2018-2019 cycle lasted 14 months, the 2021-2023 cycle lasted 13 months, and the current cycle has been running for 11 months. From the perspective of time and indicator patterns, it already meets the characteristics of a bear market cycle.
However, analysts are not entirely bearish. Historically, once the indicator turns green and enters the B zone, it almost never reverses to restart a bear market. Brief red signals within this range are usually just minor pullbacks, and the upward momentum of profits gradually weakens.
Currently, the correlation between BTC and the US stock market has reached 0.8, a high level since 2020. Such high correlation is generally difficult to maintain continuously and will likely diverge later. If BTC continues to decline regardless of the US stock market's rise or fall, long-term holders have no reason to keep holding, and this logic itself is hard to sustain for long.
Each round of panic release and chip exchange quietly accumulates momentum for subsequent market moves. Of course, historical patterns cannot directly predict the future market, as macro variables always exist, and the market may still experience severe volatility. From the current indicator signals, there is temporarily no evidence proving that this recovery cycle has been broken.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $BTC $ETH $ZEC Let's take a look at Brother Ba Bai's real trading account. Many people want to ask, after losing so much, can he sleep at night?
First, look at the full account overview: total floating loss of 4.15 million U, overall performance drawdown of 93.68%. At its peak, the 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 floating loss 30010.83 U, return rate -42.64%; the second $ETH long position, 17x isolated margin, entry 2278.68, floating loss 15313.19 U, return rate -31.83%; the third BTC long position set at a low level, 20x isolated margin, entry 67701.3, this one is profitable, floating profit 183675.26 U, return rate as high as +241.66%.
The holding logic is very clear: the BTC long positions laid at low levels early on caught a big market move and made a large profit; later, more was added at high levels chasing the long, and after the market pulled back, the high-level added longs were directly trapped, and the profits from the profitable positions were largely eaten up by the losses from the high-level chasing longs.
This is the cruelest 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 levels following the trend, a single pullback will significantly erode profits. Although the margin ratio is still maintained at a high level now, so there is no liquidation risk for the time being, the account has already shrunk significantly, and the pressure to recover is huge.
The trading market never softens just because you hold a position; holding heavy positions at high levels, every drop is torture. When others are making huge profits and rushing in, once the market turnsAn address called Mr. 1,000 bought 5,000 bitcoins in two days.
The details are more interesting than the conclusion. From November 5 to 6, this address placed 6 orders, each exactly 1,000 coins. The last order was placed at 3:38 AM on the 6th, when BTC was priced at $75,980, with a holding market value of $456 million, totaling 6,000 coins.
First, clarify a point that is easy to misread: 456 million is the market value, not the cost. 6,000 multiplied by 75,980 matches exactly, indicating this figure is calculated at the last transaction price. The prices of the earlier purchases are not disclosed; anyone who claims to know is making it up.
What’s really worth pondering is the rhythm. Six orders, each 1,000 coins, completed in two days—this is not random clicking, it’s order splitting. Large buy orders placed on the order book can push prices up and attract quantitative follow-up orders; splitting into equal smaller parts minimizes slippage. This person is building a position to hold for a long time, not betting on a rebound.
Does this count as a signal? A single address can’t define a trend, but it provides a price reference. Someone willing to bet $450 million at $76,000 means this range doesn’t seem expensive to them. It’s useful for judging the bottom, but not for predicting whether the price will rise tomorrow.
What should be watched more is whether they stop or not. The codename Mr. 1,000 is because historically they buy in increments of one thousand. The direction of $BTC often depends not on how much is bought, but on whether the buyers stop.#SoftBank's Heavy Bet on OpenAI: Can the Q2 Earnings Deliver Impressive Results? SoftBank's upcoming earnings report is an important window to gauge the real temperature of the current AI capital cycle. The market's focus has shifted from "How much has OpenAI made SoftBank?" to "What else can SoftBank use to continue betting on OpenAI?" First, OpenAI's valuation engine temporarily stalled last quarter. In the fiscal quarter from April to June 2026, SoftBank's net profit was ¥347.3 billion, down about 18% year-over-year, but still significantly exceeded analysts' expectations of ¥147 billion to ¥166 billion. The source of the profit beat was not OpenAI, but the rise in Intel and Arm stock prices—SoftBank's holdings in Intel rose from a $2 billion unrealized gain to about $8 billion, and Arm's market value increased 150% year-to-date, pushing SoftBank's net asset value to a historic high of ¥72 trillion. OpenAI's valuation remained unchanged during the quarter, holding steady at $852 billion from the March 2026 financing round, with SoftBank owning about 13% of the shares. No OpenAI-related gains or losses were recorded that quarter. This contrasts sharply with Q4 of fiscal 2026—when OpenAI's valuation surge contributed about $25 billion in paper gains to SoftBank, directly driving net profit to six times analysts' expectations. This means SoftBank's profits are shifting from being "driven by OpenAI valuation reappraisal" back to being "driven by chip assets," the latter having a different relationship with the AI narrative Can $AXON's recurring software revenue offset project fluctuations?
