Orbit Post Sitemap
$BTC has fallen below 75K again, but the options market is showing a different signal
After the Democrats won both chambers, BTC first rebounded then plunged, dropping to a low of 73K
Although the price hit a new low, the 1W Put Skew recovered from -6.6 to -4 Vol
If 73K sees a second dip, it would be a great opportunity for options buyers to get in
Keep an eye on this week's CPI and PPI, as they might soon provide directionThe coin price is still hovering around 75,000, while a practical development has taken place on the US regulatory front.
On November 9, Coinbase announced that the US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) gave final approval last Friday, and Coinbase National Trust Company officially obtained a federal trust bank charter. According to OCC records, it took effect on November 6, seven months after receiving preliminary approval in April.
What can this charter do? Mainly, it allows institutional digital asset custody, shifting supervision from New York State to federal oversight, with the custody business migrating over within three years. It cannot accept ordinary deposits, cannot lend, and is not a regular bank. Ripple also received similar final approval on October 26.
My view: In the short term, prices depend on tonight’s CPI and ETF funds; such news is unlikely to immediately boost the market. But with traditional institutions entering, the first hurdle is "who will provide custody," and this hurdle is gradually being cleared.
Do you value short-term market trends more, or these kinds of slowly paving-the-way developments?
Personal opinion, not investment advice, please be cautious of risks. $BTC is oscillating between 74,000 and 75,000
The market has lacked direction these days.
On one hand, employment data isn't bad; on the other, the Fed remains silent.
How this number is calculated:
Between 74,000 and 75,000, the range is about one thousand dollars.
Placed at 74,000, the fluctuation is less than 1.5%.
It's not that the market is small; it's that no one wants to make the first move.
Who is following whom:
While $BTC is grinding, $ETH is falling even harder.
With the same news, the one that falls more is the first to give in.
This indicates money is withdrawing, not rotating positions.
The CPI release is just an excuse.
The real direction is decided by who breaks first.
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
#$BTC $ETH US October nonfarm payrolls exceed expectations, December rate hike bets intensify
October nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000, 2.5 times the forecast; unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%, with August-September revisions totaling an upward adjustment of 84,000. The probability of a December rate hike jumped overnight from 67% to 77%–80%, and the 2-year US Treasury yield rose by 5 basis points.
Anomalously: the Nasdaq rose 1.09%, the Dow fell 0.46%, and gold dropped 1.5%. The same data triggered three different market reactions: stocks betting on a no-hard-landing economy, bonds pricing in sustained high rates, and gold falling in line with the trend.
More noteworthy is wages: year-on-year increase of 3.1%, the lowest since 2021. This round of rate hikes aims to prevent inflation caused by overheated AI capital expenditure, not to suppress wages, as Musalem has pointed out. The end point of rate hikes may not be determined by employment.
BTC is in the most awkward position: down 40% from its peak, stuck near $75,000, with ETF outflows of $1.28 billion in a single week, and a fear index of 25. It has both risk asset and digital gold attributes, but has benefited from neither trend. The 200-day moving average at 73,191 is the lifeline; breaking below it points toward 70,000.
Open your trading software and check if the stop-loss price for BTC in your positions is set around 73,191. #
$BTC $ETH $SOL To start with a reality check, I’m not willing to give mining companies a break on operational pressure just because they’re involved with AI. According to this Cointelegraph report, HIVE’s Bitcoin production increased by 49%, but mining revenue dropped by 7.4%, while AI hosting business grew by 71%. What worries me more is that the market treats the last figure as a universal fix, overshadowing the contradictions in the first two numbers.
I have two reasons. The increase in production without a corresponding revenue increase means mining more coins didn’t directly translate into more income, so using production growth to prove operational improvement breaks the logic; but since there’s no cost data, I won’t directly conclude that profits worsened. The other reason is that the growth rate of AI hosting doesn’t mean it can already support the company. Without business scale and profit contribution, judging transformation success solely by 71% growth is mistaking growth speed for business weight. If expectations are raised because of this, I think those expectations will be fragile.
Of course, those optimistic about it might be right. I’m bearish but not stubborn against the numbers: if future disclosures prove AI hosting already contributes sufficient profit and mining revenue pressure hasn’t further eroded overall operations, I will withdraw my doubts about the “AI patch.” Going forward, I’m focusing on how much money each business segment can actually retain, not which growth rate looks flashier. I will be the optimist everyone needs. $BTC
In Bitcoin's first two price cycles, the time from peak to trough was almost exactly one year. Before that, Bitcoin's price rose about 130 times and 20 times respectively.
In this cycle, we experienced a rapid 7-fold expansion and a weak top. However, suddenly the market expects it will take nearly 20% of the time to bottom out.
The expansion scale is much smaller, but the recession period is longer. Why is this explanation more convincing?
If the fourth quarter is expected to be a correction period, is it realistic to expect Bitcoin to rebound 50% from the low and then maintain a volatility range only 13% below the high within a week?
We anticipated a pullback. Now that the pullback has arrived, suddenly the entire recovery process is being questioned.
In my view, bottoming at the beginning of the year, then breaking through the lower high of the previous week and pulling back to form a higher low, is still a very reasonable trend.
An embedded pullback refers to a pullback within the expansion phase. Breaking below the local weekly pivot point does not necessarily mean we will fall back to the cycle low.
But this does not mean the price will not fall further. It just means that further decline and the bottom having already formed are not contradictory.
You cannot point out diminishing returns during the rise while refusing to consider that the timing of the decline may also change.#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ 软银Q2财报昨晚出了，第一眼全是利好。 净利润3473亿日元，市场预期1660亿，直接干出两倍多。但穿透这层皮，撑场面的根本不是孙正义心心念念的OpenAI。是一笔一次性的英特尔持股重估收益，约1.3万亿日元。 不可复制，下个季度不会再有。 真正的主线愿景基金，税前利润只剩54.27亿日元，同比暴跌98.8%。二期基金亏了800.98亿，拉美基金亏了458.92亿。AI组合的估值增长，这个季度明显熄火。 至于OpenAI，Q2因为估值比3月末没涨，对软银的损益贡献是零。 孙正义手里那张牌，现在很尴尬 软银对OpenAI的累计投资承诺已经拉到646亿美元，持股约13%。2025年账面上确实有过约450亿美元的浮盈，但那个数字建立在估值一路上行的假设上。Q2估值一停，回报就跟着停了。 更麻烦的是流动性。OpenAI的IPO据传推迟到2027年之后了。软银持有的是一堆不能变现的私募股权，但为了凑这笔钱，它背的是真债。9月发了111亿美元高收益债，部分票息干到9.75%；五年期CDS利差走阔到466个基点Is this bear market for gold following the pattern from 2011 to 2018, or the pattern from 2020 to 2022?
