Orbit Post Sitemap
TC, ETH, and SOL currently have a very high proportion of bulls, with long borrowings far exceeding short borrowings!
$BTC:
Long borrowings: 1346.95 BTC, short borrowings: 76.29 BTC
$ETH:
Long borrowings: 16,200 ETH, short borrowings: 878.16 ETH
$SOL:
Long borrowings: 105,000 SOL, short borrowings: 4,012 SOL
During this period, leveraged longs have been continuously increasing positions, and the long-short ratio has been rising steadily, indicating a relatively crowded chip state.
Characteristics of this structure:
✅ When pulling upwards, the bulls work strongly together;
⚠️ Risk point: Once the market turns, a large number of bulls concentrated in stop-losses can easily cause a rapid pullback with sharp spikes. Showing newcomers the news, I usually start by asking: What does this chain rely on to retain users? According to Bloomberg, Solana is seeking to shift from relying on Meme coin speculation to stablecoins and tokenized assets, aiming for adoption by Wall Street; JPMorgan Chase, Visa, and others have already started related operations on the network.
📌 Here's a concept: demand concentration risk. I believe the importance of this shift lies in attempting to diversify business sources, not just having big-name institutions. Speculative hype tends to fade; if payments and asset transfers can generate sustained usage, then network activity might be less affected by a single market trend. This is my speculation, not yet a realized outcome.
Taking Visa's related operations as an example, "already started" does not mean "scaled up," much less that the coin price has a floor. Newcomers often confuse these three things and use long-term narratives to boost short-term positions. I will continue to watch whether actual usage can be sustained and won't rush to give the transformation a perfect score.Chinese AI stocks crashed first.
Down 4.8% in one day, evaporating $480 billion since July.
What about Bitcoin?
Still holding around $80,400, steady without moving.
AI crashes, will crypto go down with it?
Crypto and US AI stocks have long been tied to the same boat; since the earnings reports leaked bad news, they’re definitely taking hits together—that’s the bad news.
Good news:
China doesn’t allow crypto trading, so the money can’t flow out.
During the AI surge, Bitcoin didn’t get a single bite.
Now that the bubble has burst, the money might just turn back to buy cheap AI stocks.
Actually, no need to guess, just watch one thing: US AI earnings reports.
If they hold up, Bitcoin will keep grinding;
If they don’t, the money pulled out from AI might just bottom-fish Bitcoin.Robinhood's crypto revenue this quarter was cut by more than half, leaving only about $120 million. After hours, the stock dropped sharply from 94.56 to just above 87, a nearly 8% decline.
Q3 results released around 4 AM Beijing time: total revenue about $1.42 billion, up 12% year-over-year, basically in line with expectations.
GAAP EPS was 0.51, LSEG expected about 0.56; adjusted EPS was 0.60, slightly above expectations.
Crypto trading volume dropped 38% year-over-year, with a 48% decline just within the app.
Leading the gains were event contracts, with revenue around $173 million, more than a sixfold increase, and options up 31%.
But I’m more interested in what REX’s research head said: most of those playing prediction markets are the same old traders betting in a different place, not new customers.
The crypto sector isn’t recovering; this gap can’t be filled just by betting contracts. The after-hours jump looks more like the market re-discounting the crypto segment.
We’ll see again at 9:30 PM when the US market opens. Only if it first recovers Monday’s low around 91.6 can it be said to have clawed back some of the after-hours losses.
If the daily candle closes below 87, this after-hours move is more than just sentiment.
No rush to buy here; wait until the first hour of trading is over.
Do you think HOOD now looks more like a brokerage stock or a crypto sentiment stock?
$HOOD
#RobinhoodQ3营收增长，净利润下降 #RobinhoodQ3 revenue growth, net profit decline $HOOD After-hours dropped nearly 8%, I went through the line I care about most: the prediction market for betting on events has already earned more than trading crypto.
This quarter, prediction market revenue was $173 million, more than six times increase.
Crypto trading revenue is only $120 million, less than half compared to last year.
A researcher said it quite painfully: most people playing the prediction market are still the same group who used to trade options and crypto.
The people haven't left, the money just moved from crypto to event betting.
So I don't really see it as a crypto concept stock anymore; even if the crypto market cools down, it can still make money.
After-hours drop like this, I won't chase it; if it doesn't get back to 90 tomorrow, I'll put it aside for now.
Are you trading crypto more now, or betting on events in the prediction market more?
$HOOD $COIN $BTC[Exchange TVL Secondary Fluctuation: Direction Reverses Collectively Within a Day, "Statistical Scope Incident" Judgment Basically Closed Loop]
On October 27, the TVL (Total Value Locked) of several mainstream exchanges on DefiLlama was sharply revised downward on the same day: OKX -40.5% to $18.1 billion, Bitget -38.4% to $4.2 billion, Gate -23.8% to $5.7 billion, with several other small and medium platforms also falling synchronously by 24%-44%. Based on the synchronicity, the mirror fluctuation between Gate and Gate US, and the complete absence of evidence of a run, the judgment at the time was: this was more likely a data statistical scope adjustment rather than a real liquidity event.
The list on October 28 provided a second piece of evidence: the direction reversed. KuCoin TVL increased by 29.0% in one day to $3.31 billion, HTX +19.9% to $4.13 billion, Zoomex +30.6%—also multiple exchanges synchronously and consistently rising.
Why does this almost confirm the scope hypothesis? Because real capital flow does not move like this. If $18.1 billion of real money flowed out by 40% in one day and then flowed back by 30% the next day, it would require millions of global users to make two completely consistent collective actions in one day—which does not exist in reality. The only reasonable explanation is: the statisticians continuously adjusted the wallet classification scope, "removing" a batch of wallets yesterday and "putting back" some today.
Combining the data from the two days forms a complete verification case: looking at any single day alone is a "big news"; looking at them together, it is a ruler being recalibrated. The only thing left to wait for is an official statement from DefiLlama or the related exchanges. Until then, any narrative based on single-day TVL such as "exchange crash" or "exchange recovery" lacks factual basis.Calculating, this net outflow accounts for about 1.24% of the current total net asset value, and I would not consider it a negligible small fluctuation. PANews, citing SoSoValue data, reported that on October 27th Eastern Time, the US $SOL spot ETF had a total net outflow of $19.155 million in one day, all coming from GSOL.
① GSOL's net outflow of $19.155 million this time is about 14.40% of its historical cumulative net inflow of $133 million. This comparison shows that the fund movement of a single product is significant, but cumulative net inflow is not the asset size, so it cannot be said that 14.40% of the assets were redeemed.
