Orbit Post Sitemap
If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: if a large on-chain purchase occurs, it would be recorded as a demand observation sample, but it would not directly add points to a bullish signal. After learning quantitative analysis, the habit I most want to change is automatically translating large amounts into large information content. 🤖
According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi's monitoring, an address spent $19.62 million three hours ago to buy 8,773.52 ETH at a cost of $2,236.75 each. This $ETH purchase is very eye-catching, but my judgment is: it is suitable to enter the observation pool and is not enough to independently change the trend assessment.
The advantage of this rule is that it separates actual transactions from market interpretation. The purchase did happen, but the data does not disclose the address identity, other positions, or the use of funds; without seeing these, this transaction cannot be directly understood as a complete bet on the future market.
There are also loopholes: by the time verification conditions are met, the signal may already be delayed. But I am more afraid of double counting—if multiple addresses buy later but belong to the same funding entity, what appears to be dispersed demand may just be the same action. This is my speculation, not something this message has proven.
So I will separately record "how much was bought" and "whether the number of independent buyers increased." If you write this condition yourself, would you filter by holding duration or by the number of independent buyers? What specific conditions must be met to be considered valid? A fund with "Tokenized" in its name doesn't hold a single cent of digital assets. ARK's new ETF is pretty straightforward: exposure to $ETH and $SOL is indirectly obtained through swaps linked to ETPs, and it doesn't even buy those ETPs itself.
So what exactly is it buying? It's buying companies that help others issue tokens, store tokens, and collect fees from clearing. Sounds like selling shovels during a gold rush; even if coin prices drop, it might still make money.
So stop asking whether this is good news for coin prices—they never intended to touch the coins in the first place. When I see this kind of news, I first look at the risk-reward structure and don't rush to treat net inflows as a bullish signal. SoSoValue data shows that on November 6th Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from ZCSH, with a historical cumulative net inflow reaching $209 million.
My judgment is that this is somewhat positive for $ZEC's capital situation, but a single day's data is not enough to support a trend judgment. First, net inflow indicates there was a net subscription of funds that day, but it doesn't prove that demand will continue; second, the increment is concentrated in one product, and there is still no evidence of broader capital participation. It makes me slightly increase the weight of the scenario of sustained inflows, rather than directly boosting confidence in chasing the rally.
According to my speculation, if subsequent net inflows continue and the price hasn't already priced in expectations prematurely, this clue is worth further study; if it's just a one-day inflow that pushes up market expectations, the odds might actually worsen. I will focus on sustainability and won't use one day's data to bolster my confidence.These four negative factors are not independent of each other; they form a layered causal chain.
Many people treat “ETF sell-off, treasury liquidation, custody theft, quantum risk” as four parallel bad news items and calculate their impact separately. This is wrong.
Their true relationship is: each one is deeper than the last, and each layer amplifies the previous one.
First layer: Capital layer: passive redemption, tokens "must sell regardless of price"
The redemption mechanism of spot ETFs is a rigid sell: when investors redeem shares, the fund manager must sell the corresponding spot assets. It does not judge price levels or consider sentiment; every redemption triggers a sale.
A continuous net outflow at the $1.5 billion level means someone is persistently and mechanically selling Bitcoin, passively selling regardless of price.
This is the strongest evidence: it shows this is not a "sentiment-driven sell-off," but real capital withdrawing.
Second layer: Confidence layer: benchmark capital exits, buyer camp collectively defects
Trump media sold 99.99%, the damage is not in the amount but in the demonstration effect.
It was the most representative example of the narrative "policy-friendly + corporate treasury hoarding coins." Its near liquidation is equivalent to publicly admitting: at this position, holding heavy BTC as a reserve asset is no longer profitable.
The consequences are chain reactions:
- Other corporate treasuries lose the "buy-only" role model and start treating BTC as a liquidatable book asset;
- Retail investors see "the big players fled first," shifting from "waiting for institutions to bottom buy" to "selling along with institutions";
- The market's largest buyer group turns from a support force into a source of selling pressure.
This is the most fatal turning point of this round: the buyers disappeared, and those who disappeared were the most influential.
Third layer: Chip layer: cracks in custody security, low-cost chips become a ceiling
After Binance was hacked, the market learned two things:
1. Coins held on exchanges are not truly under your control: top platforms can be infiltrated by state-level social engineering and have signature permissions hijacked;
2. Stolen native coins cannot be frozen or recovered: stablecoins can be blacklisted by issuers, BTC cannot.
This creates a deadlock:
Hackers hold BTC at zero cost and have motivation to sell whenever there is a rebound, with no legal recovery channels.
This means every rebound naturally carries a "ceiling": prices pushed up by buyers are pressed back down by zero-cost chips.
Meanwhile, institutions and whales continue withdrawing coins, capital leaves the market, and liquidity thins. When liquidity thins, sell orders of the same size can cause double the price drop.
Fourth layer: Narrative layer: AI and anti-quantum reassessment lower the "valuation ceiling"
This layer does not directly generate sell orders but determines how high long-term capital is willing to value BTC.
The narrative of BTC as "digital gold" is built on "independence, invulnerability, and long-term security." Now:
- It can be stolen (custody layer);
- The underlying secp256k1 elliptic curve faces long-term quantum cracking risk, and community upgrades and governance are extremely slow;
- No cash flow, no sovereign credit backing.
As a result, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign funds increase risk premiums and lower valuation ceilings when making long-term allocations.
This manifests as "unwillingness to buy," not "urgent selling"; but it is this "not buying" that leaves the sell orders generated by the first three layers without counterparties.
In one sentence: hard evidence determines direction, soft narrative determines the floor. On November 7, ARK's ETF trust filed with the SEC to launch the ARK Tokenized Market Infrastructure ETF. The name is long, but what's worth noting is what it invests in.
The focus is on asset tokenization and on-chain capital market infrastructure: tokenization platforms, stablecoin issuers, exchanges, brokerages, custodians, and settlement networks. This entire list consists of companies, not a single coin. It invests in businesses that build the roads and collect tolls, not the vehicles on the road.
How is exposure obtained? The fund mainly uses total return swaps and can also directly invest in equity of related companies. $ETH and $SOL exposure is obtained indirectly through swaps linked to US-listed crypto ETPs. The filing states: the fund does not directly hold digital assets nor these ETPs.
