Orbit Post Sitemap
$BTC dropped from over 80,000 straight down to 75,500, with nearly 1.1 billion liquidated across the network, over 200,000 people wiped out, longs making up the absolute majority. The 75,000 line is now a short-term life-or-death level; if it can't hold, below is a vacuum.
$ETH is even more fragile, falling from 2,400 down to just over 2,200, dropping more than 7%. The more elastic it is, the harder it falls. On the ETF side, BlackRock's ETHA moved 90.76 million in one day, while staked ETHB only saw a return flow of 1.15 million, which is just a drop in the bucket.
This week, A-shares media sector led with a 13.41% gain, followed by power equipment at 9.33%. The 21 photovoltaic stocks hitting the daily limit look lively, but out of the 2.12 trillion turnover, the 80.3 billion released—whether it's allocation funds or just a pulse of existing sentiment—is far more important than the number of limit-ups.
On Friday, US chip stocks bounced a bit, but the S&P information technology sector crashed over 7.3% in a single day for the week, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 12.2%, and the Nasdaq has already technically corrected. Next Tuesday's CPI month-over-month is expected at 0.3%, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%. CoreWeave's earnings report is coming soon; once AI infrastructure financing costs show weakness, this tech stock correction won't be over. 🚨 Is the DOGE technical upgrade being overhyped? Don't rush to claim it surpasses BTC; the real focus should be on this!
Recently, discussions about $DOGE technical debt fixes have been increasing, with some even describing it as having completely solved the transaction malleability issue long before Bitcoin.
But I think this conclusion is a bit exaggerated.
Technical progress is worth acknowledging, but history shouldn't be casually rewritten, nor should a key patch upgrade be packaged as a comprehensive lead.
First, let's clarify what transaction malleability is.
Simply put, transaction malleability means that before a transaction is confirmed in a block, certain transaction data may change, causing the transaction ID (TXID) to change, but the actual transfer content of the transaction remains unchanged.
This is especially important for trading platforms.
If a platform relies solely on the original TXID to determine transaction status, it may misidentify transactions and even risk processing funds repeatedly.
The Mt.Gox incident listed transaction malleability as one of the issues, but the entire loss of the event cannot be attributed solely to this technical vulnerability. Wallet management, internal reconciliation, and long-term security issues are also unavoidable factors.
Now, let's look at DOGE's technical upgrade.
In 2015, Dogecoin Core 1.10 introduced strict DER signature encoding rules related to BIP66, which were activated in 2016.
This upgrade indeed has technical significance, but three details need attention:
1️⃣ It mainly targets signature encoding specifications, Tether invests another €28.8 million in Juventus but abstains from voting on the financial report
Tether confirmed its participation in Juventus' €250 million capital increase, contributing €28.8 million for an 11.5% stake. At the shareholders' meeting on November 3, it voted in favor of the capital increase plan but abstained from all other ordinary shareholders' meeting proposals, including approving the club's annual financial report showing a €66 million loss.
The feelings of those co-investing and those watching differ. In last November's €98 million capital increase round, Tether contributed €11.7 million and opposed the specific arrangements of the capital increase at that time; this time, it supports the capital increase but abstains on the loss financial report, making its stance clearer: it is willing to continue funding but does not endorse the accounts.
What is worth noting is this division. In December 2025, it made a binding non-solicited offer to the major shareholder Exor to acquire all shares, which was rejected. Now, by maintaining its stake and co-investing proportionally, whether it is holding its position or preparing to negotiate again, the next capital increase and Exor's moves will provide the answer.At 7:30 PM, brothers, was your weekend nerve-wracking? Just finished dinner and collapsed on the sofa, thinking about going to bed early tonight to be ready for work tomorrow, but then I checked the contract data. Good grief, it almost gave me a shock. The dog whales are definitely sharpening their knives overtime!
First, look at $DOGE current price 0.071, the 4-hour long-short ratio has directly risen to a terrifying 5.34. Retail investors are all crowded on the long side, desperately holding their positions at the bottom. The load is too heavy. The dog whales must be grinning at this data. They won’t let this batch of people survive without liquidating them to push the price up.
Next, $PEPE current price 0.0000049, long-short ratio 2.46, looks a bit more normal, but glance at the funding rate, it occasionally dips into negative territory, indicating the longs are currently being slowly cut like with a blunt knife. This position is half-dead, purely testing retail investors’ patience. Don’t blindly touch it.
The worst is definitely the new coin $AKE current price 0.0056, slashed from a high of 0.16 straight to the ankle, down nearly 99%. Its funding rate has gone absurdly negative at -0.85%, the shorts are basically numb. The long-short ratio crashed from 3.05 all the way down to 0.54. This is a classic peak at open scenario; everyone who tried to bottom-fish got slaughtered like piglets, a brutal chain stampede.
In summary, weekend altcoins are the dog whales’ cash machines. Crowded longs get hit anytime, and new coins are even more merciless, eating people alive without leaving bones. If the trend is unclear, don’t mess around. Preserving your principal is more important than anything.
Did your account shrink this weekend? Which of these three do you hold?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Conclusion first: I’m not chasing $CAP. It’s up 8.4% in 24 hours, but those chasing the high are paying real money.
Funding fees are the most honest ledger: on 11-07 at 20:00, the rate jumped to 0.0278%, which is 5.5 times the floor price of 0.005%; it then declined steadily back to 0.005% over the next six periods. Long position holders paid a total of 6.4 basis points over six settlement periods. At the same time, the position amount dropped from $7.12 million to $6.86 million.
What’s rising is leverage, not spot: According to CoinGecko, the global spot 24-hour trading volume of CAP is $23.5 million, while OKX alone saw $36.09 million in perpetual contract volume. During the 4-hour surge, volume was $25.33 million, accounting for 70% of the daily total; in the recent 4 hours, it dropped to only $1.18 million, a 95% shrink.
Price-wise, it peaked at 0.1123, now at 0.1006, a 10.5% retracement; it’s up 39% over 7 days, while today 97 major perpetual contracts in the market are down and 60 are up.
Circulating supply is only 15.6%, FDV is 1 billion; every unlock of this coin is a peak.
I’m not chasing this kind of rise. Do you think a coin whose "perpetual volume is bigger than spot" should be trusted when it breaks out? $CAP$BTC just dipped near 80200, the 4-hour long-short ratio still hangs at 2.23, and open interest hasn't dropped much. Many consider 80,000 a strong support level and add positions when it falls. The momentum is too heavy; the main players may not be willing to pull up quickly.