② On that day, only GSOL experienced a net outflow, while the total net asset value of the entire category was $1.544 billion. I would first attribute the pressure to this product rather than labeling all SOL spot ETFs as having capital withdrawals.
③ The entire category still has a historical cumulative net inflow of $1.513 billion. The accumulated existing funds and the direction of funds on the day are two separate accounts; the former cannot offset the pressure of the day, nor can the latter erase the previous net inflows.
My judgment is that this news carries more weight regarding GSOL's capital reception situation and has limited explanatory power for the entire sector. I will prioritize monitoring its own flow changes next and remind myself not to directly equate product-level anomalies with conclusions about the coin price.Currently, the proportion of long positions is 65.42%, short positions 34.58%, with a long-short ratio of 1.89. What does this mean? Out of 100 people opening contracts, 65 are going long, and only 35 are going short.
From the chart, after October 20th, the long-short ratio surged from 1.2 to nearly 2.0, indicating that this rebound from 79,000 to 81,000 has retail investors chasing longs again. When the price rises, long positions flood in; this is typical retail behavior—when it rises, they think it will reverse, when it falls, they see a buying opportunity.
I think this data is very dangerous. With 65% of accounts long, it means that if the FOMC turns hawkish tomorrow night and the price breaks below 79,000, these long positions will fuel a cascade of liquidations. Historically, every time the long-short ratio approaches 2.0, it basically marks a short-term peak.
Combined with what we saw earlier—high open interest, positive funding rates, and a long-short ratio of 1.89—these three data points lead to the same conclusion: the long leverage is piled up too high. The market makers are just waiting for a reason to crash the market, and tomorrow night's FOMC could be that reason. Be careful.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3营收首破100万亿韩元 #RobinhoodQ3营收增长，净利润下降 $BTC $ETH $ZEC Big Brother Maji's "hedge" has already turned into a one-sided gamble on paper.
Let's first look at the most glaring part: the HYPE short position has an unrealized loss of 3,778,700 U, with a margin of 4,310,000 down to only 530,000 left to breathe, liquidation price at 96.81, current price about 80.3 — a 20% rise from here will liquidate the position. Shorted at 66.24 and now at 80.3, he has stubbornly endured a 21% adverse move.
Ironically, this position is still "paying him a salary": net funding fee income of 1,100,000 U. The negative funding rate depth indicates longs are crowded enough to pay a premium to hold their positions, so he is holding shorts at a loss — but in a short squeeze scenario, this is called collecting small money to gamble with his life, essentially turning himself into fuel for the longs.
The other two legs:
• BTC short 40X: around 80,510, unrealized profit 868,700 + funding fee 129,300, the only source of profit
• ETH long 25X: around 2,346, unrealized loss 1,116,700, pure drag
Summing up: unrealized loss 4,026,700, funding fee recovered 1,168,400, net loss 2,858,000 — of which 77% is contributed by HYPE alone.
More importantly, the nominal exposure: short BTC 19,640,000 + short HYPE 21,550,000 - long ETH 16,940,000 = net short 24,250,000 U. The so-called triangular hedge is actually a heavy bearish bet.
The current situation is: the more crowded the longs, the more attractive the funding fee, the more reluctant he is to close; but every tick up in price thins his margin. Next, either the longs take profits to keep him alive, or a single bullish candle will send him out — just watch, don't imitate.$ETH pulled back from the 2293–2300 support zone to about 2359 last night (24h approximately +1.7%, high around 2370). I'm more bullish: if it can hold the previous low on the rate decision day and rebound, the short-term looks more like digesting selling pressure.
Two details: $BTC simultaneously stabilized above 80,900; after a net outflow of about $88.6 million from the US spot ETH ETF on Monday, there was a net inflow of about $33.1 million on Tuesday (Farside). Staking queue is about 1.31 million tokens entering, about 16,000 exiting, with about 36% of the total network staked, so tokens remain locked.
Tonight at 14:00 EST (Beijing time 10/29 02:00) is the FOMC meeting, with mainstream expectations for no change. Holding 2293 targets 2370–2400.
Will you hold in advance waiting for the decision, or act after the announcement? Share your position strategy.
Personal observation only, not investment advice.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 🪜 INJ returns to 8, BTC still hovering below 80400
$BTC 80350.92, up 0.6% in the last 24 hours, back to eighty thousand, but it hasn't held above 80400 🧊
After pushing up near 80497, it retreated to 80045, with the quote pulling back some distance again, still below that previous high.
The key here is repetition; a pullback from eighty thousand doesn't mean a continuous rise.
The actual contest around 80400 better measures the rhythm; the price has pulled back again but hasn't broken away from the upper reversal; within the net 0.6% gain, both sides' processes exist.
$SKHYNIX 1027.87, up 5.7% in the last 24 hours, Hynix contract longs resume paying funding fees 🧠
The latest settled funding rate for the corresponding contract is about 0.0204%, previously zero for two consecutive times, longs now resume paying fees.
Relative to the daily 5.7% rise, this proportion is small, but when the price moves within a narrow range, it occupies a larger share of the target space.
Both gains and costs must be accounted for; the settled changes are clear and cannot use the zero-rate accounting.
$INJ 8.03, up 2.2% in the last 24 hours, also advancing relative to BTC pricing 🌀
Based on the 24-hour price changes of both, priced in BTC, it rose about 1.6%; the upward move is not just following BTC turning positive.
The quote at 8.03 has returned above 8, but the 24-hour high of 8.111 has not yet been reclaimed.
Relative performance has indeed improved, still probing near the original highs; the lead has data support, but relying solely on relative gains cannot push continuous acceleration.First consider the worst-case scenario: if institutional business can't make up for the decline in speculation, I'm worried that volatility might actually increase.
Bloomberg reports that Solana is trying to pivot to stablecoins and tokenized assets to court Wall Street, with JPMorgan Chase, Visa, and others already conducting business. I don't see this as a safety net: the scale of the new business is unclear, and institutional adoption doesn't necessarily mean increased demand for tokens.