Why take this roundabout approach? Directly holding coins involves facing the three mountains of custody, compliance, and accounting. Using swaps, the assets remain on the counterparty's books, and the fund only receives the net return difference, keeping the financial statements clean. This is the standard approach for traditional asset managers entering the space.
I see this as a narrative fork. Previously, investing in crypto meant betting on coin prices; now it's about tokenized infrastructure, betting on who ultimately collects the tolls on the channels. ARK previously profited from trading-related assets and now applies the same logic within an ETF wrapper.
One thought to leave with: if the product succeeds, pricing power will increasingly reside in the invisible links like custody and settlement. Code and management fees have not been disclosed, and the filing is not yet effective. This round of declines in $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL is not just a simple leverage liquidation. Over 2,000 BTC have been withdrawn, Ethereum ($ETH) whales have seen a net outflow of 35,900 coins, and SOL ($SOL) has a net outflow close to 100,000 coins. Large wallets are continuously reducing positions, with retail bulls taking over the chips. This divergence in capital is worth noting; when institutions actively reduce risk and retail holders hold on to longs, the market can easily lose upward momentum. This sell-off is also compounded by a chain reaction from policy impacts. AI-related expectations have weakened, capital expenditure plans have been disrupted, and crypto assets are fluctuating along with overall risk assets, showing a clear correlation with chip and AI infrastructure sectors. The AI computing power demand narrative that originally supported the market is now being questioned simultaneously with deleveraging. With these two major positive logics loosening at the same time, the difficulty of recovery increases. The market focus next shifts to the non-farm payroll data. If the data falls short of expectations, in a pessimistic scenario, Bitcoin could test the 74,000–72,000 range. However, this area could also be where selling pressure exhausts. Before whales stop reducing holdings and start accumulating again, most rebounds are likely just windows for capital to exit, making it difficult to directly start a new upward trend. BSOL had the largest outflow, with a single-day net outflow of $14,442,400. To pour some cold water first: this is not good news for the bulls, but I also disagree with directly translating it as "institutions collectively bearish on $SOL." My judgment is that this data is bearish but not enough to define the trend. Other products also experienced outflows, and the total net outflow of the entire SOL spot ETF on that day does indicate a negative signal.
I'm stuck on two points: BSOL contributed more than half of the net outflow that day, so the pressure is concentrated on one product, which is different in meaning from a synchronized large-scale withdrawal across multiple products; net outflow only tells me that funds left the product, but not why they left. If it’s a portfolio rebalancing between products, then the directional indication is weak; if it’s an active reduction of SOL exposure, then the bearish logic is stronger. This is my scenario speculation, as the data does not provide redemption motives. I usually prefer to analyze fund behavior first, then discuss sentiment, to avoid mistaking a result for a complete explanation.
Of course, the bears might also be right. If subsequent outflows continue to spread to more products and the price comes under pressure, I will raise my alert for a weakening trend and won’t use "single-day noise" as an excuse for the bulls. This time, are you bullish or bearish? Do you focus more on the concentrated outflow from BSOL, or do you wait for multiple products to have consecutive withdrawals before making a judgment? Share your reasons.Saw Strive ASST's Q3 report during lunch 😮
Q3 net profit about $509 million
Looks scary
Revenue is actually only 2.7 million
Profit is almost entirely BTC unrealized gains of about 534 million
Bought another 15,124 coins in October
Holding a total of 43,124 coins
Only 877 coins behind the second place on the listed companies' coin holding leaderboard
But the average cost for the Q3 batch was about 78,885
Now BTC is around 75,800
The unrealized gains from this quarter might have to be partially given back next quarter
The financial reports of this kind of company
Basically just shadows of the coin price
I'll first see if they keep buying next month October payrolls rising 165K against a 65K forecast, alongside 4.1% unemployment, gives December rate expectations a firmer labor-market foundation. The dollar index surge shows markets are already repricing that risk. Still, with CPI due Nov. 10 and high prices a concern, the data argue for caution rather than certainty.
#USJobsBeatExpectations CORE: Not the second ETH, but a negative example of ETH
The market once hoped that CORE, relying on EVM compatibility + BTCFi narrative, would replicate Ethereum's rise, but reality has proven: it not only cannot become the second ETH, but has become a typical negative example in the public chain sector.
Ethereum was able to grow into the leading public chain by overcoming the DAO crisis, with its core strengths being decentralization foundation, a large developer community, and a self-consistent value capture system. When facing crises, the community fully negotiated, and multiple participants reached consensus to overcome difficulties together. Later, the EIP-1559 burn mechanism further empowered ETH, creating a positive ecological cycle.
In contrast, CORE, although having an EVM-compatible shell, has deep-rooted fundamental flaws: only 21 validator nodes, inherently insufficient decentralization; after reward loopholes were exposed, a large amount of ghost tokens remained, causing long-term selling pressure; on-chain fee income is meager, the protocol lacks self-sustaining capability, compounded by exchanges delisting it one after another, liquidity continues to shrink.
Ethereum first grew a strong ecosystem before facing crisis tests; CORE, however, prioritized narrative first, with its ecosystem and economic model not fully developed before major flaws were exposed. Both faced major security incidents, but one was reborn from the fire, while the other continues to be under pressure. This is the most essential difference between the two. Grand narratives can never make up for fundamental shortcomings.$LINK
Cross-chain institutional asset expansion: Should Chainlink focus on the number of partnerships or paid demand?
Chainlink has released CCIP 2.0, aiming to expand institutional digital asset cross-chain usage. Cross-chain capability can reduce the friction of assets being isolated on a single network, but technical availability is only the starting point for commercialization.
What is worth tracking are repeated calls in production environments, payment scale, and security performance. A single test or announced partnership does not automatically translate into stable revenue.
If institutions incorporate cross-chain processes into daily operations, with continuous payments and controllable risks, the value foundation will strengthen. Conversely, if there are many pilots but little actual use, or security incidents increase adoption costs, expectations for the speed of realization should be lowered. October payrolls: +165K vs ~60K expected. Unemployment fell to 4.1%, wages rose 0.4% MoM (+3.1% YoY), and Aug–Sep were revised up by 84K. One caveat: the average jobless spell hit 27.1 weeks, a decade high. Why it matters: a strong labor market removes the Fed's reason to pause. CME FedWatch odds of a Dec 9 hike rose from ~67% to ~77–79%. Richmond Fed's Barkin has said inflation, not jobs, is the bigger risk, so more hikes stay on the table. Market read: $BTC dipped to $74.8K, its lowest since AThe South Korean stock market triggered a circuit breaker again on Friday.