$ETH is even more awkward; its price has fallen the most severely, yet the long-short ratio surged to 3.02. Retail investors get braver as they weaken, while the overhead positions are leveraged, making it easy to trigger a chain liquidation with even a slight shake.
But the real drag is the ETF, which saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion USD last week, turning the cumulative inflow for 2026 negative. BlackRock's IBIT alone withdrew over 400 million on Friday.
Today, in the A-share market, 100 stocks hit the daily limit up with a turnover of 1.78 trillion. AI manga and photovoltaics took turns leading the rally, but banks and coal were the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs released 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
The 21 daily limit-ups in photovoltaics look lively, but out of the 2.12 trillion turnover, the 80.3 billion involved is more important to determine whether it's allocation funds or just a pulse of existing sentiment than the number of limit-ups.
The real test for the US stock market is next week. CPI lands on Tuesday, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%. CoreWeave's earnings follow closely. Once AI infrastructure financing costs show weakness, this tech stock correction won't be over.Stronger-than-expected U.S. October jobs data has increased market expectations of another Fed rate hike in December, creating fresh uncertainty for risk assets. Historical data since 2016 shows that $BTC declined 30 days after every rate hike that followed a pause. Across 7 cases, there were zero positive outcomes, with a median drop of 2.4%. The 2018 cycle is another warning sign, as Bitcoin lost roughly 42% between the U.S. midterm elections and December's rate hike. The sample size is limitLooking back at the forecast on November 6th at 19:05, the trend perfectly fulfilled the script of "rising first then dumping." Switching to the current 1-hour chart, the previously very long upper shadow has already established absolute resistance in the supply zone above.
According to Dow Theory, the main downtrend remains perfectly intact. From the data, the long-short ratio has collapsed from an extreme 1.94 down to 1.49, indicating a dramatic shift in collective psychology. The retail investors' "anchoring effect" has broken, and a long squeeze has caused the funding rate to reverse. The current structure is in the extension phase of the descending pivot, with volatility extremely subdued and no risk-reward ratio to speak of. Most likely, the trend will follow the path of least resistance, breaking the previous low to test the ultimate support. Awaiting the end of the trend."Slowing down the expansion of computing power might have more benefits than drawbacks," reading this sentence made my heart skip a beat 😰. Vitalik posted on X expressing disagreement with the strong emotional reactions against the anti-data center movement. He believes that what can be achieved by building more data centers in two years might also be possible within four years or even faster using existing data centers thanks to algorithmic advancements.
From my reading, it seems more like a discussion about the pace of technological development rather than a bearish verdict on AI-related assets. For someone like me who only invests spare money and fears volatility as a working professional, the most dangerous thing is turning a conditional judgment into a reason to chase the market. I won’t bet on any particular sector based on this.
One reason is that algorithmic efficiency can also drive capability improvements, so the speed of expansion alone doesn’t represent technological progress. Another is that he emphasizes the need to allow time for network security and biological risk responses; scientific applications are also constrained by factors beyond AI, so faster computing power expansion doesn’t mean results will be realized simultaneously. All this makes me feel that "slower means falling behind" is too simplistic, but his reasoning is not yet a realized outcome.
To be cautious, I will separate technical views from portfolio decisions and continue to observe whether efficiency improvements and security preparations show real progress. If the market turns this statement into a sector rivalry, my concern is that emotional volatility will be amplified. My reminder is: first see how much drawdown your spare money can bear, then see how compelling the story is.On November 6, the U.S. Treasury Department named eight Canadian OTC exchanges, including Nia Nations (NNCE) and Million Exchange (MillionEX). The most interesting part is not the sanctions themselves, but the timeline — five months ago, ZachXBT suggested taking action against the abuse of Iranian OTC brokers, and it has only now come to fruition.
What is OTC? It leaves no trace on the blockchain and is the final hidden channel for fiat currency inflows and outflows. Large currency exchanges, over-the-counter bulk trades, and cross-border money transfers all go through here. Sanctioning these eight is equivalent to sealing off this hidden channel, rather than targeting a few specific individuals.
Looking at ZachXBT’s reasoning: Canada has low legal enforcement efficiency globally, leading to widespread abuse. The subtext is — regulation doesn’t just look at where you are registered, but whether you actually allow transactions. The leniency dividend of registration location is being revoked item by item.
The market impact is a slow variable. In the short term, no one will sell $BTC just because eight Canadian OTCs are sanctioned, but it will raise the compliance costs of all OTC channels, with friction ultimately borne on every large inflow and outflow. The OTC liquidity of $ETH and stablecoins is most sensitive to this friction.
What’s truly worth considering is: when hidden channels are blocked one by one, will funds seek the next, more obscure hidden channel, or simply return to licensed, transparent channels? The former means regulation is always chasing, the latter means the "permissionless" narrative of crypto needs to be revalued.Brothers, the big coin's funding sentiment is very unified, no so many twists and turns. The chip structure is quite stable with no obvious mismatches.
But what does this ETH mean? The bullish positions are as high as 62%, the long positions are extremely crowded, but the 24-hour trading shows bearish volume has overtaken to 54%. Long-term heavy longs, but short-term funds are frantically defending against a drop. What kind of operation is this mismatch?
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 This morning's on-chain capital flow data gave a glaring signal: over $700 million in leveraged positions collectively exited within 24 hours, while the spot side's buying power was almost zero. This is not a rotation; it's an exit. 💸 First, look at the contract side. $BTC contracts saw a net outflow of $569 million, $ETH a net outflow of $114 million, and $SOL a net outflow of $25.38 million. The three major forces simultaneously reduced positions, with none increasing against the trend. Leveraged funds have always been amplifiers of the market; now that the amplifier is removed, what remains is a naked spot structure. The spot side is even more worrisome. $BTC spot net inflow was only $2.7 million, $ETH about $2.27 million—this volume wouldn't even count as a large transfer on a normal day. Meanwhile, $SOL spot continued a net outflow of $10.72 million, indicating holders are still exiting rather than adding positions. With no new funds entering, the bottom-fishing power is paper-thin, and any rebound lacks a solid foundation to hold it. Trading volume confirms the same logic: total network trading volume plummeted 56.7% in a single day, shrinking to $141.6 billion. Under shrinking volume, the market struggles to organize a strong reversal and is more prone to becoming a bull trap—pumping up, then being swallowed by sell orders. But there is one exception worth highlighting: $ZEC. Contracts had a net inflow of $12.38 million, spot net inflow of $19.18 million, showing two-way accumulation. While everyone else is fleeing, it alone is attracting money. This counter-trend capital behavior is extremely rare in a weak market and deserves a spot on the watchlist. The options side reveals contradictory sentiment. $BTC call option tradingThe $IREN contract has been signed, so why is the launch still a key variable?