My risk control habit is to first write down the tolerable loss; don't replace risk budgeting with a list of institutions. When facing this kind of transformation news, how much stop loss do you usually set for a single trade?Hong Kong trader Martin Luk made 940 trades in one year, losing 731 of them. Yet, this account achieved a yearly return of 969%, directly winning the 2025 US Investment Championship in the stock category for amounts over $20,000. The organizer said this broke the new record for the stock category. In October 2020, at 18 years old and just starting university, he opened an account with HKD 10,000 provided by the Hong Kong government. The first few months he tripled his money, then lost steadily until the end of the year, with the account halving in value. Later, he watched Swedish trader Qullamaggie's live streams daily and began tightening his stop losses. In 2024, before graduating, he placed sixth in his first competition, and the next year he became champion. In the first eight months of 2026, he increased by 800% on the official leaderboard, showing how high the fault tolerance of this strategy is. His trading logic is: how much a trade can earn is unpredictable, but how much it can lose is controllable. So he only chooses to buy where stop losses can be placed very close, cutting losses immediately if wrong, and holding longer if right. In 2025, his losing trades lost an average of 2%, while winning trades gained an average of 14%. The profit from one winning trade covers nearly seven losing trades, but in reality, for every winning trade, he only loses on three and a half trades. He calculates this using R. One R is the amount lost if the trade hits the stop loss. For example, for a trade that rose 25% with a stop loss set 3% below the purchase price, 25 divided by 3 equals over 8 R earned.Busy at work during the day and didn't have time to look closely, but I came across this at night, and the 68.5% on the screen made me sit up a bit straighter 🌙. According to Santiment's analysis, wallets holding at least 10 million XRP collectively control 46.87 billion tokens, accounting for about 68.5% of the total supply, the highest share since November 2022.
I prefer to see this as a concentration reminder rather than a direct bullish signal. The increase in share indicates that chips are gathering into large wallets, but this alone can't determine how strong the buying pressure is; if these wallets later start to reduce holdings, then concentration could also amplify market pressure, which is my speculation. Moreover, XRP is still struggling around $1.29 in the data, and holding confidence hasn't yet translated into price strength.
A reminder to myself: don't borrow the patience of whales as your own certainty. Who else is still awake at this hour, watching XRP or other markets? Does this concentration make you feel reassured or more cautious?#SK海力士Q3 revenue surpasses 100 trillion KRW for the first time
SK Hynix's Q3 revenue exceeded 100 trillion KRW (104.62 trillion), operating profit was 83.33 trillion, and operating margin hit a record high of 80%—this directly reflects the volume growth of HBM4 and the simultaneous rise in DRAM/NAND prices and volumes.
The 58% quarter-on-quarter plunge in net profit (39.78 trillion) is a superficial distortion: Q3 non-operating net loss was 32.63 trillion (about 11.63 trillion from exchange rates + about 22.92 trillion from investment revaluation), combined with a one-time high base from Kioxia investment in Q2. The operating side did not deteriorate; the 80% profit margin remains the core business anchor.
Key shift: From Q4, HBM4 shipments and revenue share will both surpass HBM3E, becoming the main product; long-term contracts already cover over 50% of 2027–2028 capacity, and the company expects supply shortages to continue through 2030.
Shareholder returns: About 100 trillion KRW planned for fiscal year 2026, but of the 60 trillion KRW buyback, about 10 trillion is allocated for compensation and not counted as returns, so this needs to be viewed separately. After the earnings report, Korean stocks once rose over 9%.
In short: The profit record is clean, the net profit plunge is one-time; what really needs tracking is the shipment structure after the Q4 HBM4 main product switch, and whether long-term contracts can continue to realize pricing power during the supply shortage window. $BTC $ZEC This SK Hynix financial report can be described as a bomb that exploded expectations. Looking at the numbers alone, revenue reached 104.62 trillion, operating profit 83.33 trillion, both hitting record highs. But net profit of 39.78 trillion surprisingly fell short of analyst expectations. The strange thing is, the stock price not only didn’t crash but surged over 5%.
Because the capital market trades on the future. The most powerful trump card in the financial report is: from 2027 to 2028, over half of the production capacity is locked in by long-term contracts, and the memory supply-demand tightness will continue until 2030.
This means Hynix’s money printing machine is locked in advance, unaffected by macro fluctuations. But the butterfly effect behind this is not friendly to us.
Tech giants are frantically spending to expand production capacity to lock in computing power. Combined with Meta’s recent 100 billion financing and institutions like Blackstone’s 63 billion SPV equipment purchases, global liquidity is being fiercely siphoned by AI infrastructure. This is also the core reason why BTC can only cling to the 80,000 level now, stubbornly defending the institutional cost line at 80,200 — extreme lack of money in the market. As long as hardware costs remain high, inflation won’t come down, and the Fed’s rate cut expectations will be firmly suppressed.
But looking at the bigger picture, this is precisely the most hardcore endorsement for Bitcoin. Giants maintain tech dominance by borrowing at high interest, overdrawing the entire fiat credit. As debt keeps rolling over and growing, funds will inevitably flow back to the absolutely scarce BTC.
In terms of trading, never chase semiconductor concept coins at highs; rallies are easily traps. #SK海力士Q3营收首破100万亿韩元 $SKHY $xSKHY $SKHYNIX The ancient whale associated with the Ethereum Foundation's funds, holding $ETH, has sold 7,594.33 ETH again after a year, with a cost not exceeding $11 😲
This address deposited ETH worth $17.77 million into an exchange 7 hours ago; if sold, it would yield a profit of at least $17.7 million. It had received 242,653 tokens distributed by the RSS contract in 2016. The last deposit was during the previous bull market, and after this deposit, the on-chain position has been fully cleared.
Wallet address 0xa0e239b0ABf4582366AdaFF486EE268C848c4409📊 $BTC has been 119 days since the low point on June 30th ($58,500).
Looking back at previous cycles, on the 119th day after the bottom, there is still a long way to go before the next all-time high:
▪️ 2015: 652 days remaining
▪️ 2018: 597 days remaining
▪️ 2022: 350 days remaining
The waiting time in each cycle is shortening. If this trend continues, the next ATH may appear around July 2027.
Bottoming out is just the beginning; the real test of patience is the long wait.
Of course, historical cycles do not guarantee repetition.This gold segment only took sixteen hours. Yesterday afternoon at 4 PM, it was still around 4002, and by 8 AM this morning, it had already touched 4084, up 82 dollars, just over two percent.
Before that, the price was squeezed inside a triangle for four days. The upper boundary pressed down continuously, with three highs getting lower each time. The lower boundary was pushed up continuously, with four lows getting higher each time. Four days of this grinding.
Yesterday, I only recognized the lower boundary. The reason was stated very plainly at the time: the upper boundary was only touched twice, not enough evidence to block a rebound, so I only took it as a reference. The lower boundary was touched four times, each time pulled back, so I dared to rely on that one.
At 10 PM last night, that candle closed above the upper boundary, with volume three times the average of the previous twenty candles. A volume breakout itself doesn't indicate direction, but at least it shows more than just one or two participants.
This morning it touched 4084 and then stopped. That is also near the midpoint of the previous downtrend.
Now it has returned to 4060, not far from the breakout point. This retracement is what needs to be watched.