On November 6, the KOSPI index fell more than 8% intraday, triggering a circuit breaker and a 20-minute trading halt. It dropped below 5000 points intraday (lowest at 4911.28) and closed down 6.02% at 5059.69 — marking the 11th circuit breaker this year. For comparison: since the circuit breaker mechanism was introduced in 2000 until 2025, it has only been triggered 6 times in 26 years.
The market had already fallen in a prior round on Thursday: KOSPI closed down 5.28% at 5383.65, hitting a new low since April 3. Both the main board and the KOSDAQ triggered sell-side circuit breakers, with SK Hynix down 9.45% and Samsung Electronics down 7.56%. The two-day cumulative drop was about 11%; from the historical high of 9385.59 in June, the maximum drawdown is about 46%.
Structural factors determine volatility: Samsung and SK Hynix account for about half the index weighting. At the end of May, a 2x leveraged ETF tracking these two stocks was launched, making the national index roughly equivalent to two stocks plus leverage. The night before, US storage stocks (SNDK, SOXL, MU) had already plunged, and some brothers in Orbit shared related leveraged liquidation orders.
One observation: circuit breakers in South Korea are turning from extreme events into monthly routine maintenance. While the stock market is closed on weekends, the crypto market operates 24/7, with BTC basically flat around $75,900. Stock circuit breakers force everyone to cool down for 20 minutes, but on-chain leverage has no such function.
Sources: Xinhua News Agency, Eastmoney, Jin10 Data, Caixin#伯克希爾巨額現金儲備，財報將揭露最新動向 $BTC
Berkshire Hathaway will release its Q3 earnings report on November 7, with market focus on the latest movements of its massive cash reserves.
As of the end of June, the company held about $365.5 billion in cash and short-term U.S. Treasuries. Visible Alpha expects this to decrease to about $358 billion by the end of Q3. This change mainly reflects capital allocation actions taken by new CEO Greg Abel: a net purchase of about $20 billion in stocks in Q2 and the completion of a $6.8 billion acquisition of homebuilder Taylor Morrison.
Another highlight of the earnings report is pressure on the insurance business. Analysts expect underwriting profits to decline significantly year-over-year, partially offsetting the solid performance of the railroad and energy segments.
Additionally, the company’s multibillion-dollar investment in Alphabet has incurred an unrealized loss of about $3 billion due to a drop in share price. The market is watching to see if Abel will continue to increase exposure to tech stocks. Investors will scrutinize this report to determine whether Berkshire will accelerate cash deployment or maintain a defensive stance in the post-Buffett era.$BTC Positive news: Spot ETF ends six consecutive days of outflows, single-day net inflow about 240 million
On Thursday, the US spot BTC ETF was still experiencing a net outflow of about 430 million USD
On November 6th Eastern Time, it turned into a net inflow of about 240 million USD, breaking the six-day consecutive outflow
BlackRock's IBIT led with a single-day increase of about 112 million
Fidelity's FBTC about +61.64 million, total assets under management about 135.4 billion USD, approximately 6.73% of BTC market cap (SoSoValue/PANews)
Current price about 75,905, 24h +0.13%, volume about 534 million
The low point at 74,888 has risen for a while, institutional side changed from withdrawing to replenishing.
#BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 Just discussed the reopening of the strait, and the US military has launched another strike against Iran. For crude oil traders, the most annoying news is this: negotiations have not stopped, and the risks have not been withdrawn.
Now the words "reopening" are understood differently by different people. Some expect a return to normal navigation, some are concerned about how sanctions and blockades will be handled, and others debate who will arrange the shipping lanes and who will approve the passage conditions. As long as these issues are not agreed upon, a message of reopening is hard to directly equate with a supply recovery.
I especially dislike interpreting "both sides are still negotiating" as the situation being under control. Military actions continuing during negotiations indicate that all parties are still trying to change each other's choices, and whether subsequent commitments can be fulfilled needs to be reassessed.
This makes oil prices very awkward: peace expectations emerge, risk premiums can quickly fall; new strikes occur, and the market has to add back tail risks. If the directional judgment is a bit slow, it is easy to be pulled back and forth by both sides.
Rather than guessing the tone of the next statement, I want to see sustained actual navigation and clear responses from all parties to the same set of arrangements. Currently, we are still in a phase of negotiating while fighting, and treating any drop as the end of risk may cause positions to bear too much uncertainty.
#美军再度打击伊朗，霍尔木兹海峡重开仍存分歧 DGB, ZIL, and RVN all have a cap of 21 billion, but the potential of these three veteran public chains varies greatly.
DGB uses multi-algorithm PoW, focusing on transfer security, and has operated steadily for years; ZIL experienced a security incident, abandoned its independent layer one, and transitioned to an Ethereum institutional layer two; RVN is a pure PoW chain, specifically designed for issuing on-chain assets, with tokens burned upon asset issuance.
DGB's advantages are multi-hash algorithm defense and long-term stability; ZIL's advantage is shifting to a compliant institutional narrative, though the architecture control remains with the team; RVN's advantage is a fair launch with no pre-mining, and asset minting inherently causes deflation.
Having the same total supply is just superficial; whether the rules can be changed and if the track has real demand are the core factors that create the gap.The sentiment index dropped by 3 points compared to yesterday. I want to clarify this: the sentiment scale is not the same as the price decline. When the index falls to 25, BTC's 24-hour price change is -0.07%; the two cannot be directly equated.
📌 Newcomers often mistake "extreme fear" for low risk, but I disagree. Liquidation depends on margin and price changes, not sentiment labels. If leverage is too high, even short-term fluctuations can trigger liquidation. I treat sentiment as background and calculate position risk separately.Seeing this, what comes to my mind is: single-point recognition VS sector resonance. According to SoSoValue data, on November 6 Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from the Zcash ETF (ZCSH); as of the time of writing, the historical cumulative net inflow is $209 million, with a total net asset value of $772 million.
I tend to see this as a positive at the product level, not yet enough to add points to the entire privacy sector. Money has indeed come in, which carries more weight than just verbally expressing optimism; but only ZCSH recorded a net inflow, indicating that this new capital is concentrated, and the attractiveness of a single product cannot be directly equated with sector consensus.