Let's observe this a bit more.
1. The bear market from 2011 to 2018: It followed the 2008 financial crisis. The market believed in economic recovery, so gold buyers exited gold and invested in some real economy sectors with higher returns.
2. The bear market from 2020 to 2022: Mainly influenced by macro interest rate hikes, but there were still some central bank buyers who believed in the de-dollarization process, so this bear market had a pullback.
However, the pullback was not that large, and the duration was relatively short, about two years. In 2022, as the interest rate hikes were nearing the end, gold started to rise.
Let's judge what form the current bear market will take. I expect it to follow the pattern and structure of 2020 to 2022, which is a bear market lasting about two years.
Two years later, that is, by the end of 2028 to 2029, which aligns roughly with my own forecast, the efficiency of buying gold will be higher after 2029.
If you are stuck in a position, the time you need to endure is relatively short, so I think it's manageable.
If gold is only part of your portfolio, then holding on should be bearable, and there is no need to be overly pessimistic. It should be like this. $XAU A KOL's "personal opinion" might actually be backed by thirty wallets lined up. After Bubblemaps laid out Cupsey's addresses, what you see isn't an opinion, but an assembly line.
First, look at the numbers. From May 7 until now, over 27,000 types of tokens have been traded by 30 related wallets; among them, about 3,000 operations yielded a total profit of approximately $1.74 million. The average profit per token type isn't exaggerated; what's exaggerated is the quantity—this isn't luck, it's the same set of actions repeated three thousand times.
Next, look at the mechanism, which is three-stage. The operating wallet first builds a position, distributing it to a circle of related wallets; Cupsey's public wallet then buys in, followers see the signal and follow, driving the price up; the related wallets sell during this buying wave. You think you're following one person's judgment, but actually, you're providing liquidity for another wallet.
Even worse is the network of relationships. These addresses have on-chain connections with deployers who have executed multiple Rug Pulls, profiting about $1.3 million. The signal callers and the token issuers who run away stand on the same network. The scale of 27,000 token types also reveals the fertile ground—major markets can't accommodate so many tokens; the daily new memes on $SOL and $ETH are the real breeding ground.
He didn't fake any transaction; every transaction is genuinely on-chain and legal. On-chain data never lies, but it never proactively warns you. Next time you see a trade showcase, what’s worth thinking about isn’t how much was earned on that trade, but how many wallets are waiting behind the scenes for your buy orders.My first reaction is to do a practical calculation: can stablecoins be redeemed at full face value, and if something really goes wrong, who will be the backstop? Just because the name contains the word "stable" doesn't mean you can use it blindly.
The Canadian government announced a budget bill on November 5 proposing to prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from directly issuing cryptocurrencies. Stablecoins must be issued through independent non-financial subsidiaries regulated under stablecoin laws. The bill requires redemption at face value and asset segregation but excludes public deposit insurance and government guarantees. The Bank of Canada is responsible for registration and regulatory enforcement.
I think this paves the way for compliant issuance, not for boosting coin prices. Asset segregation helps clarify risk boundaries; redemption at face value provides protection, but without government backstop, ordinary users still need to rely on the issuer and reserves. I would choose prudence and first see how the rules are implemented, not treat the financial institution background as insurance. If it were you, would you prefer to wait for the detailed rules to be finalized for stability, or be willing to bear the risks of early adoption?No one dared to catch the fall last week, but today as futures turned positive, some rushed to buy the dip.
$AMD rebounded 11% last Friday, Intel rose 7.7%. But today, despite the futures rebound, Nvidia fell nearly 5% pre-market.
What does this indicate?
A one-day rebound doesn’t mean the funds have returned. What I want to see is whether trading volume can expand, whether the chip sector can continue to outperform the market, and whether the rise can spread from the leaders to more stocks.
Don’t mistake a rebound after panic for the start of a new upward trend. Today, the October CPI is released, directly determining the likelihood of a rate hike in December.
The market currently prices in nearly an 80% chance of a 25bp rate hike in December. If the data is hotter than expected, rate hike expectations will further solidify, causing the dollar and US Treasury yields to rise, putting pressure on Bitcoin and Ethereum; if the data cools significantly, the market may briefly breathe a sigh of relief.
Bitcoin is currently stuck near 74,000, with the most critical support below at 73,000. Holding this level still leaves room for a rebound; breaking it opens downside space.
Ethereum is relatively weaker, already loosening around 2,100, with deeper support at 1,930. Hot data makes it easier to hit this level first.
In short: CPI is today’s judge. If hot, risk assets take another hit; if cold, technicals get a chance to breathe. Focus on BTC at 73,000 and ETH at 1,930. OKB Dollar-Cost Averaging Log: Daily 100U, Day 380
$OKB Price: $96.89
This market drop shows no sign of rebound at all. OKB is probably the mainstream coin that has dropped the most recently, down about 50% from its peak, already back to my dollar-cost averaging cost price. It first gave us some hope, then just collapsed directly. Who can bear this? It's simply unbearable.
Funds injected today:
100 USDT | Coins acquired: 1.03 OKB
Total funds injected:
38125.13 USDT (Daily DCA: 38000U + Others: 125.13) | Coins acquired: 400.42 OKB | Average cost: 95.12 USDT | Profit: +699.66 USDT (+1.84%)
BTC remains weak around $74K, clearly underperforming the rebounding US stock market. Large outflows from ETFs continue to suppress market confidence.
At the industry level, Coinbase obtained a formal federal trust bank license, and PNC is advancing USDC enterprise payments—these are the two most noteworthy recent developments.
Overall situation: weak market, institutional funds under pressure, crypto banking compliance, and stablecoin payments continuing to be implemented.