The moving averages are positioned there; the 55-period is just a bit above the breakout point, basically on the same line as 4044, so this retracement tests two things at once.
The criterion remains the close.
If it closes above 4044, this breakout is considered stable, and we look back up to 4084, then talk about the 200-period moving average above that. If it closes below 4002, then this is just a false breakout, and the price will have to return to the four-day range.
My current bias is upward because the breakout had volume and the retracement hasn't broken the level. If either of these two changes, the conclusion changes accordingly.
There is data at 2 AM tonight and 8:30 PM tomorrow night. Before the data comes out, the two closing criteria above remain unchanged; only the volatility range changes.
Finally, a few off-topic words.
In these four days, I only did two things on this chart: drew two lines, then waited. There was nothing to do during the waiting; the price just ground back and forth between the two lines. The hardest part is the breakout moment; your hands itch. I didn't act in the end because the criteria were written upfront, and the breakout close hadn't come yet.
Make the judgment in advance, then during the session, it's just execution left.Don't rush to read this message as "Avalanche is unsafe." Let me first pour some cold water: what needs to be re-examined this time is the share calculation and redemption logic of the vault, not to directly condemn the entire chain. Blockaid reported that the Tranche Vault related to Valinor Digital on Avalanche was attacked. The attacker used flash loans to mint an inflated number of layered shares, then redeemed the remaining $USDC in the vault; as of the time of posting, about two transactions have transferred approximately $1.01 million.
My bearish view is on the risk pricing of this type of vault, for two reasons. First, from the disclosed attack path, the problem lies in whether the shares can be abnormally amplified; the flash loan is just a tool. If you only focus on the flash loan, you may overlook the constraints between assets and shares. Second, the material does not mention any issues with Avalanche's underlying consensus. Extrapolating a single vault incident to a full-chain crisis is a stretch; however, for products relying on similar layered designs, I would be more cautious rather than assume they have the same vulnerabilities.
Of course, those worried about risk contagion might also be right. If subsequent disclosures show the problem involves components reused by multiple vaults, I will broaden the scope of caution; if evidence points to isolated implementation errors, I will narrow my judgment. What I will focus on next is the boundary of the vulnerability, not substituting chain names for analysis.$BTC is currently priced at 81,003.1 USDT, up 0.58% intraday, recovering steadily from the low of 79,477. The 1-hour MACD red bars are expanding, price has broken through the upper Bollinger Band, but RSI6 is already at 72.08, entering overbought territory. The underlying tone of this rebound is a "position front-running" ahead of the FOMC, rather than a macro shift. Macro suppression remains the core contradiction. The 10-year US Treasury yield is stuck stubbornly near 5.00%, with real yields approaching the highest since 2008, keeping the opportunity cost of risk-free assets high. CME data shows about a 91% probability of no change this week, but the market's real concern is that the December rate hike expectation has surged to nearly 80%. The "hawkish tail risk" of the interest rate path is not fully priced in, and any hawkish remarks from Powell could quickly erode this rebound. The "island effect" in funding is weakening the foundation of the rebound. On Monday, BTC spot ETF net inflows were $110.3 million, but 100% came from BlackRock's IBIT alone, with FBTC, GBTC, and others precisely zero. This is not a healthy capital inflow but a collapse of institutional exposure into a single channel—October still saw a net outflow of over $300 million for the whole month, and the ETF "breadth" is narrowing. Technically, the upper resistance at $81,500 is the true macro hard ceiling. Glassnode data shows that the weighted average cost basis of spot ETF investors across the US is right around $81,500, and every rebound to this level encounters selling to break even. The current price is only about $500 away from this level 💻 For this piece of information, I want to break it down by code review. The input is: According to Bloomberg, after Bitcoin's summer rebound, it fell back to around $80,000, with attempts to reach $100,000 facing continuous selling pressure. Buyers over the past two years have costs concentrated at $87,000 and above; the selling pressure near this level has suppressed rebounds twice this year, each followed by at least a 25% pullback.
My judgment: This news is explanatory, but using it as a predictor overestimates its value. For someone like me who watches the market, the most useful need is to identify resistance, not to preset parameters for the next pullback in advance.
Logically, concentrated cost means many holders might sell when close to breakeven, which does explain why rebounds are difficult. But a potential bug is: cost price does not equal sell orders, and holders won’t uniformly execute "sell as soon as breakeven." If all potential selling pressure is counted as definite supply, resistance might be exaggerated—this is my speculation.
Another bug is the sample size is only twice this year. The at least 25% pullback is a historical result and cannot be directly copied to the next cycle. Correlation can trigger risk warnings but is insufficient to prove the same drop will recur.
If it were me, I would revise the conclusion to a condition to be verified: when the price approaches the concentrated cost zone again, observe whether the sell orders can be continuously absorbed, rather than only focusing on round number levels. Please help me review: to verify this logic, would you prioritize looking at volume expansion or the price’s ability to hold after a rally? What key variable did I miss? $BTC $ETH ETF only buys Bitcoin, not Ethereum; what is the options market guarding against?
Yesterday's data on US stock spot ETFs was very interesting. Breaking it down reveals the attitude of the funds:
BTC ETF net inflow was $110.3 million, but note, this entire $110 million came from BlackRock's IBIT, with zero inflow or outflow from others. The full month of October still saw a net outflow of about $202 million. ETH ETF net outflow was $88.6 million, with BlackRock's ETHA single-day outflow of $104.7 million, and only Fidelity's FETH had a slight inflow of $16.1 million.
The conclusion is clear: institutions only recognize BTC at the 800,000 level, and are continuously withdrawing from ETH.
Looking at options further clarifies the issue: the most active BTC contract is the October 28 expiration put option with a strike price of 77,000, followed by the 84,000 call option; among the six most active ETH contracts, four are puts, led by the October 29 expiration put with a strike price of 2,000.
The one-month implied volatility skew dropped from 14.5% to 12.5%, puts are still more expensive than calls, but the premium is narrowing.
My understanding: big money is buying insurance, not betting on a full downturn. At the 800,000 level, institutions neither want to liquidate nor do they want surprises from the FOMC and midterm elections, so they hedge with options—this is precisely typical midterm bottom behavior, not panic.
Glassnode also has data: the profit ratio of short-term holders dropped from nearly 100% at the end of September to 70%, indicating profit-taking pressure has indeed cooled.
Don't go all in before the rate decision. The Federal Reserve interest rate decision is coming tomorrow! 👀
Interestingly, during the last FOMC rate decision, $BTC happened to bottom out on the same day and then rebounded 16% over the following week.
History doesn't simply repeat itself, but it often leaves clues worth studying for the market.