Axon's software and services revenue in Q3 increased by 43% year-over-year, while also adjusting guidance related to the federal Dedrone project. Subscriptions improve stability, but hardware deployment is still constrained by acceptance and procurement processes. If renewals expand and project payments recover, the two business lines can support each other. If acceptance continues to be delayed, revenue visibility will need to be revised downward.$BTC dropped from over 80,000 straight down to 75,500, with nearly 1.1 billion liquidated across the network, over 200,000 people wiped out, longs making up the absolute majority. The 75,000 line is now a short-term life-or-death level; if it can't hold, below is a vacuum.
$ETH is even more fragile, falling from 2,400 down to just over 2,200, dropping more than 7%. The more elastic it is, the harder it falls. On the ETF side, BlackRock's ETHA moved 90.76 million in one day, while staked ETHB only saw a return flow of 1.15 million, which is just a drop in the bucket.
This week, A-shares media sector led with a 13.41% gain, followed by power equipment at 9.33%. The 21 photovoltaic stocks hitting the daily limit look lively, but out of the 2.12 trillion turnover, the 80.3 billion released—whether it's allocation funds or just a pulse of existing sentiment—is far more important than the number of limit-ups.
On Friday, US chip stocks bounced a bit, but the S&P information technology sector crashed over 7.3% in a single day for the week, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 12.2%, and the Nasdaq has already technically corrected. Next Tuesday's CPI month-over-month is expected at 0.3%, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%. CoreWeave's earnings report is coming soon; once AI infrastructure financing costs show weakness, this tech stock correction won't be over. 🚨 Is the DOGE technical upgrade being overhyped? Don't rush to claim it surpasses BTC; the real focus should be on this!
Recently, discussions about $DOGE technical debt fixes have been increasing, with some even describing it as having completely solved the transaction malleability issue long before Bitcoin.
But I think this conclusion is a bit exaggerated.
Technical progress is worth acknowledging, but history shouldn't be casually rewritten, nor should a key patch upgrade be packaged as a comprehensive lead.
First, let's clarify what transaction malleability is.
Simply put, transaction malleability means that before a transaction is confirmed in a block, certain transaction data may change, causing the transaction ID (TXID) to change, but the actual transfer content of the transaction remains unchanged.
This is especially important for trading platforms.
If a platform relies solely on the original TXID to determine transaction status, it may misidentify transactions and even risk processing funds repeatedly.
The Mt.Gox incident listed transaction malleability as one of the issues, but the entire loss of the event cannot be attributed solely to this technical vulnerability. Wallet management, internal reconciliation, and long-term security issues are also unavoidable factors.
Now, let's look at DOGE's technical upgrade.
In 2015, Dogecoin Core 1.10 introduced strict DER signature encoding rules related to BIP66, which were activated in 2016.
This upgrade indeed has technical significance, but three details need attention:
1️⃣ It mainly targets signature encoding specifications, Tether invests another €28.8 million in Juventus but abstains from voting on the financial report
Tether confirmed its participation in Juventus' €250 million capital increase, contributing €28.8 million for an 11.5% stake. At the shareholders' meeting on November 3, it voted in favor of the capital increase plan but abstained from all other ordinary shareholders' meeting proposals, including approving the club's annual financial report showing a €66 million loss.
The feelings of those co-investing and those watching differ. In last November's €98 million capital increase round, Tether contributed €11.7 million and opposed the specific arrangements of the capital increase at that time; this time, it supports the capital increase but abstains on the loss financial report, making its stance clearer: it is willing to continue funding but does not endorse the accounts.
What is worth noting is this division. In December 2025, it made a binding non-solicited offer to the major shareholder Exor to acquire all shares, which was rejected. Now, by maintaining its stake and co-investing proportionally, whether it is holding its position or preparing to negotiate again, the next capital increase and Exor's moves will provide the answer.At 7:30 PM, brothers, was your weekend nerve-wracking? Just finished dinner and collapsed on the sofa, thinking about going to bed early tonight to be ready for work tomorrow, but then I checked the contract data. Good grief, it almost gave me a shock. The dog whales are definitely sharpening their knives overtime!
First, look at $DOGE current price 0.071, the 4-hour long-short ratio has directly risen to a terrifying 5.34. Retail investors are all crowded on the long side, desperately holding their positions at the bottom. The load is too heavy. The dog whales must be grinning at this data. They won’t let this batch of people survive without liquidating them to push the price up.
Next, $PEPE current price 0.0000049, long-short ratio 2.46, looks a bit more normal, but glance at the funding rate, it occasionally dips into negative territory, indicating the longs are currently being slowly cut like with a blunt knife. This position is half-dead, purely testing retail investors’ patience. Don’t blindly touch it.