#DollarCostAveraging #OKB #TechStocksReboundAfterUSStockCrash, Nasdaq weekly still down about 3.4% SanDisk (SNDK): $886 rebound, spot price first sounds the alarm
On November 9, SanDisk closed up 6.16% at $886.51, after-hours near $895, recovering about 6% from the $835 low. But on the same day, NAND spot prices loosened significantly: 512Gb TLC dropped from $23 to $16, 1Tb fell from $32 to $26, a decline of 20%–25%. The reasons point directly to AI demand falling short of expectations, cooling of the US AI supply chain, and increased market share of Yangtze Memory. The long-term contract side remains intact: NBM orders locked until 2030, about 50% of bits secured by FY27; however, the spot side is loosening. Institutional consensus is Strong Buy, with an average price of $2047, but a low of $870 and a high of $3000, showing divergence in multiple contraction. The stock split adjustment trading starts on November 20; $886 is just a visual buffer, the market needs to choose the time scale.In the morning, watching the tick-by-tick trades of $PUMP, the price level of 0.003659 was continuously swept by more than fifteen buy orders of a thousand dollars or more within ten minutes. After each order was filled, the price only rose slightly before being slammed back down. @大勇干短线（互动）
A typical dark pool wash trade—market makers moving from left hand to right hand to create a false buying illusion to attract followers. A 50x short order was directly placed at 0.003659, with a mark price of 0.003567, floating profit of 125.71%. Wash trading volume is the most honest signal of a Meme coin topping out, but a 50x leverage rebound spike can also cause immediate liquidation.
The breakeven line is firmly welded; after a sharp drop, the principal is raised in the first second, and the remaining position moves to lock in profits and limit losses. Those who missed it should wait for a rebound confirmation before reassessing. $BTC $ETH 我个人认为，这次调整大概率还没有到底。 比特币前段时间跌破 7.6 万美金后，又迅速反弹拉升到了 8 万美金，当时不少人觉得调整已经结束。结果今天打开盘面一看，价格又跌破了 7.6 万美金。 今天正好跟几位圈内的朋友聊了一下，大家对当下的行情有不少共鸣。我把自己的一部分思考摘录出来，做个记录，也供大家参考。 我个人认为，这次调整大概率还没有到底。表面上看是价格在关键位置反复拉锯，但往深处想，有几件事的负面影响才刚刚开始发酵，并会在接下来的几年里持续压制盘面： 一是币安黑天鹅事件的蝴蝶效应还没真正显现；二是与 2024 年特朗普竞选相关的利益集团，其带来的政治承诺与投机驱动正面临退潮；三则是比特币正面临量子计算和 AI 加速演进所带来的底层安全威胁。 01 信任与流动性危机 先说币安被盗 63 亿这件事。虽然币安家底厚，后续靠自有资金慢慢把窟窿补上了，账面上看似乎有惊无险，但市场远远没有消化掉这件事对整个行业的影响。这直接触及了最底层的市场信心——连币安这种全行业安全投入最高、风控最严的头部平台都被盗了，而且金额大到直接惊动了 FBI，甚至连朝鲜官方都罕见地出来回应。 63 亿 币安被盗The chip sector is catching its breath, but BTC is playing dead around 75,000. The semiconductor index had a big bullish candle that rescued risk appetite, AI chains and device stocks collectively recovered, but crypto only twitched its eyebrow—BTC is grinding sideways near 75,000, ETH is struggling above 2,100, and ETFs are still bleeding money.
A typical case of "sentiment wakes up first, but funds haven't followed." The semiconductor rebound feels like a test; BTC remains a short-covering rally until it breaks 80,000; ETH is even weaker—no talk of reversal unless it reclaims 2,400.
Bottom fishing can be a bit delayed; don’t mistake a short squeeze for a trend. Wait for CPI data and ETF inflows before deciding whether to join this tech recovery wave. The truly valuable data to look at in this set is not who has the largest inflow, but whether spot and futures are on the same side.
BTC had a net spot inflow of $248.92 million and a net futures inflow of $93.88 million in the past 24 hours, making it the only asset among the three to receive "double confirmation." Spot provides support, futures amplify flexibility, and the capital structure is the most complete. However, in the last hour, futures saw an outflow of $31.19 million, indicating that short-term trading has begun to cool down. The strength remains, but the pace may not continue to accelerate.
ETH is exactly the opposite. In 24 hours, futures outflowed $323.02 million and spot outflowed $67.67 million, with both spot and leverage withdrawing simultaneously. The small inflow in the last 4 hours does not change the main structure. ETH's current problem is not valuation but the lack of marginal buyers willing to continuously take positions.
SOL appears more like a transitional state: a 24-hour spot inflow of $16.4 million, but a futures outflow of $3.56 million. Spot funds are positioning early, while leveraged funds remain cautious. Positions are not crowded, retracement pressure is relatively limited, but the trend also lacks further confirmation.
The current capital ranking is already very clear: BTC holds the pricing initiative, SOL is waiting for leverage to follow, and ETH is still searching for buyers. On the surface, all three coins fluctuate with the market, but the funds have actually already cast their votes.Tuesday, November 10, 2026
Cryptocurrency (BTC @ $75,000): What’s next for the market?
Last night, after BTC experienced a sharp dip with a wick down to clear liquidity at $73,300, it was quickly supported by the Nasdaq’s oversold rebound and falling oil prices, pulling back to around $75,000 for turnover.
Chip structure: The $73,000–$74,000 range has shown very strong spot bottom-fishing support (short-term selling pressure mainly comes from derivative liquidations and hedge fund deleveraging).
Key focus for the market going forward:
Conditions for no further drop: If oil prices continue to fall, US Treasury yields decline, and Nvidia quickly clarifies the FBI investigation rumors, BTC is expected to form a very solid secondary double bottom pattern between $73,500 and $75,500.
Risk of a secondary breakdown: If after the US market opens tonight, Nvidia and chip stocks suffer another indiscriminate plunge due to the FBI investigation news, the chain of institutional margin calls may be reactivated.
Strategy and summary
Sentiment is extremely sensitive: Absolutely do not blindly increase leverage to open positions near $75,000.
Keep a close eye on three major signals this Wednesday:
The actual digestion and opening movement of Nvidia (NVDA) regarding the investigation rumors when the US market opens tonight.
The upcoming US CPI inflation data this week (to verify the real inflation stickiness after the oil price drop).
Whether BTC can maintain a continuous 2-3 trading day consolidation with shrinking volume above $74,000 Contract wipeout + spot market shrinks by 75%: CORE liquidity crisis, is it a bottom or an abyss?