Putting the two numbers together: $1.7718 million is the new inflow on that day, $772 million is the net asset value, and the former does not equal the increase in the latter. My understanding is that this news can answer "Is there a net subscription?" but cannot answer "Has privacy demand expanded?" If capital recognition does not correspond to usage demand, then I guess its support for the sector narrative will be discounted.
I also tend to get excited when I see "net inflow," but this time I prefer to separate product recognition from sector recognition. Which side do you choose: is the real money obtained by a single ETF enough to add points to the privacy sector, or do you need to see evidence of actual usage demand first? Everyone sees hoarding coins and often calls it bullish news. According to Ai Auntie's monitoring, a certain address has accumulated about 740,000 LINK and 3,046.68 ETH in the past five days, investing approximately 15.15 million USD.
On the other hand, I am more cautious about the crowding effect brought by such news: an increase in holdings by a single address does not represent overall demand; if onlookers follow the trend, past buying pressure could turn into current emotional fuel. This is my speculation. Do you think this hoarding is enough to prove a strengthening demand? Opposing views are welcome to debate.$BTC Bullish Top CountdownPosition Notes: Hedging can buffer but not immunize (￣▽￣)"
Brother Maji's perpetual portfolio has a total position of $61,156,700, with three cross-asset hedges, each with independent profit and loss. BTC is a 40x full-position short, holding 249.9 coins, opened at 78,104.1, with an unrealized profit of 519,300, also receiving positive funding fees, with a high liquidation price and a thick safety cushion. ETH is a 25x full-position long, holding 9,823.81 coins, opened at 2,427.28, with an unrealized loss of 1,876,200, continuously paying funding fees. HYPE is a 5x full-position short, holding 259,600 coins, with an unrealized loss of 1,286,100, but receiving large funding fees.
The strategy is clear: use the profits from the BTC short to offset the losses from the other two positions, constituting a hedging layout. Currently, the BTC short is profitable, while ETH and HYPE are still dragging down overall returns. All positions are still some distance from liquidation points, so there is no immediate risk of forced liquidation; however, if the market rallies unilaterally, this hedged portfolio will face greater pressure.
Conclusion: Hedging can buffer but does not mean immunity. When looking at profit and loss divergence, one must also consider funding fees and unilateral risk. $BTC $ETH #美中期选举后AI监管分歧引发行情波动 Whale Fully Short Positions｜Why Stay Calm and Unmoved?
The core reasons are clear at a glance:
First, leverage is kept very low, uniformly using only 5x, with liquidation points extremely far from the current market price. Even if there is a strong rebound, it is difficult to hit the liquidation line directly;
Second, all three short positions are currently in floating profit, while continuously collecting high funding fees, which is equivalent to taking floating profits on one side and passively receiving subsidies on the other, continuously thickening the safety cushion;
📊 Position Details
✅ BTC｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -2027.95 BTC, position value 150 million U
Entry price: 77987.9, margin: 30.7636 million U
Unrealized profit: +4.3376 million U, funding fee income +3.2512 million U, liquidation price 127839.04
✅ ETH｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -33,600 ETH, position value 75.3911 million U
Entry price: 2375.08, margin: 15.0782 million U
Unrealized profit: +4.4751 million U, funding fee income +3.4762 million U, liquidation price 5361.55
✅ SOL｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -242,200 SOL, position value 21.7759 million U
Entry price: 91.4221, margin: 4.3552 million U To pour some cold water first, I don't take ZEC leading the gains as a sign of privacy sector recovery. As of 11:00 Beijing time, among Hyperliquid's open perpetual contracts with a 24-hour trading volume exceeding $20 million, ZEC leads with a 2.63% increase, while XMR fell by 1.77%. I am more cautious about interpreting this ranking as a sector-wide positive.
There are two reasons: assets under the same privacy narrative are moving in opposite directions, so at least this data does not support the idea of collective capital chasing; the volume threshold filters for trading activity, not new buying demand, so the buzz cannot be directly taken as the driving force behind the price rise.
I also admit that the bulls might be right. If similar assets strengthen simultaneously and the momentum continues, I will change my view. For now, I am focusing on correlation and not assigning a big story to a single daily ranking.Key data at a glance: Nonfarm payrolls +165,000, unemployment rate down to 4.1%, average hourly earnings +0.4% month-over-month, +3.1% year-over-year, with the previous two months revised up by a total of 84,000. The average monthly increase over the past three months is about 137,000, significantly better than the market's prior expectations of a "soft landing or even weakening" in employment. Professional and business services, healthcare, transportation and warehousing, and manufacturing all contributed, indicating an improvement in employment breadth.
After the data release, traders quickly adjusted pricing. According to multiple reports and CME-related tools, the probability of a 25bp rate hike in December jumped from about 67%-75% before the data to 77% or even higher (at times approaching 80%-85%). The 2-year US Treasury yield rose noticeably, the 10-year yield also increased, the US dollar gained support, while gold retreated. This aligns with the current interest rate range still at 3.75%-4.00% and inflation not yet fully back to target—the stronger the employment resilience, the more reason the Fed has to keep the "precautionary" rate hike for December.
Implications for trading:
US Dollar and US Treasuries: The logic favoring short-term rate-sensitive assets to be long USD and short bonds is reinforced; watch whether the US Dollar Index holds key levels.
Risk Assets: US stocks and cryptocurrencies face short-term pressure from tightening liquidity expectations, especially high-valuation sectors are more sensitive. If rate hike expectations extend further into Q1 2027, risk appetite may continue to be suppressed.
Gold and Commodities: Rising real interest rate expectations are usually unfavorable for gold; watch for deeper pullbacks. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 The most twisted part of this wave is on-chain: $XRP dropped to 1.1512 this morning, an 11-week low. I checked 100 daily candles, and it hasn't been this low since August 21.
Let's lay out the timeline first: On November 4, it surged to 1.3421 (at that time, the call was "hold above 1.28 to unlock upside"), then 1.30 and 1.20 were lost step by step, a 14.2% drop from the high. Analyst Ali Martinez said it was a false breakout — that wave was a pump-and-dump.
But on-chain data is moving in the opposite direction. He mentioned that over 13 million XRP were withdrawn from exchanges within a week, and whale holdings increased by 60 million XRP in a week; regarding ETFs, according to SoSoValue data, there was zero net inflow from Tuesday to Thursday this week. Money is exiting, and buyers are not stepping in.