The worst is definitely the new coin $AKE current price 0.0056, slashed from a high of 0.16 straight to the ankle, down nearly 99%. Its funding rate has gone absurdly negative at -0.85%, the shorts are basically numb. The long-short ratio crashed from 3.05 all the way down to 0.54. This is a classic peak at open scenario; everyone who tried to bottom-fish got slaughtered like piglets, a brutal chain stampede.
In summary, weekend altcoins are the dog whales’ cash machines. Crowded longs get hit anytime, and new coins are even more merciless, eating people alive without leaving bones. If the trend is unclear, don’t mess around. Preserving your principal is more important than anything.
Did your account shrink this weekend? Which of these three do you hold?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Conclusion first: I’m not chasing $CAP. It’s up 8.4% in 24 hours, but those chasing the high are paying real money.
Funding fees are the most honest ledger: on 11-07 at 20:00, the rate jumped to 0.0278%, which is 5.5 times the floor price of 0.005%; it then declined steadily back to 0.005% over the next six periods. Long position holders paid a total of 6.4 basis points over six settlement periods. At the same time, the position amount dropped from $7.12 million to $6.86 million.
What’s rising is leverage, not spot: According to CoinGecko, the global spot 24-hour trading volume of CAP is $23.5 million, while OKX alone saw $36.09 million in perpetual contract volume. During the 4-hour surge, volume was $25.33 million, accounting for 70% of the daily total; in the recent 4 hours, it dropped to only $1.18 million, a 95% shrink.
Price-wise, it peaked at 0.1123, now at 0.1006, a 10.5% retracement; it’s up 39% over 7 days, while today 97 major perpetual contracts in the market are down and 60 are up.
Circulating supply is only 15.6%, FDV is 1 billion; every unlock of this coin is a peak.
I’m not chasing this kind of rise. Do you think a coin whose "perpetual volume is bigger than spot" should be trusted when it breaks out? $CAP$BTC just dipped near 80200, the 4-hour long-short ratio still hangs at 2.23, and open interest hasn't dropped much. Many consider 80,000 a strong support level and add positions when it falls. The momentum is too heavy; the main players may not be willing to pull up quickly.
$ETH is even more awkward; its price has fallen the most severely, yet the long-short ratio surged to 3.02. Retail investors get braver as they weaken, while the overhead positions are leveraged, making it easy to trigger a chain liquidation with even a slight shake.
But the real drag is the ETF, which saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion USD last week, turning the cumulative inflow for 2026 negative. BlackRock's IBIT alone withdrew over 400 million on Friday.
Today, in the A-share market, 100 stocks hit the daily limit up with a turnover of 1.78 trillion. AI manga and photovoltaics took turns leading the rally, but banks and coal were the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs released 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
The 21 daily limit-ups in photovoltaics look lively, but out of the 2.12 trillion turnover, the 80.3 billion involved is more important to determine whether it's allocation funds or just a pulse of existing sentiment than the number of limit-ups.
The real test for the US stock market is next week. CPI lands on Tuesday, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%. CoreWeave's earnings follow closely. Once AI infrastructure financing costs show weakness, this tech stock correction won't be over.Stronger-than-expected U.S. October jobs data has increased market expectations of another Fed rate hike in December, creating fresh uncertainty for risk assets. Historical data since 2016 shows that $BTC declined 30 days after every rate hike that followed a pause. Across 7 cases, there were zero positive outcomes, with a median drop of 2.4%. The 2018 cycle is another warning sign, as Bitcoin lost roughly 42% between the U.S. midterm elections and December's rate hike. The sample size is limitLooking back at the forecast on November 6th at 19:05, the trend perfectly fulfilled the script of "rising first then dumping." Switching to the current 1-hour chart, the previously very long upper shadow has already established absolute resistance in the supply zone above.
According to Dow Theory, the main downtrend remains perfectly intact. From the data, the long-short ratio has collapsed from an extreme 1.94 down to 1.49, indicating a dramatic shift in collective psychology. The retail investors' "anchoring effect" has broken, and a long squeeze has caused the funding rate to reverse. The current structure is in the extension phase of the descending pivot, with volatility extremely subdued and no risk-reward ratio to speak of. Most likely, the trend will follow the path of least resistance, breaking the previous low to test the ultimate support. Awaiting the end of the trend."Slowing down the expansion of computing power might have more benefits than drawbacks," reading this sentence made my heart skip a beat 😰. Vitalik posted on X expressing disagreement with the strong emotional reactions against the anti-data center movement. He believes that what can be achieved by building more data centers in two years might also be possible within four years or even faster using existing data centers thanks to algorithmic advancements.
From my reading, it seems more like a discussion about the pace of technological development rather than a bearish verdict on AI-related assets. For someone like me who only invests spare money and fears volatility as a working professional, the most dangerous thing is turning a conditional judgment into a reason to chase the market. I won’t bet on any particular sector based on this.