The CORE leveraged trading front has basically been lost, with many platforms successively delisting CORE contract pairs, leading to an almost total wipeout in contracts; spot prices have retraced over 75% from their highs, and the number of exchanges has shrunk from a peak of 34 to only 8 small and medium platforms, with daily trading volume across the network remaining sluggish. Many investors are debating whether the sharp drop has already found the bottom or if it is merely a downward consolidation with a deeper abyss ahead. From an optimistic perspective: after a significant price crash, many negative factors have been fully priced in, including the impact of the b14g coin theft incident and the widespread market digestion of news about core personnel exiting. If a ghost chip disposal plan can be presented later and SatPay commercialization is realized, there is potential for sentiment recovery and an oversold rebound. However, more signals indicate that risks have not been cleared: contract delisting means leveraged funds have completely withdrawn, lacking incremental bullish capital; the spot market is left with only a small number of retail traders, with very thin order book depth, making it easy to experience spikes and large slippage. Bithumb will stop trading on November 30; if it further withdraws existing liquidity, selling pressure will be amplified. Coupled with the continuous release of 81-era coin inflation, doubts about treasury transparency, and the ecosystem's blood-generation flywheel failing to start, a simple price drop ≠ all bad news priced in. The true bottom requires liquidity stabilization + a fundamental turning point, namely: exchanges no longer delisting, on-chain activity warming up, and buyback narratives having conditions for implementation. Currently, it is only a shrinkage in price numbers; the risk chain has not been cut off.Two lines show the changes: The red line represents the strength of long position liquidations below, dropping steadily from 16 million on the left to zero around 74,425. Brothers, note that the red line in yesterday's chart hit zero at 74,150, now it has moved up to 74,425 — indicating that the long positions near 74,000 have been completely cleaned out after this rebound. The green line represents the strength of short position liquidations above, climbing from 74,425 to 82,589, now accumulating to 280 million.
Looking at the bars above: The densest area of 100x high leverage orange bars is near 75,881 with 16 million, the highest in the whole market; near 74,009 there are 15.8 million below the current price. The 50x yellow bars show 7.2 million near 73,593 and 6.2 million near 76,971.
Conclusion: The current price is 74,905, right in the middle of the rebound. The long positions below at 74,425 have all been liquidated, so there is no selling pressure from longs during the rebound. But near 75,881 above, there is a wall of 16 million 100x short positions that the rebound must face.
This chart indicates the short-term rebound can continue. After breaking 75,000, the next target is around 75,800. At that point, a large amount of short position liquidations will occur, and if it breaks through, it will trigger a short squeeze pushing prices upward. But if it cannot pass 75,800, it will have to consolidate again.
#美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？ $BTC $ETH $SOL #RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？ Rocket Lab (RKLB) Q3 Earnings Summary: Long-term Optimistic, Short-term Cautious.
Performance Exceeded Expectations: Q3 revenue was $267.8 million, up 73% year-over-year, surpassing previous company guidance.
Strong Order Backlog: Order backlog reached $3.57 billion, supporting future business growth.
Profitability Under Pressure: Net loss of $79.7 million indicates the company is still in a high-investment phase.
Key Highlight: Neutron rocket launch delayed to 2027; R&D progress will directly impact market confidence.
Sufficient Funds: Cash and marketable securities approximately $4.7 billion, short-term financial pressure relatively controllable.
My View:
Rocket Lab's long-term growth logic remains intact, with Electron and space systems businesses providing a solid foundation, while Neutron determines future growth potential.
However, short-term caution is needed regarding R&D delays, ongoing losses, and stock price volatility.
In a nutshell: Good performance growth, but the real highlight is still Neutron. Long-term attention advised, avoid blind short-term chasing.The purchase is of MSTR stock, not directly buying Bitcoin. This detail made me pause for a moment: if you want Bitcoin exposure, why go through an extra layer? This time, it's the European asset management giant Amundi disclosing an increase in holdings. I've only been in the circle for a year and almost misunderstood it as "institutions entering the market to buy coins" 😂
My understanding is that this is more like the stock channel accommodating the demand for Bitcoin allocation, which doesn't mean the spot market immediately sees the same amount of buying pressure. If institutions find it more convenient to gain exposure through stocks, then the bridging role of such companies is very important; but this is my speculation and cannot be used to judge Amundi's specific motives.
I haven't figured out yet to what extent this increase in holdings is an active bullish bet on Bitcoin, as the material doesn't explain the strategy. I will first separate "buying stocks" from "buying coins" and won't rush to label the news as a major positive.The most important event today is the US releasing the CPI at 9:30 PM
#美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？
Because of the US government shutdown last year, there is no year-over-year data tonight, so focus on the month-over-month data.
Market expectations: CPI MoM +0.3%, Core +0.2%
The market prices in an 80% probability of a 25 basis point rate hike in December. If the CPI MoM exceeds 0.3%, be cautious of a retracement of yesterday's gains; Bank of America says it would take a drop to around 0.1% to change its view.
I have prepared three reference scenarios:
1⃣️ CPI meets expectations (Core MoM 0.3%), the probability of a December rate hike remains around 80%. The main trading theme continues to price in a December hike. In this case, $BTC is likely to first dip down to liquidate longs, then rebound to liquidate shorts, followed by continued consolidation.
2⃣️ CPI exceeds expectations (Core MoM ≥0.4%), the probability of a December hike rises above 90%, possibly even pricing in another hike next year, which is bearish for the crypto market.
3⃣️ CPI is below expectations (Core MoM ≤0.2%), Bank of America says it would consider the possibility of no hike in December only if it drops to around 0.1%, which is bullish for the crypto market.
Liquidation map: $BTC's intraday long liquidation pain point is 74111, short liquidation pain point is 75600, with similar bar heights and a long-short ratio of 1:1 (the longer the yellow bar, the stronger the intensity).
Support: 73000 (buy wall); Resistance: 77500-78000 (moving average death cross) 导语 短手成本附近出现承接，支撑有效性仍待确认。 本文所提及市场、项目、币种等资讯、观点及判断，仅供参考，不构成任何投资建议 撰文 0xWeilan @ eMerge IS 本周美国金融市场的核心变化来自中期选举及其引发的政策预期重估。民主党夺回参众两院控制权，其加强 AI 监管、限制数据中心建设的主张，使市场开始重新评估 AI 基础设施投资的增长速度和盈利兑现能力。AI 科技股遭遇大幅抛售，风险偏好明显下降。与此同时，美国经济与就业保持韧性，美联储继续维持偏紧立场，金融市场呈现美债名义收益率回落、黄金反弹，而科技股与比特币承压的分化格局。 据 EMC Labs BTC 周期研判模型，比特币目前运行于修复期。本周外部金融环境的冲击通过 ETF 资金流出和风险偏好下降向加密市场传导，推动 BTC 下探真实市场均价与短期持有者成本两大关键位置。价格在短手成本附近获得承接，但资金流出和链上亏损兑现压力尚未消除。更为关键的是美国市场，如不能企稳，$BTC BTC 短期仍将面临下探压力。 宏观金融 11月3日，美国中期选举以民主党大获全胜告终。民主党夺回参众两院控制权，并在多个传统共和党优势州取$1.2 billion liquidated, $1.04 billion long positions. Leveraged longs chasing the rally were collectively swept by the market this time.