IREN disclosed $200 million in quarterly AI cloud revenue and adjusted part of the launch schedule. Data center power supply, equipment arrival, and customer acceptance determine when billing starts, with capital expenditures possibly leading. If production starts according to the new milestones and prepayments cover the investment, execution risk decreases. If delivery is delayed again, the annualized contract figures will require a larger discount.Many people think Solana mining tokens are just a change in narrative with similar costs, but that's completely not the case.
Ordinary SPL tokens rely on the official built-in Token Program, with very low on-chain costs. Many can complete the launch process with less than 1 SOL, and some don't even require an audit.
However, Solana mining tokens, although the tokens themselves are also SPL, require additional deployment of mining contracts, audits to prevent coin farming, and long-term tasks like running computing power statistics, connecting to mining pools, and maintaining miner dashboards. Overall, whether it's a one-time investment or long-term operation, the expenses are much higher than ordinary Meme.
The mining token narrative looks attractive, but the capital threshold and technical risks are on a whole different level.
$SOL After reading, I noted three things. As someone who loves checklists, what I fear most is drawing the same conclusion from several different statuses.
1. According to PANews on November 8, the official website of JD.com's JD Coin Chain is currently inaccessible. The exact time of going offline is unknown, but Qichacha still shows the company as "still registered." My judgment is that this will weaken external confidence in the project's progress but is not enough to prove that the business has been terminated. The website status and company status are recorded in separate columns.
2. JD previously planned to issue a stablecoin pegged 1:1 to the Hong Kong dollar. JD Coin Chain entered the Hong Kong Monetary Authority sandbox in July 2024 but did not receive the first batch of licenses in April this year. The licenses were granted to Anchor Financial led by Standard Chartered and HSBC. I think this news should cool down the expectation that "big companies entering the market can quickly launch products": the sandbox is a testing phase and cannot be directly regarded as proof of approved issuance.
3. For ordinary users, I care more about whether there will be clear service explanations later rather than guessing reasons for the official website malfunction. If the official side continues to lack verifiable information, it will be even harder for users to judge which stage the project is at. This is my speculation and also shows that transparency itself affects trust.
I will record this as a project expectation adjustment rather than a negative for the entire stablecoin sector; what would you add as a fourth point, for example, judging that the project is still progressing, what verifiable evidence is most needed?$BTC daily chart shows a large bearish candle dropping near 75,000, with a total liquidation of 1.23 billion across the network, the long-short ratio still hanging at 3.02, but the funding rate has decreased. The ETF saw a single-day outflow of 430 million, with nearly 1.3 billion withdrawn cumulatively in November; the price is holding firm, but the money is leaving.
$ETH's dilemma is even more typical. 45.2 million tokens are staked, with 1.37 million queued to enter, waiting 24 days, yet the ETF had a net outflow of over 1.2 billion in October, and ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low of 0.029. The stakers and the withdrawers are two groups telling different stories with different money.
There is also new news: Solana made a high-profile ad push in Shanghai, which was directly stopped by the central bank, and the involved entities are under investigation.
Today, 100 stocks hit the daily limit in the A-share market, with a turnover of 1.78 trillion. AI manga dramas are booming in batches of 20CM, but banks and coal are the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs released 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
The US Nasdaq has fallen nearly 12% from its high, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index crashed over 12% in a single day, chip stocks bounced slightly on Friday, but Tuesday's CPI month-over-month expectation was 0.3%, with nearly 80% betting on a rate hike in December. CoreWeave's earnings report is coming soon.Withdrawal resumption ≠ buying pressure return, don't mistake channel reopening as a bottom-fishing signal.
Binance has resumed withdrawals for HYPE and APT. Previously, it phased the resumption of stablecoins on the Ethereum network such as RLUSD, USD1, TUSD, FDUSD, XUSD, as well as tokens like ENA, USDE, PENDLE, WLD, LINK, ONDO, ETHFI; and assets on the Solana network including USD1, FDUSD, PUMP, TRUMP, JUP, BONK, WIF, RENDER. The official statement says that as security checks complete, more assets and networks will continue to be resumed in phases.
The judgment leans positive, reflecting sentiment recovery. Withdrawal resumption means the previously paused risk control security inspections are concluding in stages, users regain liquidity, and panic discounts and OTC selling pressure ease. Locked selling pressure on HYPE and APT can be normally released, short-term liquidity and sentiment are somewhat positive, but this only restores the cash-out channel, not new buying demand.
Phased resumption indicates security audits are not fully complete; assets not yet resumed may still face liquidation restrictions. Don't treat withdrawal resumption as a bottom-fishing signal; focus on official subsequent lists and whether large concentrated transfers to exchanges appear on-chain.
Source: PANews
Are you more concerned about the next batch of resumed assets or large on-chain transfers?Strong non-farm payrolls combined with ETF outflows, how much momentum does BTC's rebound still have?
The US added 165,000 non-farm jobs in October, far exceeding the expected 65,000, with the unemployment rate dropping to 4.1%. The resilience of the labor market surpassed expectations, pushing market bets on a Fed rate hike in December to 78%. The US dollar index rose about 0.7%, and US Treasury yields increased in tandem. The previously anticipated easing trades are now facing a repricing.
What is truly concerning, beyond macro pressures, is that institutional funds are also retreating. Last week, the US spot BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about $1.28 billion, marking the largest weekly outflow since the end of June, with the year-to-date net flow turning into a net outflow of approximately $914 million. ETH ETFs have also recorded net outflows for six consecutive weeks, showing a clear weakening in capital absorption capacity.
This means BTC is currently facing not only interest rate pressure but also a shortage of incremental funds. Short-term rebounds can come from short covering, but to form a trend reversal, spot buying and ETF funds need to re-enter the market.
Going forward, focus on inflation data, the US dollar, and US Treasury yield changes. A macro bearish bias does not mean prices can only fall, but before capital returns, it is unwise to easily define the rebound as a bull market restart. Control your positions and wait for the market to give confirmation signals. $BTC #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Single-week BTC+ETH spot ETF net outflow exceeds $1.6 billion; are institutions really fleeing this time?