One reason is that algorithmic efficiency can also drive capability improvements, so the speed of expansion alone doesn’t represent technological progress. Another is that he emphasizes the need to allow time for network security and biological risk responses; scientific applications are also constrained by factors beyond AI, so faster computing power expansion doesn’t mean results will be realized simultaneously. All this makes me feel that "slower means falling behind" is too simplistic, but his reasoning is not yet a realized outcome.
To be cautious, I will separate technical views from portfolio decisions and continue to observe whether efficiency improvements and security preparations show real progress. If the market turns this statement into a sector rivalry, my concern is that emotional volatility will be amplified. My reminder is: first see how much drawdown your spare money can bear, then see how compelling the story is.On November 6, the U.S. Treasury Department named eight Canadian OTC exchanges, including Nia Nations (NNCE) and Million Exchange (MillionEX). The most interesting part is not the sanctions themselves, but the timeline — five months ago, ZachXBT suggested taking action against the abuse of Iranian OTC brokers, and it has only now come to fruition.
What is OTC? It leaves no trace on the blockchain and is the final hidden channel for fiat currency inflows and outflows. Large currency exchanges, over-the-counter bulk trades, and cross-border money transfers all go through here. Sanctioning these eight is equivalent to sealing off this hidden channel, rather than targeting a few specific individuals.
Looking at ZachXBT’s reasoning: Canada has low legal enforcement efficiency globally, leading to widespread abuse. The subtext is — regulation doesn’t just look at where you are registered, but whether you actually allow transactions. The leniency dividend of registration location is being revoked item by item.
The market impact is a slow variable. In the short term, no one will sell $BTC just because eight Canadian OTCs are sanctioned, but it will raise the compliance costs of all OTC channels, with friction ultimately borne on every large inflow and outflow. The OTC liquidity of $ETH and stablecoins is most sensitive to this friction.
What’s truly worth considering is: when hidden channels are blocked one by one, will funds seek the next, more obscure hidden channel, or simply return to licensed, transparent channels? The former means regulation is always chasing, the latter means the "permissionless" narrative of crypto needs to be revalued.Brothers, the big coin's funding sentiment is very unified, no so many twists and turns. The chip structure is quite stable with no obvious mismatches.
But what does this ETH mean? The bullish positions are as high as 62%, the long positions are extremely crowded, but the 24-hour trading shows bearish volume has overtaken to 54%. Long-term heavy longs, but short-term funds are frantically defending against a drop. What kind of operation is this mismatch?
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 This morning's on-chain capital flow data gave a glaring signal: over $700 million in leveraged positions collectively exited within 24 hours, while the spot side's buying power was almost zero. This is not a rotation; it's an exit. 💸 First, look at the contract side. $BTC contracts saw a net outflow of $569 million, $ETH a net outflow of $114 million, and $SOL a net outflow of $25.38 million. The three major forces simultaneously reduced positions, with none increasing against the trend. Leveraged funds have always been amplifiers of the market; now that the amplifier is removed, what remains is a naked spot structure. The spot side is even more worrisome. $BTC spot net inflow was only $2.7 million, $ETH about $2.27 million—this volume wouldn't even count as a large transfer on a normal day. Meanwhile, $SOL spot continued a net outflow of $10.72 million, indicating holders are still exiting rather than adding positions. With no new funds entering, the bottom-fishing power is paper-thin, and any rebound lacks a solid foundation to hold it. Trading volume confirms the same logic: total network trading volume plummeted 56.7% in a single day, shrinking to $141.6 billion. Under shrinking volume, the market struggles to organize a strong reversal and is more prone to becoming a bull trap—pumping up, then being swallowed by sell orders. But there is one exception worth highlighting: $ZEC. Contracts had a net inflow of $12.38 million, spot net inflow of $19.18 million, showing two-way accumulation. While everyone else is fleeing, it alone is attracting money. This counter-trend capital behavior is extremely rare in a weak market and deserves a spot on the watchlist. The options side reveals contradictory sentiment. $BTC call option tradingThe $IREN contract has been signed, so why is the launch still a key variable?
IREN disclosed $200 million in quarterly AI cloud revenue and adjusted part of the launch schedule. Data center power supply, equipment arrival, and customer acceptance determine when billing starts, with capital expenditures possibly leading. If production starts according to the new milestones and prepayments cover the investment, execution risk decreases. If delivery is delayed again, the annualized contract figures will require a larger discount.Many people think Solana mining tokens are just a change in narrative with similar costs, but that's completely not the case.
Ordinary SPL tokens rely on the official built-in Token Program, with very low on-chain costs. Many can complete the launch process with less than 1 SOL, and some don't even require an audit.
However, Solana mining tokens, although the tokens themselves are also SPL, require additional deployment of mining contracts, audits to prevent coin farming, and long-term tasks like running computing power statistics, connecting to mining pools, and maintaining miner dashboards. Overall, whether it's a one-time investment or long-term operation, the expenses are much higher than ordinary Meme.