Three numbers I verified myself: perpetual 24-hour volume is $291 million, 4.2 times the spot volume of $69.31 million; funding rate dropped from a long-term 0.01%/8h (longs paying) to only 0.0004% this morning; perpetual open interest fell 6.95% over 36 hours. Sellers account for 51.8% of active trades.
This isn't new short selling pressure; it's longs withdrawing themselves, plus no one stepping in. As long as the ETF doesn't move for a day, the exit is blocked.
Do you think 1.15 is the bottom for this round, or will we have to look at 1.10 if the ETF stays cold for two more weeks? According to data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on November 6, nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000 in October, far exceeding the market expectation of about 65,000 (some surveys at 59,000), and significantly higher than the average monthly level of 48,000 over the past 12 months. The unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 4.1%, and the labor force participation rate slightly rose to 61.9%. Average hourly earnings rose 0.4% month-over-month to $38, with a year-over-year growth rate of 3.1%, indicating a similarly strong wage growth.
More importantly, the revised data: August and September were revised upward by a total of 84,000 (August revised up to 186,000, September revised up to 60,000), raising the average monthly job gains over the past three months to about 137,000, clearly above the previously feared weak levels in the market. The industry distribution was also relatively balanced, with professional and business services adding 70,000 jobs (far above the industry's average monthly 15,000 over the past 12 months), healthcare adding about 42,000, transportation and warehousing about 25,000, and manufacturing also recording a positive growth of 19,000, no longer heavily reliant on a single industry.
After the data release, the CME FedWatch tool showed that the market's probability of a 25 basis point rate hike at the Federal Reserve's December meeting quickly rose to about 77%-85% (previously mostly around 67%-75%). The current federal funds target rate range remains at 3.75%-4.00%, with the October meeting having chosen to hold steady. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $**Nonfarm payrolls blew past expectations (October added 165,000 jobs, expected about 65,000; unemployment rate 4.1%) → December rate hike bets rose from ~75% to ~80% → High-valuation storage/AI hardware first cut valuations, SNDK on 11/5 dropped -22.26% to 806.43, rebounded on 11/6 closing at 835.06, after-hours 841.4, but the intraday 816–912 spike is a typical “oversold rebound + short covering,” not a trend reversal.**
Breaking down several key points:
- **$700 is not a random shout**: SNDK fell from ~1909 in September and 2354 in June highs; two years ago (end of 2025) it was only $237. This round is an “AI+NAND supercycle” pricing commodity stocks like Nvidia. Nonfarm + rate hikes + AI regulation (ASI ban bill) + 11/19 1-for-8 split are all bubble-squeezing catalysts. Morgan Stanley’s bearish scenario is 350, independent DCF model 372, indicating that around $700 is actually a neutral-to-bullish target still within cyclical stock valuation, not an exaggerated bearish view.
- **The spike baiting logic holds**: On 11/6 pre-market rose over 10%, intraday hit 912, but closed below 900, volume 17.7M shares (turnover 12.48%). Such a long upper wick = trapped holders escaping + short-term funds chasing rebound; moving averages (5-day/10-day) are all overhead, bearish alignment intact.
- **Stock split is not a positive**: After 1-for-8 split, price becomes ~104 (based on 835), lowering retail threshold and increasing volatility, but **does not change market cap, rate hike pricing, or NAND cycle**. Many mistake the split as positive, which is exactly the environment shorts like.
- **How to wait for real signals**:
1. Daily close stabilizes above 900–920 with volume continuation (not just a wick);
2. December FOMC expectations retreat (nonfarm revisions down / inflation weakens / rate hike probability drops below 50%);
3. NAND spot prices, data center SSD orders, Micron/WDC/SK Hynix not breaking down synchronously;
4. Post-split (after 11/19) no new lows, then talk of “bubble fully squeezed.”
**Don’t bottom fish, test with small positions, set stop losses.** If it really goes near 700, first watch 803.97 (11/5 low) for a second test, then 650–700 as the “reasonable cyclical anchor”; before signals, every rebound is just reducing trapped positions. $SNDK $BTC Philadelphia Semiconductor rebounded 4.2% on Friday, while BTC was almost flat in the same period: −0.03%.
Looking at the week, the picture is stranger:
· Philadelphia Semiconductor −12% (worst week since April 2025)
· Nasdaq 100 −4.9%
· BTC −1.3%
· Gold +4.6%
Two observations:
1) BTC didn’t follow the tech stocks down, nor did it follow them up. It dropped from 81,200 to 74,888 during the week, a volatility of about 8%, but the weekly line only shows −1.3% — the weekly figure hides the process.
2) It also didn’t act as a safe haven asset. This week, the safe-haven money went to gold, not “digital gold.”
The next key event is the US October CPI on November 10 Beijing time: Nonfarm payrolls have already pushed up the bets for a December rate hike, and if CPI heats up again, the week’s low of 74,888 will be the first test.
No drop with the drop, no rise with the rise — this isn’t an independent market, it means no one is in a hurry to buy.
Not investment advice | Data: OKX market (from last Friday’s US stock close to this Friday’s close), US stock index data from TheStreet/Nasdaq #Tech stocks rebound after US stock plunge, Nasdaq weekly still down about 3.4% $LINK
This morning I saw "15.15 million spent in five days to stockpile 740,000 LINK," and my first reaction was that someone was secretly building a position. Breaking it down at the current price: 740,000 LINK is about 7.99 million, 3,046 ETH is about 6.83 million, totaling 14.82 million, the accounts add up, averaging less than 3 million per day.
But LINK moved from 10.787 to 10.795 in the past 24 hours, up 0.07%, never touching the high point of 11.04; another address withdrew 57,000 coins from Binance in 18 hours, which is only about 610,000.
Perpetual positions are 23.28 million, with a discount of 6.5 basis points, ±1% order book shows 160,000 buy and 170,000 sell, so thin you can see the bottom. The money is real, but the volume is not; I categorize it as a slow variable.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $SOL
I don't think SOL consolidating around 90 is a buildup. In 24 hours, it opened at 89.53 and reached 90, with a high of 91.6 and a low of 88.96, a fluctuation of less than three points; 1H volume dropped from 320,000 contracts at midnight to 96,000 now, and only 70,000 contracts left at 9 AM.