Looking at the data: Bitcoin ETF weekly outflow is $1.28 billion, Ethereum $365 million, and IBIT alone had a $400 million outflow on Friday.
BTC has turned negative cumulatively this year, and ETH has been bleeding for six consecutive weeks. Prices have also fallen back to around $75,000-$76,000. Retail investors are still waiting for a rebound, but institutional funds continue to flow out, a divergence that warrants caution.
But don’t just look at the surface. ETF outflows do not equal institutions being completely bearish. Often, it’s profit-taking, position rebalancing, or opportunity cost considerations under the macro interest rate environment for non-yielding assets. ETH ETFs have no staking yield, making them less attractive when U.S. Treasury yields are high. Funds leaving the ETF channel do not mean they are leaving the crypto market entirely.
For short-term traders: during such continuous outflow phases, chasing longs is easy to get shaken out, and false breakout probability increases. Focus on the price’s support strength at key levels (such as around $75,000) and whether daily ETF fund flows show clear convergence or turn positive. When volatility amplifies, using stop-losses and position control is more important than betting on direction.
For mid-to-long term: cumulative net inflows remain the bigger picture, and this week’s outflow accounts for a limited proportion of historical cumulative flows. Institutional demand indicators turning negative this year is a phase of cooling off or a trend change that requires confirmation from data in the coming weeks. Don’t treat extreme single-week data as a direct signal of market reversal.$BTC dropped to 75,700, with liquidations exceeding 1 billion, long positions dominating, yet the funding rate stubbornly refused to turn negative; what’s being shaken out is leverage, not faith. ETFs saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion in November, cumulatively turning negative for the year, with rebounds lacking institutional support.
$ETH is even more conflicted, with staking queues dropping from 3.73 million coins six months ago to 1.03 million now; ETFs had a 270 million outflow in one week, with stakers and withdrawers each telling their own story.
In the A-share market, a hundred stocks hit the daily limit, with turnover at 1.78 trillion; banks and coal were the only sectors closing in the red against the trend. Broad-based ETFs saw inflows of 129.5 billion, flowing into indices rather than individual stocks, rotating as fast as a fan.
On Thursday, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index was bloodied with a 12.2% drop, then bounced back 4.2% on Friday, but the Nasdaq still fell 3.4% for the week, marking four consecutive weeks of decline. Tuesday’s CPI month-on-month was expected at 0.3%, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%, and even a slight chip miss got hammered.
All three markets are stubbornly holding up amid divergence; whoever breaks first will be the first to clear out.The weekend data looks quite interesting. Let's first look at BTC: in the past 24 hours, there was a net capital inflow of 595.75 BTC. Although this is a drop of more than 50% compared to the inflow scale of the previous day, it represents a 428.18% increase compared to seven days ago, indicating that the capital foundation is still there. During the same period, the liquidation amount was only $4.355 million, with a total of 605 liquidation orders. Compared to both the previous day and a week aIs the whole network shorting while I'm the only one going long?
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
On Hyperliquid, whale BTC short positions have piled up to the highest level since October 2025, with net shorts nearly double the longs; spot ETFs continue to see large outflows, macro selling pressure remains, and on the surface, there seems to be no reason to go long.
But I believe:
73K is a relatively stable structural support in this round. 75K is the first line of defense; if it breaks short-term, it may quickly dip near 74K, but buying interest below 73K still exists, so a one-sided bearish view is not advisable.
The basis is:
Current shorts are more of an active layout rather than extreme crowding, and funding rates are not yet extreme;
Once the price stops falling in the 73K-75K range and climbs back above 76K, shorts are likely to trigger a chain of liquidations, causing a short-term sharp rise. ETF outflows and macro pressure are real, but the contract-side squeeze elasticity should not be ignored.
In terms of operation, I personally prefer to lightly and gradually go long in the 74K-73.2K range, with a strict stop loss below 72.8K; aggressive traders can lightly go long near 75K;
If it effectively breaks below 73K with volume, the short logic strengthens and exit decisively; if it holds and breaks above 76K with volume, then look for a short squeeze rally targeting 77.5K-78.5K $BTC $ETH Brothers, the wolf is really coming, and the blade might be faster than expected!
The Wall Street Journal revealed that the famous "number one nemesis of cryptocurrency" Elizabeth Warren is expected to take over as chair of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee as early as January 2027.
This position holds immense power, essentially controlling the lifeblood of the financial world. Previously, Warren could only pressure through letters, and whether the other side responded was up to their mood; once she sits in the chair, she will have subpoena power, able to compel executives to testify and obtain documents. This regulatory scythe might swing down at any moment.
Warren has always been extremely tough on cryptocurrency and has frequently challenged it in the past. She publicly opposed the CLARITY Act, stating, "We need crypto regulation, but it can't be legislation written by the crypto industry itself." Her upcoming investigation list will likely include: crypto consumer protection, insider trading in prediction markets, and conflicts of interest in the Trump family's crypto businesses (such as World Liberty Financial).
Some analysts poured cold water on this: Warren's legislative power is limited by the Senate's 60-vote threshold, making hardcore proposals difficult to pass directly into law; the chairs of the SEC and CFTC remain in Republican hands, so administrative crypto policies won't flip overnight. But just the intensive hearings and investigations will be enough to give exchanges and blockchain companies a hard time.
Times are definitely tough, but how deeply the "wolf" can bite still depends on the tug-of-war among the folks on Capitol Hill. $BTC $ETH $SOL An easily overlooked comparison: As of September 23, Solana has averaged about 95.92 million transactions per week this year; Nasdaq, NYSE, ARCA, BATS, and NYSE American combined average about 657 million transactions per week during the same period. The former is about 15% of the latter.
15% is not impressive, but this is comparing a single public blockchain to the entire major US stock trading venues.
More importantly, the statistical criteria. This only compares the number of transactions, excluding trading volume and individual transaction size. So this 15% reflects not the amount of capital, but the number of times it is used. A single US stock trade is often a large institutional order, while a Solana transaction might just be someone swapping a few dollars worth of tokens or claiming an airdrop.
The mechanism lies here. The value of $SOL is not in how large each transaction is, but in how many actions it can support per unit of time—high frequency, small amounts, automation. This is its ecological niche completely different from traditional exchanges.