The mining token narrative looks attractive, but the capital threshold and technical risks are on a whole different level.
$SOL After reading, I noted three things. As someone who loves checklists, what I fear most is drawing the same conclusion from several different statuses.
1. According to PANews on November 8, the official website of JD.com's JD Coin Chain is currently inaccessible. The exact time of going offline is unknown, but Qichacha still shows the company as "still registered." My judgment is that this will weaken external confidence in the project's progress but is not enough to prove that the business has been terminated. The website status and company status are recorded in separate columns.
2. JD previously planned to issue a stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the Hong Kong dollar. JD Coin Chain entered the Hong Kong Monetary Authority sandbox in July 2024 but did not receive the first batch of licenses in April this year. The licenses were granted to Anchor Financial led by Standard Chartered and HSBC. I think this news should cool down the expectation that "big companies entering the market can quickly launch products": the sandbox is a testing phase and cannot be directly regarded as proof of approved issuance.
3. For ordinary users, I care more about whether there will be clear service explanations later rather than guessing reasons for the official website malfunction. If the official side continues to lack verifiable information, it will be even harder for users to judge which stage the project is at. This is my speculation and also shows that transparency itself affects trust.
I will record this as a project expectation adjustment rather than a negative for the entire stablecoin sector; what would you add as a fourth point, for example, judging that the project is still progressing, what verifiable evidence is most needed?$BTC daily chart shows a large bearish candle dropping near 75,000, with a total liquidation of 1.23 billion across the network, the long-short ratio still hanging at 3.02, but the funding rate has decreased. The ETF saw a single-day outflow of 430 million, with nearly 1.3 billion withdrawn cumulatively in November; the price is holding firm, but the money is leaving.
$ETH's dilemma is even more typical. 45.2 million tokens are staked, with 1.37 million queued to enter, waiting 24 days, yet the ETF had a net outflow of over 1.2 billion in October, and ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low of 0.029. The stakers and the withdrawers are two groups telling different stories with different money.
There is also new news: Solana made a high-profile ad push in Shanghai, which was directly stopped by the central bank, and the involved entities are under investigation.
Today, 100 stocks hit the daily limit in the A-share market, with a turnover of 1.78 trillion. AI manga dramas are booming in batches of 20CM, but banks and coal are the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs released 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
The US Nasdaq has fallen nearly 12% from its high, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index crashed over 12% in a single day, chip stocks bounced slightly on Friday, but Tuesday's CPI month-over-month expectation was 0.3%, with nearly 80% betting on a rate hike in December. CoreWeave's earnings report is coming soon.Withdrawal resumption ≠ buying pressure return, don't mistake channel reopening as a bottom-fishing signal.
Binance has resumed withdrawals for HYPE and APT. Previously, it phased the resumption of stablecoins on the Ethereum network such as RLUSD, USD1, TUSD, FDUSD, XUSD, as well as tokens like ENA, USDE, PENDLE, WLD, LINK, ONDO, ETHFI; and assets on the Solana network including USD1, FDUSD, PUMP, TRUMP, JUP, BONK, WIF, RENDER. The official statement says that as security checks complete, more assets and networks will continue to be resumed in phases.
The judgment leans positive, reflecting sentiment recovery. Withdrawal resumption means the previously paused risk control security inspections are concluding in stages, users regain liquidity, and panic discounts and OTC selling pressure ease. Locked selling pressure on HYPE and APT can be normally released, short-term liquidity and sentiment are somewhat positive, but this only restores the cash-out channel, not new buying demand.
Phased resumption indicates security audits are not fully complete; assets not yet resumed may still face liquidation restrictions. Don't treat withdrawal resumption as a bottom-fishing signal; focus on official subsequent lists and whether large concentrated transfers to exchanges appear on-chain.
Source: PANews
Are you more concerned about the next batch of resumed assets or large on-chain transfers?Strong non-farm payrolls combined with ETF outflows, how much momentum does BTC's rebound still have?
The US added 165,000 non-farm jobs in October, far exceeding the expected 65,000, with the unemployment rate dropping to 4.1%. The resilience of the labor market surpassed expectations, pushing market bets on a Fed rate hike in December to 78%. The US dollar index rose about 0.7%, and US Treasury yields increased in tandem. The previously anticipated easing trades are now facing a repricing.
What is truly concerning, beyond macro pressures, is that institutional funds are also retreating. Last week, the US spot BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about $1.28 billion, marking the largest weekly outflow since the end of June, with the year-to-date net flow turning into a net outflow of approximately $914 million. ETH ETFs have also recorded net outflows for six consecutive weeks, showing a clear weakening in capital absorption capacity.
This means BTC is currently facing not only interest rate pressure but also a shortage of incremental funds. Short-term rebounds can come from short covering, but to form a trend reversal, spot buying and ETF funds need to re-enter the market.