In the past 24 hours, over $1.2 billion in contract liquidations occurred across the network, with about $1.04 billion long and $160 million short, a long-to-short ratio close to 6.5:1, a typical long squeeze washout. In the same batch of news, Binance hackers used self-created Meme coins for money laundering, adding another layer of security risk and disruption.
Liquidation data is a direct indicator of short-term leverage health. After large-scale long liquidations, the market usually first consolidates and repairs rather than immediately reversing upward; if prices rebound quickly but volume does not support it, it is mostly a bull trap.
Scenario one: After liquidation, open interest and funding rates cool down, funding rates turn from positive to negative, and open interest continues to decline, indicating leverage has been properly reduced, making the retracement support level more worthy of attention. Scenario two: If funding rates surge again, beware of a secondary squeeze.
Do you prefer to wait for funding rates to turn negative before acting, or watch the volume of the rebound first?
Source: Odaily Planet DailyI'm still slowly recovering my investment. After seeing the regulatory news, I'm no longer reflexively calling it a positive sign. After losses in the past two years, what makes me most cautious is mistaking "seemingly stable" for "definitely safe."
The Canadian government announced a budget bill on November 5 proposing to prohibit federally regulated financial institutions from directly issuing cryptocurrencies. Stablecoins must be issued through independent non-financial subsidiaries regulated under stablecoin laws. The bill requires redemption at face value, asset segregation, and other reserve protections but does not include public deposit insurance or government guarantees. The Bank of Canada is responsible for registration and compliance supervision, with the framework expected to take effect next fall.
My judgment is that this is a relatively positive step for stablecoin regulatory development but not a guarantee of price benefits. The independent subsidiary plus asset segregation clarifies risk boundaries; the requirement for redemption at face value is closer to the real protection ordinary users need than simply having a financial institution's name attached.
However, without deposit insurance and government guarantees, this must be viewed carefully. The lesson I've learned is: regulatory status does not equal a backstop promise. You have to distinguish who issues, who is responsible, and how redemption works, not just relax vigilance based on background.
To friends also recovering their investments, don’t get discouraged even if it’s slow 💪 How is everyone doing lately? When choosing stablecoins, do you value the issuer’s background more, or the redemption mechanism and reserve segregation?FIL'S SLIDE TESTS PATIENCE, NOT CONVICTION
Filecoin ($FIL) is down 38.35% over 30 days, trading near 0.7571 after the 1.2769 peak, with 0.7180 the recent low. In downtrends, I'd rather protect capital and wait for structure than chase bounces. How do you manage risk when momentum stays weak?$UNITREE reached 103.76, and 109.5 was also broken, this trade made a profit
Yesterday I said to wait for a pullback to 102-104 to enter, stop loss at 99, first target 109.5. Yesterday's low was 103.4, just within the range. Then it rallied all the way to 113.25, the first target was perfectly achieved. For those who entered at 104, the rise to 113 was 9%
What to do next?
Beichen's idea is: take profit first, the target has been achieved, money in hand is real money. Also, this new high at 113.25 rose slower than last time, the momentum is weakening. The short squeeze has also lasted for a while, the shorts that needed to explode have mostly done so.
In terms of operation, wait for a break below 110 before lightly positioning short orders, stop loss at 114, just pay attention to proper position management! #美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？ Yesterday's view was clear: buy the altcoins that haven't crashed at the bottom, and realize short-term profits. With everyone bearish on storage, I firmly believe the market is not done yet. A strong short-term rebound is coming. Has the market arrived? My answer is no, it's still in the consolidation phase. From a technical perspective, Bitcoin's minute-level movements are like scribbles, and high leverage with large positions won't end well. Among mainstream coins, Bitcoin is jumping up and d🎮 Is the core of GameFi about playing and earning at the same time?
GameFi combines gaming with blockchain, digital assets, and token economics, but rewards do not equal sustainable value.
When evaluating a GameFi project, focus on four key aspects:
🎮 Gaming experience: Would players still play without rewards?
💰 Economic model: Do rewards come from real revenue or rely on new users?
🔗 Asset value: Are the items truly useful and is there real demand?
🛡️ Security mechanisms: Are contracts, asset permissions, and operational rules transparent?
A truly viable game should first attract players, then let the economic system create value. 🎮 Is the core of GameFi about playing and earning at the same time?
GameFi combines gaming with blockchain, digital assets, and token economics, but rewards do not equal sustainable value.
When evaluating a GameFi project, focus on four key aspects:
🎮 Gaming experience: Would players still play without rewards?
💰 Economic model: Do rewards come from real revenue or rely on new users?
🔗 Asset value: Are the items truly useful and is there real demand?
🛡️ Security mechanisms: Are contracts, asset permissions, and operational rules transparent?
A truly viable game should first attract players, then let the economic system create value. I'M WATCHING A BIG LONG ON $xXOM .
xXOM dumped from 167.95 and wicked down to 163.23, where buyers stepped in. Price now holds 165.09 with a green push off the lows. Resistance sits near 165.50, then 166.50. Next move: a reclaim toward 166.50.
Valid while price holds above 164.50. A 1H close below it invalidates the setup. Not financial advice.
Dip buyers are showing up.
#USCPIDecemberRateWatch $CT broke down with increased volume but the decline narrowed, so do not short-sell for now
In the last 15 minutes, the CT trading volume was about 2.71 times the average per 15 minutes over the previous 3 hours. The latest close was below the reference low of the previous 3 hours, lagging behind BTC. However, when divided into three 5-minute closing intervals, the asset's net return ranged from -1.09% to -0.04%, and the local currency's gap relative to BTC narrowed from -1.00 percentage points to -0.06 percentage points. The rate of decline and relative weakness both narrowed simultaneously, so the volume breakout in these 15 minutes should not be taken as a sign of a sustained downtrend. Therefore, when entering new short positions in the short term, there is insufficient reason to short directly; it is more reasonable to wait at least until there is a period without new lows and volume decreases, rather than following directly now.NBIS Q3 earnings report is somewhat optimistic, with expected revenue of $930 million to $950 million, potentially exceeding market expectations of $907 million to $917 million. Key focus is on whether ARR can surpass $4 billion, whether EBITDA margin can be maintained around 40%, and the growth guidance for 2027. Risks include massive capital expenditures, financing pressure, and customer concentration. The probability of revenue exceeding expectations is high, but the stock price may not necessarily rise after the earnings report, so caution is advised regarding the realization of positive news.Trump publicly supports Jensen Huang, but Nvidia's drop is not about character, it's about key person risk—the company has never announced a succession plan in its 33 years.