My judgment is: the real significance of this comparison is that it provides a traditional financial frame of reference for valuing public blockchains. On-chain activity has grown large enough to be placed on the same chart as mature markets, even if they are not compared on the same dimension. $ETH was compared to Visa back in the day in the same way; the frame of reference is more valuable than the absolute value.
One point worth considering: if we compare by transaction amount instead, how much would this 15% shrink? The answer might be much less flattering, but that is where the money speaks.Although the non-farm payrolls increased market pressure for rate hikes, there’s no time to be sad, friends, because a wave of inflation data is coming 😵 Whether it’s the CPI on November 10 or the PPI on the 13th, the market currently expects increases, making a December rate hike a high-probability event. If that happens, it will be even harder for the Fed to easily pivot to easing. Crypto has already benefited from the market’s pricing of risk assets under rate cut expectations, so if the interest rate path adjusts further, it’s hard not to feel anxious.
That’s all. The importance of next week’s CPI is no less than this week’s non-farm payrolls. Hopefully, we won’t see another major crash. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $PLTR How to verify the replicability of new customer growth in software?
Palantir's U.S. commercial revenue in Q3 grew 148% year-over-year. The quality of expansion depends on whether similar deployments can shorten delivery times and reduce reliance on on-site personnel. If cash collections keep pace and the proportion of delivery costs decreases, the replicability of growth is stronger. If orders require continuous increased customization investment, the profit content of high growth needs to be reassessed.To judge whether stablecoins are truly being used more, do you first look at how much money stays on-chain, or how much has been cumulatively transacted on-chain? In Circle's latest financial report, the growth rates of these two figures differ significantly. Circle's report released on November 4 shows that in Q3, USDC on-chain transaction volume reached $13.9 trillion, a year-over-year increase of 49%. The average circulating supply during the same period was $73.3 billion, up 8% year-over-year. By the end of the quarter, the circulating supply was about $73.9 billion, roughly flat compared to the same period last year. On-chain transaction volume represents the total amount transacted over the quarter, while circulating supply reflects how much USDC is in circulation at a given point or over a period. The same funds can be transferred multiple times, with each transfer counting toward transaction volume, but the balance may not change much. Looking at Circle's own earnings: total quarterly revenue and reserve income were $865 million, up 17% year-over-year, but reserve income was about $658 million, down 8% year-over-year. The company explained that the reserve yield rate dropped by 0.61 percentage points year-over-year, and the increase in average circulating supply only partially offset this impact. In the same quarter, other income included $182 million from ARC token pre-sales. So, to understand why the company's revenue increased this quarter, one must look at the sources of each income component. My judgment is that USDC's on-chain circulation is indeed more active, but to see if usage scenarios have expanded, I will track both circulating balances and payment use cases. Visa's overallToday (November 8, 2026), the four markets did not move in the same direction but were torn apart by the same macro theme: after the US midterm elections concluded, expectations of escalating geopolitical conflicts quickly faded. This theme simultaneously drove an epic crash in crude oil, a speculative sell-off in gold, and a narrow tug-of-war for Bitcoin amid "extreme fear." The stock market, however, showed a completely different logic—local overheating of A-share stocks with consecutive daily limit-ups severely disconnected from fundamentals. --- 🛢️ Crude Oil: Plunged over 16% in one week, marking the largest weekly drop since 2020 This is the most intense anomaly today. The Brent crude oil front-month contract fell a cumulative 16.42% over the week, and the WTI front-month contract dropped 12.76%, both marking the largest weekly declines since 2020. On November 7, intraday New York crude briefly fell below $90 per barrel. The core driver of the crash was a concentrated sell-off by hedge funds. After analyzing CFTC position data, Goldman Sachs' FICC team found that from October 27 to November 3, managed money net sold Brent crude oil positions totaling $6.6 billion, marking the seventh time in the past five years that weekly sales exceeded $6 billion. The trigger for the sell-off was the market's rapid shift from "rushing to price in war escalation" to "rushing to price in war ending" after the Democrats swept Congress—reports indicated Trump favored negotiation over military strikes, Iran's Supreme Leader authorized the president to engage in dialogue, and Qatar-mediated calls were continuously made. Long positions betting on a supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz were forced to liquidate massively, creating a chain reaction of negative feedback. However, the supply side is notLosing everything isn't the scariest thing; mistaking "going all-in on a bet" for "the market is about to take off" is 🫧 Have you ever had that moment: clearly it's just amplified volatility, but you feel like you have to do something immediately? Last night, I saw that post and my heart skipped a beat. The money was gone, relationships fell apart, and in the end, they said they would deliver takeout and wait for a turnaround. I don't want to exploit others' hardships, but it acts like a mirror reflecting a very common misjudgment: mistaking a volatility phase for the start of a trend, then unconsciously increasing position size more and more. $BTC $ETH $ZEC My own observation is that this tug-of-war feeling has been especially obvious lately. BTC sweeps up and down, altcoins occasionally pop up then quickly fade, and old coins like ZEC suddenly get mentioned with a few stories. On the surface, it looks like hot money rotation, but in reality, it's more like emotional exhaustion after volatility is repeatedly squeezed. Many people think "high volatility equals more opportunities," but what volatility really tests is not directional judgment, but rhythm and position discipline. Even if you get the direction right, if you miss the timing, you'll still get swept out. The transmission path isn't complicated. News catalysts ignite emotions first, short-term funds rush in, prices pulse rapidly, then profit-taking and stop-loss orders clash, further amplifying volatility. At this point, BTC's movement determines whether risk appetite can hold steady, ETH follows to see if funds are willing to bear duration, and altcoins amplify greed and fear. Once BTC retracts gains, altcoin rebounds often fail first, leaving those chasing highs behind. There is also a bullish path: if volume can keep up after volatility, BTC holds key levels, ESanDisk: 6x PE, the market is discounting the "cycle length"
Current price $835, TTM PE about 6.1x, analyst consensus target price $2047. The disagreement is not about the authenticity of earnings, but how long the earnings can be sustained. NBM's long-term contract guaranteed revenue is $93.9 billion, with an average term over 4 years, and about 50% of bits locked for FY2027, which indeed improves visibility; however, SanDisk's NAND market share is only 11.7%, ranking sixth, with pricing power still held by Samsung and SK Hynix. Long-term contracts can lock in their own volume but cannot lock in the entire industry's supply discipline. If the leaders loosen contract prices, SanDisk can only maintain volume, not valuation multiples. The November 20 stock split only lowers the entry threshold, not the logic. Monitor NBM's new contract signings and contract price divergence. $PONS Bearish news: The buyback budget dropped from about 18.7 million to about 2 million in one month
Current price 0.1657 USDT, down 13.52% in 24 hours, volume about 3.48 million, lowest seen at 0.1644
According to DefiLlama data verified by Coindoo today, Pons Launchpad's fees were $137.1 million in September, but only $16.8 million in October, a decrease of 87.8%. Protocol revenue dropped from 23.4 million to 2.5 million
According to the EU white paper, the platform keeps 30% of the fees, 80% of which is used to buy back and burn PONS. Using the same calculation, about 18.7 million was used for buybacks in September, but only about 2 million in October
Galaxy Research's daily fee chart on November 6 also shows a drop from about 11.4 million on September 5 to about 250,000 in early November, with market cap falling from over 600 million to about 120 million. The only channel for holders to receive platform income has been almost completely drained.ETF withdrew $1.28 billion in one week! All inflows this year have been lost, are institutions the least faithful?