The order book ±1% shows 3.51 million buy orders and 3 million sell orders, with buy orders significantly thicker, but perpetual contracts still discount spot by 7.8 basis points, and the fee rate at 0.01% is exactly the benchmark, with no premium at all.
Open interest is 3.5 million contracts, 315 million, with no increase in a day. Orders are holding, but no money is coming in. For the 90 level, I look at volume, not price; if volume doesn't return to 200,000 contracts, don't rush to chase.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Looking at this data feels like watching a hotpot gathering: the dishes haven't all arrived yet, but the meal tickets on the table have already decreased by a stack. The coldest joke in the crypto world is sometimes a minus sign following “ammunition is sufficient.” 😂
DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $292.5 billion, down $1.387 billion from one day ago and down $5.767 billion from one week ago. I'm cautious: this is somewhat bearish for expectations of incremental funds, but it's not a verdict on the market yet. Stablecoins represent potential buying power within the market; when supply contracts, the imagination space for capital absorption must be discounted; however, circulating supply does not equal buy or sell orders. Based on this number alone, we can't tell where the funds have gone, nor can we directly infer a price drop.
What I care about next is whether the volume contraction will continue, rather than shouting direction based on a single week's data. Which side are you on: is this an alarm of capital retreat, or should we watch a few more periods of volatility? Keep eating hotpot, or count the meal tickets first? CORE is a small-cap altcoin without an industry-standard whale threshold (unlike BTC which is fixed at ≥1000 BTC, or ETH commonly at ≥10000 ETH). Generally, within the community, there are two commonly used thresholds for tracking CORE whales (Nansen / Lookonchain): 1. CORE Mega Whales (capable of impacting the market): ≥1,000,000 CORE 2. Large holders/Shark tier: 100,000 to 1,000,000 CORE Core characteristics (the biggest difference from BTC and ETH) 1. Extremely high concentration of holdings The top wallets include: Core DAO treasury, team/investor lockup contracts, staking contracts, and exchange cold wallets. The top 10 addresses hold a very high proportion of the circulating supply, which is the fundamental reason why CORE’s volatility is much greater than BTC/ETH. 2. No fixed official number - The ≥1,000,000 CORE tier: the real-time number of addresses is usually in the dozens (dynamic, changing with unlocking, staking, and transfers) - The ≥100,000 CORE (large holders): a few hundred addresses Many addresses are staking contracts, foundation treasury, or exchange reserves, not individual large holders. The number of independent mega whales who can freely sell and actively trade is much smaller than the number of addresses. 3. Data pain points: CORE’s on-chain statistics are not as mature as BTC or ETH. Santiment and Glassnode do not provide stable whale-specific statistics like they do for Bitcoin and Ethereum; data can only be found on Core ScanMainstream on-chain analysis (Santiment) defines addresses holding ≥1,000 BTC as BTC whales - latest statistics: 2,044 addresses ≥ 1,000 BTC, holding about 7.17 million BTC in total, accounting for nearly 36% of circulating supply. However! Addresses ≠ Genuine and independent individuals/institutions, which is the easiest pitfall: Includes cold exchange wallets, ETF custody addresses, platform reserve wallets, not all large individual users. For example, an exchange may have several such whale addresses, which actually belong to the same institution. More detailed layering (another sub-caliber) - Sharks: 1,000–5,000 BTC - Whales: 5,000–10,000 BTC (narrow sense) ≈ over 100 addresses - Humpback whales (super whales): > 10,000 BTC, fewer than 100 addresses. This includes MicroStrategy, the US government, early tycoons, and large custodians. Two key misconceptions: 1. It's impossible to know the real "number of whales": one person can control dozens of wallets; A single wallet could also be the money of many users (exchanges), and on-chain you can only count addresses, making it hard to distinguish the entities behind them. 2. Different platforms have different entry barriers: Some media outlets are a bit more lenient, calling ≥100 BTC 'big holder,' and the number of addresses increases to nearly 20,000, so they shouldn't be confused. In short, summarize by the most commonly used in the circle: 1Why does Musk mention Dogecoin less and less? It's not that he loves it less, but his identity has changed.
In 2021, a single word "Doge" from him could ignite the crypto community; at that time, his net worth was about $185 billion. By November 2026, his net worth was about $865 billion, peaking over a trillion. His wealth increased nearly fivefold, and most of it is not cash but equity in SpaceX and Tesla. A slight shake in stock prices can evaporate hundreds of billions of dollars of his net worth in a day.
He also spent at least $445 million supporting the Republican Party, but the midterm elections ended in a crushing defeat for the Republicans, with the Democrats taking control of Congress. Going forward, corporate contracts, government relations, and political activities may all be scrutinized more closely.
So now, Musk's business empire, publicly traded companies, government contracts, and political connections are all intertwined. The risks and costs of openly endorsing DOGE are completely different from back then.
Back then, a single word from him could make Dogecoin surge; now he no longer needs DOGE to prove his influence. Whether he will mention it frequently in the future depends solely on him. $DOGE #软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ SoftBank Q2 Earnings Preview: Heavy Bet on OpenAI, Is This an Exam or a Gamble?
On November 10 at 15:30 (Japan Time), SoftBank will announce its financial results for April to September, with several key points:
1⃣ Profit ≈ Portfolio Valuation
Q1 net profit mainly came from investment gains (about ¥1.8 trillion, mainly from Intel and ByteDance), essentially a book valuation, highly volatile and hard to predict. The market consensus expects a slight loss per share this quarter.
2⃣ Leverage Increasing
Cumulative investment in OpenAI is about $64.6 billion (around 13% equity), and a record $11 billion junk bond was issued with a 9.75% coupon. The 5-year CDS once rose to 432 basis points, the highest since 2022.
3⃣ Weak Signals from OpenAI
The fundraising target dropped from $30 billion to about $20 billion, with a valuation target lowered to $1.25 trillion; SB Energy's IPO has also been delayed. But $1.25 trillion is still higher than the previous $852 billion valuation, so whether there is still a paper gain depends on SoftBank's valuation method.
📌 My View:
• Earnings positives: impressive book gains + clear financing arrangements
• Earnings negatives: valuation downgrade, additional commitments, rising debt ratio
The stock price has fallen significantly from its high, with negatives partly priced in, but volatility may be amplified. I tend to wait for the earnings report and management's comments on financing before making a judgment.