Last night made it clear: the three major US stock indexes all rose collectively, while Nvidia fell 4.27% against the trend, initially dropping as much as 8.8%, wiping out over $190 billion in market value overnight, with a cumulative drop of over 21% since the 20th. Previously, on November 5, it fell more than 9% in one day due to concerns over AI capital expenditure, adding to an already wounded sector.
Why didn't the support work? The leader's endorsement and the board's statement on retention can only suppress departure panic, not the succession vacuum. Jensen Huang personally sets the course and has never groomed a successor; analysts bluntly say "without him, no one knows how to value Nvidia."
The real bombshell lies in the November 17 earnings report and the November 18 closed-door congressional inquiry, focusing on end-user reviews for shipments to China and Southeast Asia. If resale rules tighten, overseas computing power delivery will be affected.
The sector needs to be viewed separately: storage watches HBM orders, which is the weakest link; optical modules depend on data center activity, an indirect transmission; new cloud is the most sensitive, fearing GPU delivery delays.
The judgment criterion is simple: if only Nvidia underperforms, it's a stock governance discount; if multiple lines weaken together, it indicates the market is doubting how long AI spending can be sustained.
The above is compiled from public information and does not constitute investment advice. 表面看是科技圈八卦在抢戏，底下却是另一套账本在说话 这波急跌，真的只是"最后一跌"吗？ 早上刷到BTC最低摸到73,500美元时，我第一反应不是恐慌，而是去看衍生品那头发生了什么。从81,000的反弹高点回落超过9%，同一时间全网一小时爆掉约7.45亿美元，其中95%以上是多头。这个比例很关键——它不是双向对冲后的自然出清，而是一次相当集中的多头挤压，杠杆被强行从桌上拿走。 有意思的是，表面热闹的是黄仁勋的个人争议升级、英伟达董事会启动独立调查，给美股科技板块添了不确定性；但加密这边真正被交易的，是仓位结构本身。连续下挫叠加ETF资金流出，多头杠杆被密集清算，短期风险确实释放了不少。换句话说，价格跌的是情绪，洗的是筹码。 我更愿意把现在放在"分歧"而非"启动"的位置。偏多路径是：73,000一带守住，先看能否收复76,000，再往78,000到80,000试探，那说明这轮调整的低点大概率已经出现。但风险也没消失——一旦重新跌破73,000，这套判断就得推翻，说明卖压还没走完，可能进入更磨人的派发节奏。山寨这边会更敏感，风险偏好没回来之前，反弹容易是短促的，节奏比方向更难拿。 所以我的结On November 9, an address transferred out 21.26 million USD on ETH. It wasn't a scam, it wasn't theft, it was holding on hard.
On August 26, this whale opened a long position at an average price of 2524.85 USD, holding up to 56,900 ETH at its peak, with a nominal value approaching 140 million USD. The market didn't cooperate, and ETH fluctuated downward. He didn't reduce his position, didn't stop loss, and chose to wait for a rebound. During the waiting period, just the funding fees exceeded 2.02 million USD — this money didn't change the position, it was purely the cost of holding.
On November 9, ETH dropped to around 2112 USD, triggering a full liquidation, and the balance went to zero.
The painful part is this: from 2524 to 2112, there was only about a 16% drawdown. A 16% drop is nothing in the crypto market; normal monthly volatility can cover that. But combined with high leverage and full margin, 16% was enough to wipe out a position worth over 100 million USD.
Two mechanisms were at play simultaneously. First, the funding rate, which charges over time, applies even during sideways movement, and the longer you hold, the more expensive it gets. Second, full margin, where unrealized losses erode the entire account with no isolation wall; once the threshold is hit, the entire position is liquidated.
My judgment: this is not luck, it's structural. Light positions, isolated margin, and stop losses mean 16% is just a painful event, not a wipeout.
He held from late August to early November, with countless chances to exit. Those who lose big money often don't do so because of wrong judgment, but because they refuse to admit their mistakes.Conclusion first: This week, the US spot $BTC ETF saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion USD, the largest single-week outflow since the end of June. IBIT withdrew 1.21 billion, accounting for 95%; it has had net outflows for six consecutive trading days since 10/30, totaling 1.44 billion.
However, FBTC had a net inflow of 93 million. Don't interpret this as "US institutions collectively fleeing"; it's the largest channel that is concentrating withdrawals.
On the other side, it's even more subtle: Strategy only bought 1,036 coins worth 81.9 million USD during the same period; yet it spent 188.3 million USD to repurchase its own STRC preferred shares, which is 2.3 times the amount spent on buying coins. Since October, it has repurchased 1.06 billion STRC, while buying coins only 219.7 million. They talk about buying coins, but the money first goes to repurchasing their own stock.
Regarding price: $BTC current price is 74,920. From the high of 81,199 on 11-04 to the low of 73,385 on 11-08, it retraced 9.6%, breaking below the 50-week moving average I calculated based on weekly data (about 75,200). The Fear and Greed Index is 32, still in the panic zone. Over 1 billion USD was liquidated over the weekend, with longs accounting for 931 million.
My view: what's withdrawing is sentiment, not belief. Institutions daring to add positions at this level are still testing the waters with small amounts.
Are you buying through ETFs or directly on exchanges? With ETFs withdrawing for six consecutive days, are you still adding positions? $BTCMacro: Geopolitical tensions cooling down (oil prices falling) + US stocks opening higher (crypto did not follow) + gold stable and firm
Data: Coinbase premium index negative (little change) + Monday ETF little change (no crypto buying yet)
Technical:
BTC short-term support: 73800 / 72700; resistance: 76200 / 78600
ETH short-term support: 2085 / 2050; resistance: 2160 / 2250
Market tone:
1️⃣ Overall tone: Geopolitical news priced in first, sharp drop in oil prices is a clear positive, the dollar reacted first, stocks followed later, the dollar started falling yesterday morning, stocks opened higher in the evening, risk appetite eased
2️⃣ The direct cause is Trump's clear statement over the weekend: as long as negotiations make progress, a military strike on Iran is "highly unlikely." The market interprets this as a signal of easing geopolitical tensions, oil prices plunged, easing inflation and supply chain concerns, supporting stocks and risk assets.
3️⃣ Secondly, a rebound from oversold repair, but note this is not a full macro fundamental bullish turn; the sustainability depends on tonight's CPI. If CPI eases, the upside may test 76000; if CPI overheats, 73500 is the defense line, possibly tested a second time Not chasing AMD's +13% gap: $AMD ~$509 on OKX after Monday's big day.