Really, stop blindly believing in institutional long-termism. The BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $1.28 billion last week, wiping out all net inflows since 2026 and turning it into a net outflow for the year.
This happened in just one week. At the beginning of the month, there were still positive inflows of over a billion, but now they're gone. This is the worst single-week performance since the end of June. Just BlackRock's IBIT alone ran off with more than $400 million on Friday, accounting for over 80% of that day's outflows. Even the most stable leading institutions are rushing to exit. $ETH
Frankly, it's not surprising. The non-farm payroll data exploded, December rate hike expectations were fully priced in, and with the midterm election results settled, funds that had bet on regulatory easing cashed out and fled. Institutions are a hundred times more pragmatic than retail investors; they take profits when they can and exit faster than anyone when bad news hits, without any talk of long-term faith.
No wonder the market has been soft like cotton lately, with every rally lacking follow-through. This rally was originally driven by incremental ETF funds, but now the inflows have turned into outflows. With no one injecting fresh capital, the price naturally can't rise.
Don't listen to nonsense about a strong bottom or bottom-fishing. As long as ETF fund flows don't turn around, all support is paper-thin. Wait until there are consecutive net inflows again before talking about stabilization.#Báo cáo tài chính RocketLab trước thềm: Tiến triển của tên lửa Neutron ra sao? Bitcoin has fallen exactly like the Nasdaq, so where are the buyers when it rises?
On November 5th, three numbers lined up: Nasdaq -5.52%, Bitcoin -5.49%, Ethereum -7.70%. Same day, same direction, almost the same magnitude.
Many still treat it as an independent asset, but its current pricing is based on a single variable: "global risk appetite." The reason is simple — the money buying Bitcoin and the money buying Nasdaq come from the same group, flowing through the same channel: spot ETFs. This week, this channel saw a net outflow of $1.28 billion, and cumulatively for 2026, it has already turned into a net outflow.
What’s even more interesting is the reverse: the next trading day, Nasdaq rebounded 1.09%, while Bitcoin barely moved. When falling, they move in lockstep; when rising, Bitcoin’s buyers are absent.
So don’t ask "Is Bitcoin a safe-haven asset?" Instead, ask "How many Nasdaq-style crashes can your position withstand?"
Is your position allocated for defense or offense? Share your thoughts in the comments.
BTC #Nasdaq #ETFFlows #MarketAnalysisI'm feeling very anxious right now. This weekend, the market has been unusually quiet, too much like the calm before the storm. Tomorrow morning, the Korean stock market will open, and if Hynix performs poorly, $SNDK is likely to plummet. At that point, $NVDA could very well be dragged down as well, and if that happens, the US stock market will explode. If the US stock market crashes, the whole world will suffer. Crypto won't be an exception, and $ETH especially won't be spared. That said, Hynix's performance tomorrow is crucial; if it does badly, a global collective crash might begin. —————————————————— I actually have a concern in my heart right now, which is that crypto might start falling early. In my memory, this has happened before. Honestly, the current contract data for $ETH is still okay; the long-short ratio and open interest are quite high, indicating that many people are still bullish. However, the crypto market is not entirely self-determined, especially in the current situation where crypto's trend depends on the US stock market. The best strategy now is to stay out of the market and wait for Hynix's performance tomorrow. This is a relatively safe approach. —————————————————— I'm currently short. Because I've analyzed previous trends, and a crash on weekend nights is possible. I want to take a gamble. Also, I don't think Hynix will perform well tomorrow, so shorting probably won't lose. I believe that shorting now is likely not to lose, has a chance for huge profit, and a small chance for big loss. In this situation, I think it's worth the risk for me.Every time I see "Hong Kong is going to issue crypto licenses," my first reaction is: Here we go again? After the last round of licenses were issued, the market didn't really react; if it was going to drop, it dropped.
But this time the situation is a bit different. Trading, custody, consulting, and management—all four require licenses. Before, they only focused on exchanges; now even "helping you store coins" and "giving you advice" are included.
To put it bluntly, Hong Kong is regulating crypto as a financial industry, not as a tech product. It sounds serious, but in reality, the threshold is higher and fewer people can get in.
For ordinary holders, there probably won't be much impact in the short term; $BTC will still fluctuate as usual. Just remember to ask first when looking for a place to store your coins: Do you have a license?Hong Kong has made it clear this time: by the end of the year, it will submit a crypto bill requiring four types of licenses for trading, custody, advisory, and management businesses respectively.
First, let's look at what it breaks down. In recent years, the most ambiguous regulatory area worldwide has been "custody"—who holds the coins, and who is responsible if something goes wrong has never been clearly defined. This time, custody is singled out for a separate license, which acknowledges one thing: the core that truly needs regulation in the crypto industry is not trading but asset custody. Trading, advisory, and management are independent, indicating that Hong Kong does not intend to use one big license to cover everyone but rather stratifies by risk.
From a mechanism perspective, the consequence of layered licensing is a change in the cost structure. Trading platforms bear the heaviest compliance costs, advisory and management are much lighter, and custody is in the middle but has the highest capital and audit requirements. This will lead to an expected differentiation: licensed institutions handle custody and distribution, unlicensed ones handle traffic entry, and the middle layer gets squeezed.
For mainstream assets like $BTC, the significance lies on the demand side. Once compliant custody is established, the last procedural barrier for institutions entering the market is removed—not because the bill makes the coins more valuable, but because internal control clauses of funds, insurance, and family offices can finally be approved.