Going forward, focus on inflation data, the US dollar, and US Treasury yield changes. A macro bearish bias does not mean prices can only fall, but before capital returns, it is unwise to easily define the rebound as a bull market restart. Control your positions and wait for the market to give confirmation signals. $BTC #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Single-week BTC+ETH spot ETF net outflow exceeds $1.6 billion; are institutions really fleeing this time?
Looking at the data: Bitcoin ETF weekly outflow is $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, a divergence that warrants caution.
But don’t just look at the surface. ETF outflows do not equal institutions being 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 less attractive when U.S. Treasury yields are high. Funds leaving the ETF channel do not 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 (such as around $75,000) and whether daily ETF fund flows show clear convergence or turn positive. When volatility amplifies, using stop-losses and position control is more important than betting on direction.
For mid-to-long term: cumulative net inflows remain the bigger picture, and this week’s outflow accounts for a limited proportion of historical cumulative flows. Institutional demand indicators turning negative this year is a phase of cooling off or a trend change that requires confirmation from data in the coming weeks. Don’t treat extreme single-week data as a direct signal of market reversal.$BTC dropped to 75,700, with liquidations exceeding 1 billion, long positions dominating, yet the funding rate stubbornly refused to turn negative; what’s being shaken out is leverage, not faith. ETFs saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion in November, cumulatively turning negative for the year, with rebounds lacking institutional support.
$ETH is even more conflicted, with staking queues dropping from 3.73 million coins six months ago to 1.03 million now; ETFs had a 270 million outflow in one week, with stakers and withdrawers each telling their own story.
In the A-share market, a hundred stocks hit the daily limit, with turnover at 1.78 trillion; banks and coal were the only sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs saw inflows of 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
On Thursday, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index was bloodied with a 12.2% drop, then bounced back 4.2% on Friday, but the Nasdaq still fell 3.4% for the week, marking four consecutive weeks of decline. Tuesday’s CPI month-on-month was expected at 0.3%, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%, and even a slight chip miss got hammered.
All three markets are stubbornly holding up amid divergence; whoever breaks first will be the first to clear out.The weekend data looks quite interesting. Let's first look at BTC: in the past 24 hours, there was a net capital inflow of 595.75 BTC. Although this is a drop of more than 50% compared to the inflow scale of the previous day, it represents a 428.18% increase compared to seven days ago, indicating that the capital foundation is still there. During the same period, the liquidation amount was only $4.355 million, with a total of 605 liquidation orders. Compared to both the previous day and a week aIs the whole network shorting while I'm the only one going long?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
On Hyperliquid, whale BTC short positions have piled up to the highest level since October 2025, with net shorts nearly double the longs; spot ETFs continue to see large outflows, macro selling pressure remains, and on the surface, there seems to be no reason to go long.
But I believe:
73K is a relatively stable structural support in this round. 75K is the first line of defense; if it breaks short-term, it may quickly dip near 74K, but buying interest below 73K still exists, so a one-sided bearish view is not advisable.
The basis is:
Current shorts are more of an active layout rather than extreme crowding, and funding rates are not yet extreme;
Once the price stops falling in the 73K-75K range and climbs back above 76K, shorts are likely to trigger a chain of liquidations, causing a short-term sharp rise. ETF outflows and macro pressure are real, but the contract-side squeeze elasticity should not be ignored.
In terms of operation, I personally prefer to lightly and gradually go long in the 74K-73.2K range, with a strict stop loss below 72.8K; aggressive traders can lightly go long near 75K;
If it effectively breaks below 73K with volume, the short logic strengthens and exit decisively; if it holds and breaks above 76K with volume, then look for a short squeeze rally targeting 77.5K-78.5K $BTC $ETH Brothers, the wolf is really coming, and the blade might be faster than expected!
The Wall Street Journal revealed that the famous "number one nemesis of cryptocurrency" Elizabeth Warren is expected to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee as early as January 2027.
This position holds immense power, essentially controlling the lifeblood of the financial world. Previously, Warren could only pressure through letters, and whether the other side responded was up to their mood; once she sits in the chair, she will have subpoena power, able to compel executives to testify and obtain documents. This regulatory scythe might swing down at any moment.
Warren has always been extremely tough on cryptocurrency and has frequently challenged it in the past. She publicly opposed the CLARITY Act, stating, "We need crypto regulation, but it can't be legislation written by the crypto industry itself." Her upcoming investigation list will likely include: crypto consumer protection, insider trading in prediction markets, and conflicts of interest in the Trump family's crypto businesses (such as World Liberty Financial).
Some analysts poured cold water on this: Warren's legislative power is limited by the Senate's 60-vote threshold, making hardcore proposals difficult to pass directly into law; the chairs of the SEC and CFTC remain in Republican hands, so administrative crypto policies won't flip overnight. But just the intensive hearings and investigations will be enough to give exchanges and blockchain companies a hard time.