This is my personal analysis; what do you think? Evaluation of Babylon Babylon focuses on Bitcoin staking (BTC Staking). Overseas evaluations are clearly divided into bullish supporters and cautious skeptics: ✅ Positive evaluations (institutions, crypto-native communities) 1. High recognition for innovation in the sector Many overseas developers and crypto research institutions believe it solves the pain point that Bitcoin itself cannot be staked and cannot capture staking yields, turning BTC into an interest-bearing asset; relying on Bitcoin's security, it differs from ordinary public chain staking and is considered to have a stronger security foundation. 2. Capital endorsement adds value Multiple well-known overseas VCs have invested; on Twitter (X), DC, and crypto research platforms, many analysts regard it as a leading project in the BTCFi sector and are optimistic about the narrative of RWA and BTC liquidity ecosystems. 3. Synergy with the Cosmos ecosystem The Cosmos community generally supports it, believing Babylon can bring a large amount of BTC assets to the Cosmos ecosystem, enhancing the overall asset scale and liquidity of the ecosystem. ⚠️ Negative/Cautious evaluations (researchers, conservative miners, security advocates) 1. Security and trust risks are the biggest controversy Many Bitcoin maximalists oppose it: the core of Bitcoin itself is "trustless and no coin lock-up"; Babylon's staking contracts, custody/validation layers introduce new trust assumptions and smart contract risks, and if there is a contract vulnerability, BTC could be stolen. Many veteran BTC players are unwilling to put native B 💻 I'll break this down according to code review: The input is based on Ai Auntie's monitoring, showing that a certain address has accumulated about 740,000 LINK and 3,046.68 ETH over the past five days, with a total investment of approximately $15.15 million. My judgment: this set of data is more suitable for inclusion in address observation records and not appropriate for comparing which of the two assets is more favored.
There are two logical bugs: the quantities are not in a unified measurement unit, so you can't directly compare the allocation weight; the total investment also doesn't break down the individual costs, making it impossible to reconstruct the capital allocation. Moreover, with only one address, upgrading this to a sector judgment is like announcing a launch based on a single test case, and I can't sign off on that.
If it were me, I would first supplement the invested amounts for each asset, then observe subsequent position changes. Only if there is continuous accumulation would I further study the motivation. This is my reasoning. Please help me review: to determine whether this address leans more toward LINK or ETH, would you prioritize supplementing cost data or historical holdings? Where is the flaw in my logic?Non-farm payrolls hit 165,000, directly off the charts, yet the Dow Jones softened by 237 points, with all the money flowing into chips. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index surged 4.21%, AMD rose 11%, COHERENT jumped 13 points, and optical communication and chips went crazy.
The crypto circle doesn't even have the strength to catch a breath.
Nearly $300 million in liquidations across the entire network in 24 hours, with long positions accounting for 80%, all buried chasing the rebound.
$XRP dropped over 4 points; the positive news from the OCC license lasted only two days before fading, the old story no longer works.
$DOGE barely turned green, up less than 0.3%, no matter how much noise Musk makes, it can't drive this asset.
$BNB, on the other hand, is the toughest in the market, barely moving during this drop; having no story to tell has ironically become its advantage.
The A-shares market is similarly split: Zhongwei Company was swept by major players for 3.1 billion yuan in a week, rising nearly 19%, while Zhongji Xuchuang in optical modules was hammered for 3.4 billion yuan, falling nearly 19%.
The money hasn't disappeared; it just moved from one table to another. Wherever there's a breather, that side gets hit.$ONDO
USDY has started continuous pricing, so why can't this directly lead to a token price increase?
Ondo announced on November 3rd the launch of USDY continuous pricing, supporting intraday yield realization. This improves the product usage experience and may enhance capital turnover and integration convenience.
There still needs to be a clear connection between product asset growth and the governance token's value through explicit fee, rights, and value distribution mechanisms. Directly converting product benefits into token profit expectations risks skipping the most critical step.
If new integrations bring sustainable net subscriptions and a clear token value capture mechanism emerges, I would raise my evaluation; if the scale increase mainly comes from subsidies or the yield remains confined to the product level, token premium should be approached more cautiously.Leverage gets the blame, but the arithmetic that actually drains a futures account is quieter and far more mechanical. A 100x position on $BTC does not survive a 1% move against it; once maintenance margin of roughly 0.4%–0.5% and trading fees are counted, liquidation arrives near a 0.5% decline. At 20x, the real buffer is closer to 4.5%, not the 5% the multiple implies. The tolerance is always thinner than the headline number. Then there is turnover. Size a position so that 10x leverage on 10% The Middle East card, the political wind has been quietly shifting these past two days. The U.S. Secretary of State's first trip abroad after the midterm election loss was to discuss diplomacy, Senator Sanders publicly called on the new Congress to cut funding for the war against Iran, and even the Republican Party's blow in this election is attributed by many to the war driving up oil prices.
Many people instinctively think "war = safe haven = bullish for gold and $BTC," but in the past two years, it has often been the opposite: war pushes up oil prices, oil prices feed inflation, inflation forces the Fed to continue tightening, and in the end, gold and Bitcoin both get hit. So what really matters is not where the missiles land, but where oil prices and U.S. Treasury yields are headed.
Of course, Kyiv experienced another round of explosions last night; the de-escalation is just a trend for now, far from settled. This situation is still a tug of war, so don't rush to bet on either side. Nonfarm Payroll Night Review: The data exploded, but the market didn't? (๑•́ ₃ •̀๑)
Last night, nonfarm payroll was 16.5 million, far exceeding expectations, and the probability of a rate hike in December jumped by 10%. My first reaction: BTC should go to 74000, ETH should go to 2100, there should be a sharp plunge at least, right? But the market stayed calm as if nothing happened (￣▽￣)*
BTC dropped to a low of 74800, exactly the previous correction low. This level is interesting; it might not break in the short term. So I plan to close short positions around 75000 and then lightly try a short-term long. Not stubborn, just respecting the market: if it should fall, it won't fall yet, so don't chase shorts (๑•̀ㅂ•́)و✧
Of course, the market always surprises those who don't understand. Plans are plans, stop losses are still necessary. This is just a personal review, not advice~ (｡•̀ᴗ-)✧
$BTC $ETH
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 What should be remembered most this week is not which candlestick, but the non-farm payroll report. October added over 160,000 jobs, roughly three times the expectation, unemployment rate continued to decline, and hourly wages rose — this is a solid report that slaps the "rate cut bull" narrative in the face.