One point worth considering: among the four licenses, the most expensive is not trading but custody. Whoever is willing to pay this cost will control the next round of capital inflow. And this cost is unaffordable for small platforms. Berkshire's financial report has been released, and this time I'm more interested in the money it spent.
In the third quarter, the company repurchased about $9.6 billion in stock, more than double the approximately $4.5 billion in the second quarter. Meanwhile, quarterly operating profit was about $12.7 billion, down 5.8% year-over-year. Putting these two facts together is more interesting than just focusing on the cash balance alone: operating performance is under pressure, yet management was still willing to buy back its own shares at the prices at that time.
Of course, buybacks only reflect capital allocation choices during that period; they don't allow us to judge today's price, nor do they guarantee an immediate stock price increase. But at least it is an action that has already occurred and can be verified by the amount.
Whenever the market sees Berkshire's large cash reserves, it likes to write a line saying "waiting for a crash." I think this explanation is too simplistic. The company needs to retain funds to meet insurance and operational needs, while also weighing the attractiveness between external acquisitions, securities investments, and buybacks. The answer is not necessarily just one.
This financial report reminds me that patience and using funds can happen simultaneously. There's no need to force money out just because you can't find a particularly satisfying opportunity at the moment; and when you do encounter an acceptable price, you don't have to wait for all news to improve.
Rather than guessing when it will make a big bottom-fishing move, I prefer to observe the next few quarters: whether buybacks will continue, whether operating profits can improve, and where the funds ultimately go.
#伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 What was stopped: an offline event or the entire onshore promotion narrative?
Around November 6, the Financial Times published a response from a central bank department head: it was monitored that domestic entities displayed Solana branding on the exterior walls of the Citigroup Tower in Lujiazui, Shanghai, which was classified as virtual currency marketing. The People's Bank of China, together with local financial, public security, and market regulatory departments, stopped the "Solana Accelerate China 2026" offline event before it started and will investigate the related organizations and individuals. The official stance is that SOL "is essentially a virtual currency" and also provides technical services for the issuance and trading of USDT and others; according to a February notification from eight departments this year, such promotion is already in violation.
So far, no names, no penalty lists, and no timetable have been released. Foundation President Lily Liu explained around October 16 that the postponement was due to registrations increasing about fourfold overnight, exceeding the venue capacity already filed, and needing to comply with local requirements—both explanations can coexist and do not contradict each other.
This is not a "comprehensive ban on SOL in China," nor an upgrade to a trading ban; it is more like a sample of the boundaries for onshore promotion.
Why it matters: this time provides a verifiable on-site reference point for what overseas public chains can and cannot say onshore.
Confidence level: medium | official media relay, no penalty results yet. Will you focus more on the investigation list later or on whether the foundation has new statements? $SOL Only veterans in the crypto circle know the truth
Actually, the Democratic Party coming to power is a huge positive for crypto
How much liquidity did Trump drain from the crypto circle when he was in office
The Bitcoin ETF was approved during the Democratic Party's tenure
The Democratic Party does not ban crypto, but wants regulation
Trump seemed to support cryptocurrencies, but in reality, he was greedily making money, completely harming the industry!#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
The weekly decline is 3.4%, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunging 12% in a single day before quickly rebounding. Many are debating whether this is a "technical dip," but from an institutional perspective, this is far from a simple emotional release; it is a repricing after the AI narrative has entered the "accounting period."
Sharing three core judgments:
1. The essence of the plunge: from "buying dreams" to "looking at financial reports." The market's concerns about AI data center regulation and the return on massive capital expenditures (Capex) are heating up. In the past two years, any association with AI could boost valuations, but now institutions are doing the math: major companies have spent hundreds of billions on GPUs, so when will this translate into profits? Once ROI (return on investment) is disproven, high valuations are just castles in the air.
2. Why the rebound is so fast? Because of "short covering" plus "denominator-side" games. The rally in Nvidia and AMD is largely due to the previous sharp drop, where some hedge funds hit their "stop-loss" lines and were forced to liquidate, combined with technical buying after overselling. Additionally, if subsequent macro data weakens and rate cut expectations reignite, it is positive for the valuation denominator of tech stocks (long-duration assets).
3. Divergence is the main theme going forward. The Nasdaq has rebounded, but the Dow Jones still closed down. This means funds have not fully returned to risk assets but are switching between "weeding out falsehoods within tech" and "defending traditional value sectors."
Conclusion: Don't mistake a single-day rebound for a reversal. $QQQ $BTC dropped to 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidated in 24 hours, longs making up the majority. But the funding rate stubbornly didn’t turn negative, and Binance’s long-short ratio even rose to 2.16; what’s buried is leverage, not positions. The real drag is the ETF, which net ran off 1.28 billion in November, cumulatively turning negative for the year, with no one catching the rebound.
$ETH is the most conflicted. Total staked is 45.2 million, with 1.37 million queued to enter, waiting 24 days, yet the ETF ran off over 1.2 billion in October, and ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low. Those locking coins and those withdrawing funds each tell their own story.
China A-shares saw 100 stocks hit daily limit up, with turnover of 1.78 trillion, looking lively. But banks and coal are the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend; money is only flowing into AI manga dramas and baijiu, with broad-based ETFs seeing 129.5 billion inflows, going into indices, not individual stocks.
US stocks lost 4 trillion in a week; chip stocks rebounded on Friday but the Nasdaq still fell for the whole week. Tuesday’s CPI was the real knife, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%.
All three markets are stubbornly holding on amid divergence. Many people yearn to follow Bitcoin's old path: writing a whitepaper, open-sourcing the code, zero pre-mining, no fundraising, and building a public chain from scratch.
Technically, this process is still feasible today, but the era is completely different. Back then, the field was blank, regulations were loose, and home computers could participate in mining; now, computing power is highly concentrated, regulations are tightening, and launching a new PoW chain from cold start is extremely difficult and prone to 51% hash rate attacks.
The code can be copied exactly, but the consensus, liquidity, and first-mover advantages accumulated over more than a decade cannot be replicated. Even if successfully launched, most can only remain niche experiments and it is hard to replicate Bitcoin's legendary success.
$BTC When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was budgeting for starting a company: just because the business scope is expanded doesn't mean the cash flow is stable. The same goes for trading; input and output must be calculated, and risk reserves cannot be skimped on.