Will a similar trend appear again this time? Focus on the rate decision, Powell's speech, and the market's expectations for the future rate cut path. For me, convenient trading does not equal favorable odds. The Hong Kong Investment Committee issued a reminder that buying and selling tokenized funds in the secondary market involves four types of risks: price spread/trading, liquidity, price segmentation, and reliance on market makers. It is also necessary to clarify the underlying fund and whether the settlement is on-chain or off-chain.
I prefer to see this message as cooling down the "tokenization premium" rather than denying the concept of funds going on-chain. According to my speculation, if the pricing depends on a few market makers, then the exit cost might offset the benefits brought by convenience; if prices are segmented across different trading channels, then seeing a low price does not necessarily mean there is a bargain to be had.
From my perspective, only when the underlying fund is understandable, the exit costs are acceptable, and the settlement responsibilities are clearly defined, does the convenience factor deserve to be included in the expected value; without these, no matter how novel the story is, it is not worthwhile. This reminder makes me more inclined to believe that future discussions will shift from the convenience of going on-chain to the exit conditions. I will first look at whether these conditions are clearly explained and will not substitute technical novelty for risk assessment.Let's talk separately about ETH's relative strength
ETH is currently around 2353, with gains on October 27 stronger than BTC, showing more resilience on the market.
But on the other hand, ETH spot ETFs are still seeing outflows, indicating a divergence between capital flow and price performance: strong gains do not mean buying is continuously increasing.
My view is to first see if this relative strength can hold up against the backdrop of ETF outflows, then determine whether it's a rotation catch-up or sustained strength, without rushing to treat it as a confirmed reversal.
Discussion: Do you think ETH's relative strength can continue, or is it just a short-term outperformance?
Personal opinion, not investment advice
#ETF #以太坊 $ETH #本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 📊 $ETH funding divergence intensifies: treasury buying, ETF selling
BitMine (BMNR) latest disclosure shows holding 6,051,933 ETH as of October 25, 14:00 EST, about 4.95% of the total network. Added another 10,452 last week, with a staking scale of about 5.22 million ETH, annualized staking yield about $318 million according to company standards. Only about 58,000 ETH short of its 5% target, but buying pace has slowed; whether it can continue to increase holdings is key 👀.
On the other hand, $ETH spot ETFs had a net outflow of about $88.6 million yesterday, with a cumulative outflow of about $1.31 billion in the past 30 days. Listed companies are buying weekly, but spot funds are reducing positions, showing a clear conflict in capital direction. Strategy almost stopped buying BTC this week, BitMine and Strive are still expanding their balance sheets, as if capital is selecting targets to continue expanding.
Current price about 2,314, 24-hour high 2,344, low 2,296. Short-term support at 2,295-2,305, reduce positions if it breaks below 2,295; resistance at 2,340-2,365, don't chase if it can't break through. Stop loss below 2,285, target first at 2,380. Keep position light, do not leverage before FOMC decision ⚠️. Before ETF funds return, relying solely on treasury buying to support price, I still don't believe it 💡. #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #美伊讨论霍尔木兹开放方案，油价回落 Sir A's live trading record｜Day 298 of dollar-cost averaging SOL, a pullback of 27,000 from the peak, but I choose to keep accumulating coins 🚀
📅 Check-in day: Day 298
💰 Current holdings: 145.01 SOL
📈 Current profit and loss: +16.27% (unrealized profit about 13,663 CNY)
🏷️ Current price: ~101.94 USDT
Today's total account assets are 98,000, a pullback of 27,000 from the previous high of 125,000. Seeing the account shrink, it's honestly painful. 🫠
But my strategy has always been simple:
1️⃣ Enable automatic buying, regardless of rise or fall, acquire coins as planned.
2️⃣ Put them in Simple Earn to earn interest, accumulating while making money.
3️⃣ Uninstall the app, don't watch the market, live well.
As long as the chips held keep increasing, short-term fluctuations are just a numbers game. In this market, lasting longer is more important than making quick profits! Waiting quietly for the next main upward wave! 🏔️
Anyone else dollar-cost averaging SOL? Raise your hand in the comments! 🙋♂️
SOL dollar-cost averaging #OKXPlanet #Solana #LiveTradingRecord #FinanceDaily #CoinAccumulator #本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3营收首破100万亿韩元 $BTC $ETH In the futures market, no matter how lively the trading on an exchange is, I always look at how much industrial hedging and how much short-term capital there is. Speculation provides liquidity and is not inherently wrong, but if growth relies entirely on sentiment, when the market cools down, the underlying business quality will be revealed. My view on this Solana news follows the same habit.
According to Bloomberg, Solana is seeking to shift from relying on Meme coins and speculative trading to financial applications such as stablecoins and tokenized assets, aiming for adoption by Wall Street; JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Standard Chartered, as well as Visa and Fiserv have already started related operations on the network. The material does not provide business scale, so I will not directly equate these names with growth.
My judgment is that this looks more like a catch-up in business resilience against economic cycles, rather than a direct positive factor that can be applied to the coin price. If payment and asset circulation can generate sustained demand, then the network has a chance to reduce its dependence on speculative enthusiasm; but there is still a gap between institutions starting business and the business having already formed scale, with actual usage in between.