Closed $508.58, +13.26%.
Oppenheimer upgrade to Outperform, $600 target.
Plus a Google Cloud chip win.
OKX perp 24h range $442-$516.
Last week's low was $400.18.
I think the story is real, but the gap is already priced in.
Just watching.
Holds $500? Gap becomes a base.
Loses $475? Gap fill risk.
Chase to $600, or wait for a retest?
$AMD $NVDA
#USStocks #AIAVAX surged to the 2nd spot on CoinGecko's hot search today. As of 10:08 AM Beijing time on November 10, OKX spot price is $8.68, up about 7.7% from the 24h open, with a 24h range of 7.82–9.01; the entire network's 24h trading volume is about $542 million, and market cap is approximately $3.86 billion.
The catalyst is clear: On November 9, Ava Labs announced that the tokenized securities trading platform affiliated with the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) will use Avalanche to provide the core ledger technology for clearing and settlement, aiming for 7×24 hour trading and instant settlement, pending regulatory approval. The Wall Street Journal reports it could launch as early as the end of the year.
My view: This is a significant endorsement for Avalanche in the RWA narrative, but the details need to be clear—the NYSE is running a customized chain based on Avalanche technology, not directly using the public chain, so the demand transmission to the AVAX token itself is still unclear. After the price surged to 9, it has retreated to around 8.6, down about 16% over 30 days, and OKX perpetual funding rates are slightly negative, indicating few are chasing the highs. I am more focused on the progress of regulatory approval and actual settlement volume; narrative realization is the real foundation for the next market phase.
$AVAX 83% of the share is concentrated in two coins, a figure that made me pause even more than the “all-time high.” Having been in the circle for only a year, I still get excited when I see new highs 😂 But this time, with the euro stablecoin supply reaching €751 million, what concerns me more is: how Circle’s EURC and Société Générale’s EURCV account for such a large portion.
My understanding is that this looks more like progress from the leading issuers and can’t yet be taken as the entire euro stablecoin sector heating up. I’m not sure if that’s right; supply tells me how many coins there are, but not who holds them or whether they are being repeatedly used.
Concentration itself isn’t necessarily a bad thing. My guess is that if wallets and apps prioritize integrating these two, then the cost for users to choose and adapt might be lower; but conversely, if new demand only flows to them, smaller issuers might not benefit from this growth. So I think this news is more significant for the leading products than for the entire sector.
I haven’t figured out yet whether this concentration mainly comes from usage habits or the issuers’ own channel advantages; this single piece of information can’t tell. Next, I want to look for data on holder distribution and actual transfers to remind myself not to read supply records directly as adoption levels.The market woke up before dawn, and the tape offered little comfort. $BTC is trading near 75,018, grinding lower on the daily chart while trying to hold above the 75,000 line. What stands out is not the price but the positioning: the four-hour long/short ratio still sits at 2.81, meaning retail traders are not retreating. They are adding to longs into weakness, and that is precisely the problem. $ETH tells a harsher story at 2,126. The daily chart has deteriorated badly, yet the long/short ratioWhen I saw this news, my first reaction was to do the math: the amount looks large, but how much does it actually represent within the assets managed by the institution? When I see this kind of news about increased holdings, I usually first distinguish whether it’s a major move or just a small-scale trial, so as not to be misled by the headline.
According to PANews citing The Bitcoin Historian, Amundi, Europe’s largest asset management institution managing $3 trillion in assets, purchased over $72 million worth of MSTR (Strategy) stock to gain Bitcoin exposure, increasing its holdings by 43.7%, with total holdings exceeding $238 million. Using $238 million as a reference, this is about 0.008% of its managed assets. This comparison is only about scale and does not represent the specific fund’s position.
My judgment leans positive, but don’t treat this as a major bet. It shows that traditional asset managers are willing to gain Bitcoin exposure through stocks, but buying MSTR is not the same as directly buying Bitcoin, so this amount should not be counted as new Bitcoin spot buying.
Stability and risk should also be considered separately: holding stocks does not mean lower risk. Besides Bitcoin’s volatility, one must also consider the company’s financing arrangements and stock valuation. If the market only focuses on hyping institutional entry, these risks might be overlooked, which is my concern.
Personally, I prefer to be more cautious and treat this as a signal of institutional participation rather than a reason to chase the market. I will observe whether this type of allocation can be sustained going forward.Something extremely absurd happened last night.
Brent crude oil plunged nearly 8% intraday, closing down 5.85% at $92.57. The US stock market saw the S&P rise 2.4%, the Dow Jones up 2.2%, and the Nasdaq up 2.7%, with AI chip stocks celebrating collectively.
The logic chain seems flawless: progress in US-Iran talks → reopening of the Strait of Hormuz → oil price collapse → easing inflation expectations → reduced pressure on interest rate hikes → positive for all risk assets, especially BTC.
But what did Bitcoin do last night?
Not only did it not rise, it slipped down while the US stock market surged. As of this morning, BTC is at $75,277, down 0.39% in 24 hours. Ethereum fell 1.25%, XRP dropped 2.82%.
The logic is correct. But the market doesn’t acknowledge it.
Where is the problem?
It lies in the time dimension of this transmission chain.
Oil price decline → easing inflation expectations → reduced pressure on rate hikes is a monthly-level variable. It requires consecutive softening CPI data to confirm, Fed officials to change their tone one by one, and time.
But ETF outflows are a daily-level variable.
Last week, the US spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net outflow of $1.282 billion, the largest single-week outflow since June, marking the second consecutive week of net outflows, with the year-to-date fund flow turning negative. In the past 24 hours, $71.81 million worth of BTC positions were liquidated, 55.4% of which were longs—not shorts dumping, but longs running away.
The monthly-level positive factors have not yet materialized, but daily-level funds are already retreating.
When a daily variable continues to deteriorate, the monthly-level positives cannot be realized in the market.
What’s even more painful is the interest rate hike expectation.
After the nonfarm payroll data exceeded expectations, CME shows the probability of a rate hike in December has risen above 78%. The oil price drop indeed cooled inflation expectations, but the 78% rate hike probability is already priced in—it is currently suppressing the discount rate of risk assets.
You cannot use a "future possibly lowered rate hike probability" to counteract an "ongoing ETF net outflow."
Distant water cannot put out a nearby fire. Slow variables cannot save fast-moving funds.
So under what circumstances can this broken chain reconnect?