Times are definitely tough, but how deeply the "wolf" can bite still depends on the tug-of-war among the folks on Capitol Hill. $BTC $ETH $SOL An easily overlooked comparison: As of September 23, Solana has averaged about 95.92 million transactions per week this year; Nasdaq, NYSE, ARCA, BATS, and NYSE American combined average about 657 million transactions per week during the same period. The former is about 15% of the latter.
15% is not impressive, but this is comparing a single public blockchain to the entire major US stock trading venues.
More importantly, the statistical criteria. This only compares the number of transactions, excluding trading volume and individual transaction size. So this 15% reflects not the amount of capital, but the number of times it is used. A single US stock trade is often a large institutional order, while a Solana transaction might just be someone swapping a few dollars worth of tokens or claiming an airdrop.
The mechanism lies here. The value of $SOL is not in how large each transaction is, but in how many actions it can support per unit of time—high frequency, small amounts, automation. This is its ecological niche completely different from traditional exchanges.
My judgment is: the real significance of this comparison is that it provides a traditional financial frame of reference for valuing public blockchains. On-chain activity has grown large enough to be placed on the same chart as mature markets, even if they are not compared on the same dimension. $ETH was compared to Visa back in the day in the same way; the frame of reference is more valuable than the absolute value.
One point worth considering: if we compare by transaction amount instead, how much would this 15% shrink? The answer might be much less flattering, but that is where the money speaks.Although the non-farm payrolls increased market pressure for rate hikes, there’s no time to be sad, friends, because a wave of inflation data is coming 😵 Whether it’s the CPI on November 10 or the PPI on the 13th, the market currently expects increases, making a December rate hike a high-probability event. If that happens, it will be even harder for the Fed to easily pivot to easing. Crypto has already benefited from the market’s pricing of risk assets under rate cut expectations, so if the interest rate path adjusts further, it’s hard not to feel anxious.
That’s all. The importance of next week’s CPI is no less than this week’s non-farm payrolls. Hopefully, we won’t see another major crash. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $PLTR How to verify the replicability of new customer growth in software?
Palantir's U.S. commercial revenue in Q3 grew 148% year-over-year. The quality of expansion depends on whether similar deployments can shorten delivery times and reduce reliance on on-site personnel. If cash collections keep pace and the proportion of delivery costs decreases, the replicability of growth is stronger. If orders require continuous increased customization investment, the profit content of high growth needs to be reassessed.To judge whether stablecoins are truly being used more, do you first look at how much money stays on-chain, or how much has been cumulatively transacted on-chain? In Circle's latest financial report, the growth rates of these two figures differ significantly. Circle's report released on November 4 shows that in Q3, USDC on-chain transaction volume reached $13.9 trillion, a year-over-year increase of 49%. The average circulating supply during the same period was $73.3 billion, up 8% year-over-year. By the end of the quarter, the circulating supply was about $73.9 billion, roughly flat compared to the same period last year. On-chain transaction volume represents the total amount transacted over the quarter, while circulating supply reflects how much USDC is in circulation at a given point or over a period. The same funds can be transferred multiple times, with each transfer counting toward transaction volume, but the balance may not change much. Looking at Circle's own earnings: total quarterly revenue and reserve income were $865 million, up 17% year-over-year, but reserve income was about $658 million, down 8% year-over-year. The company explained that the reserve yield rate dropped by 0.61 percentage points year-over-year, and the increase in average circulating supply only partially offset this impact. In the same quarter, other income included $182 million from ARC token pre-sales. So, to understand why the company's revenue increased this quarter, one must look at the sources of each income component. My judgment is that USDC's on-chain circulation is indeed more active, but to see if usage scenarios have expanded, I will track both circulating balances and payment use cases. Visa's overallToday (November 8, 2026), the four markets did not move in the same direction but were torn apart by the same macro theme: after the US midterm elections concluded, expectations of escalating geopolitical conflicts quickly faded. This theme simultaneously drove an epic crash in crude oil, a speculative sell-off in gold, and a narrow tug-of-war for Bitcoin amid "extreme fear." The stock market, however, showed a completely different logic—local overheating of A-share stocks with consecutive daily limit-ups diverging severely from fundamentals. --- 🛢️ Crude Oil: Plunged over 16% in one week, the largest weekly drop since 2020 This is the most intense anomaly today. The Brent crude oil front-month contract fell a cumulative 16.42% over the week, and the WTI front-month contract dropped 12.76%, both marking the largest weekly declines since 2020. On November 7 intraday, New York crude briefly fell below $90 per barrel. The core driver of the crash was a concentrated sell-off by hedge funds. After analyzing CFTC position data, Goldman Sachs' FICC team found that from October 27 to November 3, managed money net sold Brent crude oil positions totaling $6.6 billion, marking