Once the data was released, the market's bet on a December rate hike jumped directly from over 60% to around 80%, gold prices dropped more than thirty dollars in response, and the 10-year US Treasury yield pushed back up. Yet on the same day, the US stock market rebounded from oversold levels, showing signs of "bad news already priced in."
This kind of "rising against strong data" market behavior is historically rented time nine times out of ten. Don't fight the fundamentals, and especially don't go against the Federal Reserve. With hard data pressing down, the shelf life of this rebound won't be very long. Someone asked again in the background: $BTC dropped from eighty thousand to just over seventy-five thousand, is it the bottom to buy now? I don't look at sentiment, I look at structure.
Hold on to two data points tightly. First, the perpetual funding rate is still mildly positive, nowhere near the level of extreme short squeeze or deeply negative rates — the real bottom often comes when shorts are squeezed out and funding rates turn deeply negative, which is far from now. Second, the main liquidations these days are longs, not shorts, indicating the deleveraging meat grinder hasn't stopped yet.
A low-volume rebound means anyone rushing in can easily get stuck halfway up the mountain. Oversold doesn't mean bottomed; oversold just means it dropped a bit too fast earlier. If you want to bottom-fish, first ask yourself what you will use to withstand a second dip. Once the non-farm payrolls were released, the market's previous hopes for a rate cut were immediately dashed. Employment data significantly exceeded expectations, wages did not stabilize, and the labor market showed strong resilience. Funds quickly raised bets on a December rate hike, U.S. Treasury yields surged, and the dollar strengthened.
The reasoning is simple: with a hot job market, the Federal Reserve has no pressure to ease monetary policy hastily; instead, it has the confidence to continue controlling inflation, which will prolong the duration of high interest rates. For U.S. tech growth stocks, valuation pressure has returned, which explains the sharp drop earlier and why the subsequent rebound was merely short covering, not a trend reversal.
This macroeconomic trend directly impacts Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a high-risk asset; with rising interest rate expectations and higher leverage funding costs, capital is more inclined to hold risk-free assets like U.S. Treasuries, making the market prone to pressure. Recently, BTC spot ETFs have continued to see outflows, institutional funds are inherently cautious, and combined with rate hike expectations, it is difficult for the market to sustain a strong rally.
Going forward, the focus should be on CPI inflation data, as this is the ultimate basis for the Federal Reserve's decisions. Currently, it is just an expectation game, and volatility will increase. Do not chase rebounds with heavy positions; manage your exposure and wait for the macroeconomic dust to settle before taking action. The waterfall was not just a leverage event. Behind the cascade in $BTC, $ETH and $SOL sits a quieter story: large holders are leaving while retail bulls hold the line, and the policy backdrop is doing as much damage as forced liquidations. Start with flows. More than 2,000 BTC were withdrawn on a net basis. Large $ETH investors pulled back, with net outflows of 35,900 coins. $SOL saw close to 100,000 tokens leave on a net basis, leaving heavy selling pressure. These are not random rotations. Th"The market can only close positions after liquidation"—this detail is quite striking, but let me pour some cold water first: I don't think there's enough evidence to directly be bearish on the entire Solana perpetuals sector because of this. Percolator disclosed two fixes in v2.2, one of which involves liquidity providers being unable to initiate exits after the vault is paused. What concerns me more is whether the market will amplify a problem from one platform into an issue for the entire sector.
I have two reasons. When the market state after liquidation has issues, the questions should be about the trigger conditions and the scope of impact; the information provided doesn't explain these, so we shouldn't assume that all liquidations will get stuck. Secondly, problems with a platform's specific mechanism cannot be directly attributed to the underlying chain. My guess is, if the discussion boils down to "another problem on Solana," then sentiment might be overriding technical judgment. But conversely, disclosing fixes doesn't automatically prove the platform is reliable.
I also admit that the bearish view might be correct. If subsequent evidence shows that this kind of state transition problem recurs repeatedly or appears in similar mechanisms across multiple platforms, I would shift to a more cautious stance. I tend to look for risks first but don't want to use missing information to fabricate bearish arguments. Regarding this fix, are you bullish or bearish? Is your reasoning based on trusting the platform's error correction, or are you worried there are still mechanism gaps? Tell me what you most want to verify.Non-farm payrolls blew past expectations, the Dow dropped 237 points, but chip stocks surged wildly, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumping 4.2% and AMD rising over 11%. The money hasn't left the market; it just scrambled out of rate-sensitive sectors and dove headfirst into chips and optical communications.
The crypto world paints a completely different picture.
$BTC is barely holding around 77,000, seemingly stable, but in reality, spot ETFs have seen a net outflow of $1.1 billion over the past seven days, led by BlackRock redemptions, with no new inflows returning.
$SOL is even worse off; the Lujiazui advertisement was directly halted by the central bank, and offline events were cut off before they even started. The regulatory stance is crystal clear.
Interestingly, in the A-share market, semiconductor equipment company Zhongwei was bought up by major players for 3.1 billion yuan in one week, rising nearly 19%, while in the same week, optical module company Zhongji Xuchuang was sold off for 3.4 billion yuan, dropping nearly 19%. The same market, the same week—some are lifted to the sky, others are pressed to the ground.
Money is jumping back and forth between these pools; wherever it catches a breath, that side gets hit.To be honest, this news reminds me of the time when the whole screen was shouting "demand has no limit." I used to easily mistake industry shortages for promising positions, but later I realized there are several accounting layers in between.
Tom Lee, Chairman of Bitmine, said in an interview with CNBC that the AI investment boom is far from over, and increased Token usage may tighten computing power again, driving up related prices. He also mentioned that U.S. states and local communities will advance investments according to their own conditions and strengthen AI safety regulations.
I think this is more like a reminder of cost pressures, not a free pass for the entire AI sector. In my understanding, if computing power prices rise, application-side profits may be squeezed first; if local conditions limit construction, new supply may not keep up in time. Hot demand does not mean everyone benefits.
Right now, I stick to two rules: don’t use industry narratives to calculate specific targets, and don’t temporarily leverage based on a single interview. Have you ever fallen into the trap of "industry good news equals good positions"? Would you be willing to share a rule to avoid chasing hype?