The crypto market is different from traditional futures; network usage does not necessarily mean value will be transmitted to tokens in the same proportion. For ordinary holders, this distinction is more important than the list of institutions. What I want to see next is whether these applications can maintain stable demand, first separating the accounting of "someone coming" and "someone staying."According to this position update, Brother Maji's perpetual contract portfolio remains BTC short, ETH long, and HYPE short. The most noteworthy aspect is not the directional combination, but the profit and loss distribution: BTC short position is profitable, ETH long and HYPE short positions are under pressure, and the funding fees have not fully offset the unrealized losses. 📊 Breaking down the three positions: BTC short: 40X full position, holding -243.96 BTC, position value 19,641,400 U; entry price 84070.0 U, unrealized profit +868,700 U, funding fee income +129,300 U; margin 491,000 U, listed liquidation price 100,208.7. ETH long: 25X full position, holding 7,223.81 ETH, position value 16,944,200 U; entry price 2500.18 U, unrealized P&L -1,116,700 U, funding fee expense -63,500 U; margin 677,800 U, listed liquidation price 1658.24. HYPE short: 5X full position, holding -268,300 HYPE, position value 21,550,900 U; entry price 66.2399 U, unrealized P&L -3,778,700 U, funding fee income +1,102,600 U; margin 4,310,200 U, listed liquidation price 96.81. 💡 My view. This portfolio shows that having both long and short positions simultaneously does not mean the risk is already offset. The unrealized loss on the ETH long exceeds the unrealized profit on the BTC short, and HYPE is the largest source of unrealized loss among the three positions. The relative positions of different coinsLast night, the global markets were all celebrating, with the Nasdaq leading the gains at 1.18%, Tesla soaring 4 points, and tech stocks pushing the broader market upward. The US October Consumer Confidence Index also rose from 84.2 to 91.7. Looks lively, right? But after digging into the underlying data, I found this is all a damn illusion. Consumer confidence has indeed risen, but the World Federation of Large Enterprises' survey plainly states that while people verbally express confidence, they actually plan to drastically cut spending on services and big durable goods over the next six months. What does this mean? It means emotional recovery is masking a real contraction in demand. Looking at the corporate side, September's core capital goods orders rose 0.5% month-over-month, and shipments increased 1.2%, but in the face of a high-interest environment, companies' actual profitability is being tested. So don’t look at the US stock market rally and think the bull market is back; there are hidden reefs beneath the surface. Shifting focus back to our market: BTC is currently quoted at 80,683, up slightly by 0.5%, but this is hardly something to celebrate. Look at Glassnode’s data: the comprehensive holding cost tracking corporate treasuries is around $80,200. The current price is tightly defending the institutional floor. On the upside, the $81,200 to $81,700 range accumulates a clear potential short liquidation zone, less than 1.5% from the current price; on the downside, $78,700 to $79,300 is the long liquidation danger zone. This position is extremely awkward, with both bulls and bears walking a tightrope. If volume-driven selling breaks below 80,000, it will trigger another chain of massive liquidations. On the news front, there isA Brazilian election saw someone earn 1.77 million USD, while others were hit by both stock market circuit breakers and on-chain liquidations.
On October 26, Lula defeated Flávio Bolsonaro with 51.79% of the vote, breaking the historical pattern since Brazil resumed direct presidential elections in 1989, where "the first-round leader never lost in the second round."
Suspicious winners also appeared in prediction markets.
According to monitoring by @poly_beats, two newly registered accounts$BTC #ThisWeekOctoberFOMCInterestRateDecisionAnnouncement
#BTC weak rebound at 80,000 threshold: positions piled up with full leverage, two-way harvesting before FOMC
The 4-hour chart shows BTC falling back from the high of 87,238, dipping to a low of 79,220 before starting a weak recovery, currently reported around 80,950. Technically, MACD and KDJ both show golden crosses, indicating short-term rebound momentum remains, but MA5/MA10/MA20 all show bearish pressure, heavy trapped positions above 81,000, insufficient rebound volume makes effective breakthrough difficult, overall still a consolidation after decline, with box lower support at 79,178.
Capital flow divergence is extremely obvious: spot ETF side sees slight daily BTC inflow, institutions cautiously test buying at 80,000 threshold; ETH only minor inflows, SOL continuous outflows, large funds have not fully entered yet. Contract open interest climbs to 31,000 contracts, price dropped 5,000 points in the past month but open interest rose instead of falling, a typical pattern of increased positions during decline, with both long and short leverage accumulating; recent rebound accompanied by slight open interest decline, only partial short profit-taking exits, overall high leverage status unchanged.
Bearish pressure not yet lifted: on-chain whales turned bearish for the first time in 3 months, leading enterprises’ holders sold BTC for the first time, short-term holders’ exchange inflows have turned loss-dominant. Before FOMC release, volatility under high positions will be significantly amplified, rising triggers short stop-losses causing a surge, falling triggers long liquidations causing a crash, very high probability of two-way shakeout, heavy one-sided bets are easily trapped and harvested at this time.Today, we first look at capital inflows, but it's still too early to judge a reversal. BTC spot and futures are synchronously flowing in short-term, ETH leveraged funds are replenishing more noticeably, while SOL spot is being supported but futures are still retreating. BTC spot net inflow over 4 hours is $111 million, futures net inflow is $36.18 million. Extending to 24 hours, spot net inflow is $179 million, but futures net outflow is $92.74 million. The 30-day futures net outflow has expanded to $7.83 billion, indicating short-term buying has returned, but mid-term deleveraging is not over yet. ETH spot net inflow over 4 hours is $51.64 million, futures net inflow is $221 million. Over 24 hours, spot net inflow is $87.02 million, futures net inflow is $185 million. However, 30-day spot net outflow is $3.77 billion, futures net outflow is $8.29 billion. Short-term replenishment is stronger than BTC, but mid-term capital structure remains weak. SOL spot net inflow over 4 hours is $8.66 million, futures net inflow is $4.53 million. Over 24 hours, spot net inflow is $23.7 million, but futures net outflow is $58.94 million. The 30-day futures cumulative net outflow is $2.17 billion, indicating spot is being supported but leveraged funds remain cautious about the rebound. BTC short-term capital is flowing back, ETH futures funds are rushing in, SOL spot support is most obvious. It now looks more like capital replenishment after continuous retreat, not a trend reversal yet. Continue to watch if the rebound can bring sustained increments; otherwise, there is still a risk of pullback after a rally. $BTC $ETH $SOL 🔍 Is the sell-off taking profits or waiting to break even? According to Bloomberg, $BTC has fallen back to around $80,000. Buyers' costs have concentrated at $87,000 and above over the past two years. This area has suppressed rebounds twice this year, each time followed by a pullback of at least 25%.
Don't rush to conclusions; cost does not equal sell orders. This is my speculation: if breaking even is the main reason for exiting, then turnover of positions is more important than the round number level, because the expectations of those taking over may differ. I will watch whether the selling pressure near $87,000 weakens.$ETH's rebound is losing its conviction, and the most honest evidence comes from trading volume. After the MACD golden cross, buyers did not increase their positions as the market expected, especially during the prime time after the open, where the overall market was still rejected by price — this is not a clean attack but more like a tentative pullback. Zooming out, the US semiconductor sector surged today, with funds clearly tilting towards chip stocks, but the crypto market did not stabilize in sync. $ETH is oscillating repeatedly around the dangerous 2300 level, just one step away from 2227. This level is critical because if it breaks and accelerates downward, even the 0.618 retracement level may not hold; if it evolves into a phase decline, the entire upward trend risks ending. In other words, 2227 is not just a number; it is the last line of defense for the current bullish logic. My current judgment leans bearish: buyers did not show volume at the key window, indicating insufficient willingness to chase highs, while external funds are being drawn to semiconductors, leaving $ETH lacking incremental support. But there is an easily overlooked divergence point here — if 2227 can hold, I personally tend to believe there is still room for upward movement after adjustment, and the bulls have not completely surrendered control. The market's current divergence lies precisely in the binary question of "whether it can hold" rather than the direction itself. The real signal to watch is not the height of the price rebound but whether there is volume support near 2227. A rebound on shrinking volume is a bull trap; only a volume-supported stop to the decline signals a reversal starting.$PEPE
After a year, a whale transferred out 1.45 trillion PEPE tokens. This address originally acquired the chips at a very low cost, and after the transfer, it still holds a floating profit of over 5 million.