the seventh time in five years that weekly sales exceeded $6 billion. The trigger for the sell-off was the market's rapid shift from "rushing to price in war escalation" to "rushing to price in war ending" after the Democrats swept Congress—reports indicated Trump favored negotiation over military strikes, Iran's Supreme Leader authorized the president to engage in dialogue, and Qatar-mediated calls were continuously made. Long positions betting on a supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz were forced to liquidate massively, creating a chain reaction of negative feedback. However, the supply side is notLosing everything isn't the scariest thing; mistaking "going all-in on a bet" for "the market is about to take off" is 🫧 Have you ever had that moment: clearly it's just amplified volatility, but you feel like you have to do something immediately? Last night, I saw that post and my heart skipped a beat. The money was gone, relationships fell apart, and in the end, they said they would deliver takeout and wait for a turnaround. I don't want to exploit others' hardships, but it acts like a mirror reflecting a very common misjudgment: mistaking a volatility phase for the start of a trend, then unconsciously increasing position size more and more. $BTC $ETH $ZEC My own observation is that this tug-of-war feeling has been especially obvious lately. BTC sweeps up and down, altcoins occasionally pop up then quickly fade, and old coins like ZEC suddenly get mentioned with a few stories. On the surface, it looks like hot money rotation, but in reality, it's more like emotional exhaustion after volatility is repeatedly squeezed. Many people think "high volatility equals more opportunities," but what volatility really tests is not directional judgment, but rhythm and position discipline. Even if you get the direction right, if you miss the timing, you'll still get swept out. The transmission path isn't complicated. News catalysts ignite emotions first, short-term funds rush in, prices pulse rapidly, then profit-taking and stop-loss orders clash, further amplifying volatility. At this point, BTC's movement determines whether risk appetite can hold steady, ETH follows to see if funds are willing to bear duration, and altcoins amplify greed and fear. Once BTC retracts gains, altcoin rebounds often fail first, leaving those chasing highs behind. There is also a bullish path: if volume can keep up after volatility, BTC holds key levels, ESanDisk: 6x PE, the market is discounting the "cycle length"
Current price $835, TTM PE about 6.1x, analyst consensus target price $2047. The disagreement is not about the authenticity of earnings, but how long the earnings can be sustained. NBM's long-term contract guaranteed revenue is $93.9 billion, with an average term over 4 years, and about 50% of bits locked for FY2027, which indeed improves visibility; however, SanDisk's NAND market share is only 11.7%, ranking sixth, with pricing power still held by Samsung and SK Hynix. Long-term contracts can lock in their own volume but cannot lock in the entire industry's supply discipline. If the leaders loosen contract prices, SanDisk can only maintain volume, not valuation multiples. The November 20 stock split only lowers the entry threshold, not the logic. Monitor NBM's new contract signings and contract price divergence. $PONS Bearish news: The buyback budget dropped from about 18.7 million to about 2 million in one month
Current price 0.1657 USDT, down 13.52% in 24 hours, volume about 3.48 million, lowest seen at 0.1644
According to DefiLlama data verified by Coindoo today, Pons Launchpad's fees were $137.1 million in September, but only $16.8 million in October, a decrease of 87.8%. Protocol revenue dropped from 23.4 million to 2.5 million
According to the EU white paper, the platform keeps 30% of the fees, 80% of which is used to buy back and burn PONS. Using the same calculation, about 18.7 million was used for buybacks in September, but only about 2 million in October
Galaxy Research's daily fee chart on November 6 also shows a drop from about 11.4 million on September 5 to about 250,000 in early November, with market cap falling from over 600 million to about 120 million. The only channel for holders to receive platform income has been almost completely drained.ETF withdrew $1.28 billion in one week! All inflows this year have been lost, are institutions the least faithful?
Really, stop blindly believing in institutional long-termism. The BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $1.28 billion last week, wiping out all net inflows since 2026 and turning it into a net outflow for the year.
This happened in just one week. At the beginning of the month, there were still positive inflows of over a billion, but now they're gone. This is the worst single-week performance since the end of June. Just BlackRock's IBIT alone ran off with more than $400 million on Friday, accounting for over 80% of that day's outflows. Even the most stable leading institutions are rushing to exit. $ETH
Frankly, it's not surprising. The non-farm payroll data exploded, December rate hike expectations were fully priced in, and with the midterm election results settled, funds that had bet on regulatory easing cashed out and fled. Institutions are a hundred times more pragmatic than retail investors; they take profits when they can and exit faster than anyone when bad news hits, without any talk of long-term faith.
No wonder the market has been soft like cotton lately, with every rally lacking follow-through. This rally was originally driven by incremental ETF funds, but now the inflows have turned into outflows. With no one injecting fresh capital, the price naturally can't rise.
Don't listen to nonsense about a strong bottom or bottom-fishing. As long as ETF fund flows don't turn around, all support is paper-thin. Wait until there are consecutive net inflows again before talking about stabilization.