Watch two signals.
First, can oil prices really stay low continuously? Last night’s plunge was trading on "negotiation progress," not "agreement reached." The probability of back-and-forth between the US and Iran remains high, and geopolitical premiums could be re-injected at any time.
Second, can ETF outflows stop? The $1.282 billion outflow is a fact that has already happened; it won’t automatically flow back just because oil prices fell 8%. Fund inflows require seeing price stabilization and CPI confirming that inflation is truly declining.
At 21:30 tonight, October CPI will be released. But watch out for a pitfall: there is no year-over-year data this time because last year’s government shutdown caused a missing comparison base, so the market can only look at month-over-month data. Dow Jones consensus expects overall MoM at 0.3%, core MoM at 0.2%.
Month-over-month cooling, but not enough to push down the 78% rate hike probability significantly.
The logic is correct, but positions die first.
This is the tuition every macro trader has paid.
A plunge in oil prices is a good thing. But for the good to be realized in your account, there is a time lag of an entire fund flow cycle in between.
Before ETFs stop bleeding, all macro positives are just paper gains.
$BTC $BZ $XAU The $75,000 level is repeatedly under pressure, with a weekly ETF net outflow of $1.28 billion, the largest since June. The 50-week moving average, which had held for seven consecutive weeks, officially closed below last week.
Technically, financially, and sentiment-wise, all three indicators are red.
But “weak” does not mean “should be weak.” Breaking down the causes of this decline, they are all tactical—strong employment pushed up rate hike pricing, concentrated ETF redemptions amplified the drop, and breaking the 50-week moving average triggered programmed stop-losses. None are structural.
And the following three signals are starting to create cracks in the consensus that "everyone is bearish."
Signal 1: The "crack" in oil prices is deeper than the market pricing.
Brent crude has plunged from highs to around $92, dropping over 10% in a single week. UBS estimates that energy commodities contributed only 0.04 percentage points to CPI in October, compared to 0.39 percentage points in September. This inflation leg from energy is visibly softening.
The market currently prices an 80% chance of a rate hike in December, close to fully priced in. But if the CPI comes in softer than expected, this 80% will be unwound. For risk assets, even a slight easing of discount rate pressure will shake valuation anchors.
Signal 2: Are ETF outflows "fast money" running or "slow money" withdrawing?
Of the $1.28 billion outflow, IBIT alone accounts for about $1.21 billion, with $403 million on Friday alone. Concentrated, urgent, and pinpointed—these are characteristics of passive redemptions and leverage liquidations, not systematic withdrawals by allocation funds.
Historically, weekly outflows at the $1 billion level are often followed by a slowdown in outflow slope. If next week's outflow narrows to under $300 million, the most painful supply shock phase has likely passed.
Signal 3: BTC’s "debt" to the US stock market is growing.
Last night, the S&P rose over 2%, the Nasdaq led gains, and the chip index rose 11% over two days, while BTC barely climbed back to around 75,300, failing to recover the morning’s losses.
This is not BTC "failing," but a lag in risk appetite transmission. Stocks recover first, crypto follows—this script has played out more than once. The greater the excess decline between the two, the stronger the mean reversion tension. Once risk appetite "spills" from stocks to crypto, the rebound elasticity will be fiercer than when they move in tandem.
So the current coordinates are clear:
$75,000 is an observation anchor, not a bottom signal. It sits just above the 50-week moving average; if broken, look to 68,000, the next level marked by Wintermute.
A short-term weakness break signal: a volume-backed recovery above 80,000. If the daily closes above and the weekly holds, the structure changes.
The first confirmation combo for a mid-term reversal: ETF net inflows for three consecutive days + CPI below expectations. Both must appear simultaneously to signal a "handover of pricing power."
The market is often most pessimistic when information asymmetry is greatest.
Everyone is watching that BTC didn’t rise last night. A few are watching what happens if oil prices keep falling, CPI softens, and ETF bleeding stops—what the $75,000 level will become.
$BTC $ETH $BZ 🚨Explosive question! The whole network is shorting, am I the only one bullish?
Brothers!
US October non-farm payrolls blew past expectations
December rate hike bets are fully priced in
Hyperliquid whales' short positions are piling up to the sky!
Highest level since October 2025
Net short size is nearly twice the longs!
Spot ETFs are still crazily flowing out
Macro selling pressure is heavily suppressing the market
On the surface, going long seems like suicide!
But!
I insist on sharing a different perspective 🔥
73K is the core structural support this round!
75K is the first line of defense
If the short-term breaks below, it will quickly test 74K
But there has always been buying support below 73K
Absolutely no mindless one-sided shorting!
Logic explained:
Currently, shorts are actively positioning, not yet extremely crowded
Funding rates have not reached extremes either
Once the price stabilizes between 73K-75K
And retakes 76K
The piled-up shorts will be forced into a chain of liquidations
A rapid short squeeze rally will come suddenly!
ETF outflows and macro bearishness are real
But don't underestimate the explosive power of contract-side squeezes!
✅My trading plan:
👉Lightly build long positions in batches between 74K-73.2K
Stop loss firmly below 72.8K
👉Aggressive traders can try small longs near 75K
⚠️Two critical thresholds:
🔴Volume-backed break below 73K → short logic confirmed, exit immediately
🟢Hold above 73K, volume-backed break above 76K → squeeze rally starts, target first 77.5K~78.5K #Elon Musk talks about Jensen Huang's affair twice in one day#
Elon Musk put out two fires for Jensen Huang's "affair scandal" within 8 hours, strongly supporting him. This is not just true friendship but also because their cooperation is at a critical stage.
The first time Elon Musk reposted a Sequoia partner's post, the core message was: personal morality is personal morality, but Jensen Huang is irreplaceable in AI strategic value. The second time, he was even more straightforward, replying with a 🙏 to a post saying "I don't care at all who the CEO messes around with," directly kicking private life out of the discussion.
Why the urgency? Because Musk's current AI projects—xAI's Grok, Tesla FSD, SpaceX—have their computing lifeline all in Nvidia's hands. Musk himself said "I only cooperate with Nvidia," and Nvidia is also SpaceX's sixth largest shareholder. When news of Huang's affair broke, Nvidia's stock price once crashed over 4%. The market's real fear is whether Huang will be investigated by the board and removed, which would be a nuclear bomb for the supply chain.
Elon Musk's candid remark is the most interesting: "My kids have many lovers too, but I never get married, so there's no such thing as cheating." Elon Musk is truly one of a kind~$INIT The air force giant whale below won't be able to hold on without cutting losses; the fees are set so high.