PEPE surged more than 14% in the past 24 hours, currently trading around 0.00000493, and the Meme sector as a whole also rose nearly 4%, making it quite lively to watch.
One opinion I've heard is that PEPE is back on track. My view is not so optimistic—the old holders are moving out while the hype lasts; this kind of rise feels more like an emotional pulse. Anyway, I have never caught a bargain in the Meme hype, so this time I'll just watch first.
Wallets are more honest than words; no matter how much it rises, I'm just observing.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 Macro conditions are not yet favorable for Bitcoin.
Fed balance sheet is stuck at $6.75 trillion, but they will have to step in for debt markets eventually.
Be patient!As of the week ending October 18, the daily oil flow through the Strait of Hormuz was about 14 million barrels, only 82% of the pre-war level.
The daily number of commercial vessels passing through dropped from more than 20 per day before the conflict to at least 10.
Since the beginning of this month, there have been about 30 attacks on ships in and around Hormuz, accounting for 20% of all ships attacked during the entire war.
Freight rates for supertankers heading to Asia are approaching a record high of $37.37 per barrel. War risk insurance premiums have surged from less than 3% of the vessel's value to as high as 10%.
Oil is still flowing. But the cost of that flow has multiplied several times over.
In the past four geopolitical conflicts, BTC has always "fallen first and then risen."
In 2022 Russia-Ukraine, it initially dropped 8%, then rebounded 14% after four days.
In 2023 Israel-Hamas, it fell 6% that week, then surged 40% over the next 30 days.
In 2025 India-Pakistan, it dropped 3% on the day, then recovered the next day.
In February 2026, after the US-Israel bombing of Iran, it plunged 6%, then rebounded 17%.
The script was exactly the same four times. But the four rebounds share one common premise: energy supply was never truly cut off.
Russian oil was still being sold, the Pakistan conflict did not affect oil routes, and the February bombing did not block the strait.
This time, the premise has changed.
The Iranian Foreign Minister made it very clear: the management and navigation of Hormuz "will no longer be the same as before."
In recent weeks, the Revolutionary Guard has taken action against at least seven "violating" oil tankers; between October 21 and 22, seven tankers were attacked or struck mines. On October 27, a tanker with its tracking system turned off struck a mine and caught fire in the eastern strait. The Iranian Navy explicitly stated: vessels passing without coordination make Hormuz "an unsafe state."
The US Central Command said "there are no Iranian mines on the main shipping routes." Iran responded the next day with a burning tanker.
Both sides speak their own words. But tanker traffic data does not lie: flow is decreasing, costs are rising.
Brent crude oil is about $113.88 today, WTI near $99.90, briefly dipping below $100 intraday before pulling back.
Oil prices above $100 mean the pressure of inflation penetrating from the energy sector into core inflation is real. The Federal Reserve's room for rate cuts is nailed down by oil prices; the denominator of risk asset valuations is held down by yields.
The 10-year US Treasury yield hovers near 5%, reaching 5.365% on October 7, a 24-year high.
BTC returned to $81,000 today, up 1%. But it still fell 2.8% over the past 7 days, with heavy selling pressure above after failing to break $100,000.
A 1% rise does not mean safety. It only means the market is still waiting for an answer.
$BTC $XAU $BZ $BTC has dropped to around 80,000, so why am I not rushing to buy the dip?
It's not that I don't want to buy at the low point, but I'm afraid of running out of bullets too early. If the market keeps falling afterward, I won't have money to cope.
A big drop doesn't mean the selling pressure has been fully cleared. The market is still waiting for signals from the Federal Reserve. Even if interest rates meet expectations, it doesn't necessarily mean prices will rise. The key is to watch the statements, liquidity, and sustained buying.
I'm waiting for three signals:
1. Whether 80,000 can truly hold, not just a fake recovery followed by another drop
2. Whether the rebound has volume; a rebound without volume doesn't count as a reversal
3. Whether there are buyers stepping in on the pullback; active buying and a pause in selling are two different things
I'm not bearish, nor am I refusing to buy. Once it stabilizes, I'll enter in batches; if it breaks down, I'll cut losses—no stubborn holding on.In the AI industry chain, the traditional mechanical hard drive sector has recently been quite impressive🤨
In the early hours of October 28, Seagate released its latest financial report, showing a 61% year-over-year increase in quarterly revenue, a gross margin of 57.3%, and free cash flow hitting a company record.
At the same time, the company expects revenue to continue growing next quarter!
Previously, when people talked about AI storage, the focus was mostly on HBM and manufacturers like Samsung and SK Hynix.
However, as data center scales expand, long-term storage of massive data also requires large-capacity storage devices with sufficiently low costs.
This happens to be the advantage of traditional mechanical hard drives.
Seagate's HAMR technology is helping it increase single-drive capacity, and combined with growing demand and supply management, profitability has shown significant improvement.
The benefits brought by AI infrastructure expansion are spreading to those traditional hardware segments that were once less noticed.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 Breaking news: This morning I was still writing about Bitcoin holding at 81,000, then I casually opened OKX and saw the latest spot price at 80,791, with a 24-hour low of 79,505. Numbers that don’t match after just one night speak louder than any analysis.
This week it has already fallen below 80,000 twice; the last time was on the 23rd at 79,220, the lowest in five weeks. This morning it was just $300 short of that level, then bounced back to around 81,300 before someone started selling again, with the 24-hour high stopping at 81,298.
Beyond the price, a few other numbers are worth noting. Coinbase premium has been negative for over a month, hitting -0.176% this morning, the lowest in five months, with hardly any buying during the US session; Hyperliquid whales have turned net short for the first time since March, and in the previous bottom they were the most accurate at going long; Strategy’s SEC filings this week show they haven’t bought a single coin.
So my stance is: this looks more like a downward continuation than a shakeout before a takeoff. The 80,000 level is notorious for whipsawing; I made a wrong call in a similar area last week, and I admit it rather than stubbornly holding on.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 $BTC has been bought up to the bottom? #本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 10/28｜Willy Woo's Weather Station ran 10,000 simulations. On 10/26, he posted 10,000 BTC simulated paths: median peak in December 2028 at 413,000; 28th-50th percentile reasonable range 241,000-413,000. The model uses a random walk trained on history from the 2018 bottom to the 2022 bottom, with diminishing returns (power-law decay 0.45), adjusted by market cycle phase. He insists "this is a simulation, not my prediction" and also shows: median pullback to 234,000 in April 2030, surge to 1,030,000 in February 2033. On 10/27, BTC was about 80,000, roughly 37% below the October 2025 high of 126,080. I'll keep this simulation for now; the truth will be revealed by the end of 2028 $CL Important things said three times
The US is not short of oil—the US is not short of oil—the US is not short of oil!