The rules finalized by the Russian Central Bank will take effect on November 17: non-qualified investors can purchase up to 300,000 rubles worth of cryptocurrency per year through each intermediary, qualified investors have no limits, and all investors must pass a mandatory test before trading.
My judgment is that this looks more like a reshuffling of channel business rather than a personal risk cap. The test means service providers have to bear the cost of access management, and whether they can cover the cost depends on the business volume; the quota is calculated per intermediary, which does not equal a cap on an individual's total annual investment. If users spread their purchases across multiple intermediaries, the total exposure could still increase—this is my speculation.
For friends in business, if you encounter such channel-based quota rules, how would you set the line for your total investment and risk reserves? $XAU The trading volume of a certain secure tokenized gold has hit a record high. Simply put, the crypto market has crashed badly, and high-volatility assets are no longer playable. Panicked funds are rushing to find a safe haven to hold on, fully maximizing the safe-haven attribute.
Looking deeper at $BTC, gold has dropped by 30% this year and has only just stabilized around the 4000 mark. There's no real bottom to buy into. This is purely an internal reshuffling of existing funds under extreme panic. It indicates that market confidence is extremely fragile. Chasing gold now has very low cost-effectiveness. Once the market crashes deeply and sentiment warms up, this safe-haven capital will be pulled back in a flash to continue the game.#SoftBank's Heavy Bet on OpenAI: Can Q2 Earnings Deliver Impressive Results? SoftBank Q2: OpenAI's Paper Gains Celebrate, But Single Exposure Risk Remains
On November 10, SoftBank released its FY2026 Q2 earnings report, with the spotlight still on OpenAI. Having invested a total of $64.6 billion and holding about 13% equity; OpenAI's valuation reached $852 billion, generating cumulative unrealized gains of approximately $45 billion, with about $25 billion in a single quarter, making Q2's paper gains highly likely to be impressive.
However, the profit and loss statement is highly tied to OpenAI's valuation: In the previous fiscal year's Q2, net profit was 2.5 trillion yen, and the Vision Fund earned 2.38 trillion yen; in FY2026 Q1, the Vision Fund's pre-tax profit was only 5.4 billion yen, a year-on-year plunge of 98.8%, mainly because OpenAI's valuation remained flat quarter-over-quarter. When valuation rises, profits explode; when valuation stalls, profits nearly vanish.
The funding side is even more concerning: Jefferies reports that OpenAI raised about $70 billion in the past 12 months, nearly 85% (about $60 billion) coming from SoftBank, creating a self-reinforcing valuation loop; SoftBank borrowed another $20 billion in April, partly to invest in OpenAI. Meanwhile, Grab's decline during the same period has offset some gains; Malaysia's $50 billion AI data center remains an intention without formal agreements or timelines.
Assessment: The strong Q2 performance mainly relies on OpenAI's valuation. The key question is whether SoftBank can hedge the extreme single-asset exposure using Arm's cash flow, telecom business, or AI infrastructure deployment. If not, the more dazzling the $45 billion unrealized gains appear, the more underestimated the concentration risk becomes. The on-chain weekend report provided a market forecast for Monday, showing that storage chips are clearly stronger. SK Hynix is expected to open up 4.5%, Samsung about 2.6%, while the overall US stock market is opening flat to slightly weak.
This price is the pre-pricing of Trade.xyz's perpetual contracts. The stock market is closed on weekends, and only this can trade continuously, reflecting market expectations in advance. Popular AI storage stocks like Nvidia, Micron, and SanDisk all quoted slightly below Friday's close over the weekend, showing weakness.
The differentiation is clear: capital is currently prioritizing bets on Korean storage giants. After a sharp drop in the storage sector, capital is speculating on a cyclical recovery, with SK Hynix and Samsung showing greater elasticity. But for US AI leaders, capital is cautious and unwilling to go long. $SKHYNIX
Everyone should understand this is only the advance expectation from on-chain contracts, not a guarantee that Monday's open will follow this trend. It should only be used as a sentiment reference, not an accurate result.
In the crypto space, pay attention as well: weak sentiment in tech stocks will indirectly suppress high-risk assets. The storage sector's isolated strength is a sectoral divergence, not a broad recovery. Don't blindly chase SK Hynix's expected rise; wait for the official open to see real support before making plans. $BTC $ETH
#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum, posted on X, disagreeing with the recent negative reactions to the anti-data center movement, believing that slowing down the hyper-scale expansion of computing power is overall more beneficial than harmful. Coming from the founder of $ETH, this statement carries a different weight compared to environmental organizations shouting for a decade.
What he offers is not "AI is dangerous so don't build it," but rather a timeline misalignment. With algorithmic progress, the AI capabilities that will require larger-scale data centers in the next two years might be achievable within about four years, or even less, using existing data centers. To translate: the demand priced today as "computing power is never enough" might be cheaply eliminated by algorithms tomorrow.
From this, he draws a second point—the anti-data center movement may not cause catastrophic consequences. What to do with the time saved? His answer is that the world needs more time to address cybersecurity threats and biosecurity risks.
There is also an easily overlooked sentence: scientific research is constrained by factors beyond AI, so a one-year slowdown in AI development causes an actual delay in scientific progress of less than one year. This breaks the equation that "slowing down equals an equivalent loss."
For the market, what’s worth pondering is the scarcity premium of computing power. The AI infrastructure valuation over the past two years has been based on the assumption of "constant new construction," but if algorithms can spread out the two-year demand, the foundation loosens.
One question remains: is the money currently paid for "computing power is never enough" actually paying for a demand that might never come? The Georgia House of Representatives has a total of 180 seats; obtaining 91 seats constitutes a majority. Before the memory card vote supplement, preliminary counts estimated the Democratic Party would secure 93 seats (a safe margin of 2 seats). If this one seat is ultimately certified and reversed, the Democrats would have 92 seats, still exceeding the 91-seat majority threshold, thus retaining control of the state House but with a majority reduced to just 1 seat, making it extremely narrow.
Market reversals usually come with news; awaiting results #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Can the money saved from $ABNB customer service automation be retained?
Airbnb disclosed that its customer service cost per order in Q3 dropped by more than 17% year-over-year. Improved handling efficiency can enhance profits, but error resolution might shift costs to refunds and complaints. If subsequent repurchases remain stable and the refund rate improves, the savings will be more solid. If the issue escalation rate rises, the net benefits of automation should be reassessed.