Oil = Dollar—Oil = Dollar—Oil = Dollar!
After the midterm elections, I believe oil prices will plummet, because although high oil prices can enhance the international status of the dollar, they also cause everyone to reject using the dollar.
From the perspective of international security, if Ukraine does not receive new support on the Russia-Ukraine battlefield, a ceasefire is inevitable. At that time—if the US and Iran do not cease hostilities, the next conflict hotspot will shift to them. The US military is domineering, but they are not stupid; they will not fight a protracted transoceanic war thousands of miles away, as their power would only be weakened. Therefore, peace talks between the US and Iran are imperative.
The end of the midterms is a signal; the political significance represented by the midterms is huge. No one will offend voters at this time. High oil prices have already seriously affected the lives of their own citizens, so lowering oil prices has become a political task.
One last point: The US is not short of oil, so why are oil prices high?
Because the previous high oil prices were used as a tool to harvest the global economy and stabilize domestic prices, but with the midterms approaching and competition intensifying, this tool must be discarded.
Finally, wishing everyone prosperity~If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: if a listed company continuously fails to withdraw disclosed crypto assets, then increase the risk weight for asset availability 🤖. Datavault AI reported that starting from June 2026, the inability to withdraw $BTC stored in Biconomy caused its stock price to plummet nearly 50%. These BTC came from a deal where Scilex purchased its stock and warrants for $150 million.
I think this is more like a company asset quality alert and shouldn't be directly interpreted as bearish for Bitcoin. If the money can't be withdrawn, it might affect cash flow; these BTC were transferred off-chain and recorded in the wallet, so just looking at the deposit records is insufficient to verify availability. The advantage of this rule is that it captures specific anomalies, but the flaw is: inability to withdraw does not equal a loss, and the stock price drop cannot be directly treated as a loss rate.
As a quant newbie, I also need to add a condition to lift the alert, otherwise it will keep triggering. If you were to write it, would you lift it after a successful test withdrawal, or require that the entire balance can be independently verified?Ridiculous, ridiculous, a Nasdaq-listed company can't withdraw its own Bitcoin, and its stock price was halved in one day 😂 This company is called Datavault AI, stock code DVLT. In September 2025, another listed company subscribed to its stock, totaling $150 million, all paid in Bitcoin, which at the time was roughly equivalent to 1,328 coins. The coins never moved on-chain; the other party simply credited 1,309 coins to its account on a small exchange, basically just changing numbers on a ledger. By January 2026, it sold 491 of those coins back to the other party, receiving about $40.5 million in cash. The remaining approximately 817.6 coins, valued at just over $80,000 per coin now, are worth about $66 million and have been sitting in that exchange account. In June this year, the company tried to transfer the coins to an external wallet, but after submitting the request, there was no follow-up. Four months passed. Not a single coin was withdrawn. On October 26, the company announced that the past four financial reports can no longer be trusted. These Bitcoins do not meet the criteria to be counted as their own assets and must be reclassified as subscription receivables owed by the other party. Just at the end of 2025, total assets need to be cut by about $92.2 million. The next trading day, the stock price crashed, dropping about 49.55% in 24 hours, hitting a low near $0.07. A company that relies on Bitcoin for its image, with coins on the books that are visible but intangible, and finally even the financial reports become invalid. The coins are held by someone else; who really owns the numbers on the screen? You only find out when you try to withdraw. Newbies are advised to watch more and trade less; when buying coins, only buy $BTC.📌Early Wednesday market session, 4 cryptocurrencies await Thursday's Washington press conference
$BTC 80,980
80,000 is the maximum strike price for options this cycle, with market makers placing a large number of hedge orders here. The Washington press conference early Thursday, after a rate hike in September, will most likely keep rates unchanged this time. However, with inflation still high at 3.7%, if the speech is hawkish, the 80,000 level will be tested. Avoid heavy speculation.
$ENA 0.215
High interest rate environment actually benefits these yield-bearing coins 🌾
USDe earns interest by collateralizing short-term U.S. Treasuries. If the Washington speech is hawkish and the high interest rate cycle is extended, the appeal of yield-bearing stablecoins will increase. This logic is contrary to the usual expectations of rate cuts, so do not blindly chase.
$ASTER 0.704
Multi-chain contract DEX is currently inactive 🛰️
The project rules are complete, but trading volume is only a few hundred thousand USD, with funds waiting on the FOMC outcome. Without new event catalysts, it is difficult to attract funds in the short term.
$HYPE 77.3
Protocol fee dividends await quarterly settlement 📊
Holding HYPE entitles you to on-chain transaction fee shares. On-chain trading data is strong this week, but the coin price has not risen accordingly; the market is waiting for the quarterly dividend to be implemented.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 In the past 24 hours, BTC hit a low of 79505 (OKX), while Binance was at 79468. The 80,000 line was truly broken once, but now it's back above 80,700.
Wintermute's reminder came just in time: after three consecutive weeks of decline, 80,000 is a key support. The support was pierced once before being bought back, which is quite ironic.
I see quite a bit of divergence. On one hand, people say the support is critical; on the other, CryptoQuant data shows the proportion of dormant coins falling to 26.59%, indicating early funds are moving; the four major Korean exchanges still have a 0.73% premium. The funding rate is 0.01%, no squeeze, OI is 2.57 billion USD, and no one is rushing to leverage up.
To take a side: this time is a probe, not a hold. If it really drops further, it depends on whether the next layer can hold; standing above 80,000 for a few more days means this three-week decline has finally eased.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 Regarding tokenized stocks, I stand with Ethereum.
Just saw that OKX's tokenized stock plan wants to be based on Ethereum, but it was opposed by 26 issuers. It feels frustrating, but that's the reality—everyone wants to hold the bowl of tokenized stocks themselves, and who controls the settlement rights is even harder to negotiate than the product itself.
ETH is now hovering around 2341, with a 24-hour high/low of 2357/2297, not moving at all with this news. The market never reacts instantly to such matters.
My judgment: tokenized stocks will ultimately need to circulate cross-platform, and there's no way around Ethereum's network. Opposition aside, there are only one or two chains that can serve as a universal settlement layer, and I bet on Ethereum.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议