Orbit Post Sitemap

A weekly report hides a very straightforward number: 258.6 bitcoins were produced this week, all sold, with the current holding at 0. Production and sales are perfectly aligned, not a single coin left. Many people see miners clearing out and their first reaction is "Do they know some bad news?" Looking at it on a weekly basis, it looks more like an assembly line: mine, sell, convert to cash to pay electricity bills and equipment costs. In the miners' ledger, holdings are inventory, sales are revenue. What’s worth watching is not "whether they sell," but "what proportion they sell." Producing and selling the same amount means they choose zero price exposure—no bet on higher coin prices next week, just continuous cash flow for the current period. This is conservative during a rise and actually safer during volatility. The number 258.6 itself is not a reason to crash the market. It is a regular supply flow, already factored into miners’ daily selling pressure. The real signal is the opposite: when a mining company starts holding the coins it produces on its books, that’s when they turn bullish. Another detail: holding zero means they are completely immune to book value fluctuations. If the coin price drops by half, inventory doesn’t depreciate; if it doubles, assets don’t increase. They run mining as a cash flow business, not a leveraged gamble. So the question is not "miners sold," but "who is still buying." Every miner sale of $BTC must be matched by a buyer. When the seller is a stable, predictable machine, the market never lacks selling pressure but rather the buy-side willing to step up. The rhythm of $ETH and $SOL also returns to this point.$SNDK SanDisk: From "AI Storage King" to Roller Coaster, What to Watch Before the Stock Split? SanDisk was once the sharpest spear in storage chips this year, with its stock price soaring nearly 380% year-to-date. But since the end of October, the trend has suddenly changed: on November 5th, it plummeted over 22% in a single day, with a drawdown from its peak reaching as much as 62%, then rebounded 3.55% on November 6th to close at $835. The plunge was not triggered by performance. FY2026 revenue is $20.25 billion, a surge of 175%, data center revenue grew 437% for the year, and Q1 2027 data center revenue increased 61% quarter-over-quarter. What really suppressed the stock price was market concerns about tighter AI data center regulations after the midterm elections, and a valuation re-rating where "good performance ≠ good stock price." A bigger highlight is November 19th: SanDisk will implement a 1-for-8 stock split to lower the participation threshold for retail investors. Meanwhile, nearly $94 billion in minimum contract revenue commitments have locked in about 50% of FY27 bit capacity, a demand visibility that is quite rare among storage stocks. Wall Street’s average target price remains above $2,000, corresponding to about $250 post-split. But the cyclical nature of memory remains unchanged: no matter how strong data centers are, the consumer side is still dragging, and whether NAND price increases can continue is the next key variable. The stock split is not about fundamentals, but it will draw more attention to this stock. Are you bullish or bearish?Ghost story: Who will be the next exchange to be blacklisted? HTX and MEXC have both run into trouble, which might just be the beginning. The Democrats taking control of both the House and Senate is definitely a political signal that the crypto world needs to be wary of. Political struggles often aren't just about right or wrong, but about interests. Donald Trump, weren't you a strong supporter of the crypto space and even launched your own token? Now that Congress has new leadership, will they start seriously investigating your crypto business? Especially now, the US crackdown on exchanges is no longer just about SEC fines; it involves financial sanctions, anti-money laundering systems, and cutting off access to the US dollar financial channels. HTX was targeted by the European Union, MEXC by the US Treasury Department; the reasons behind these actions differ, but the risk signals they send are worth paying attention to. The crypto community is still busy fighting among themselves, unaware that the political winds outside have already changed. "Xiaomeizi" has even reached their doorstep. Who will be next?#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ SoftBank announced its Q2 earnings on November 10, revealing the $64.6 billion bet on OpenAI. First, the pressure: the stock price has dropped about 59% from its June peak, the 5-year CDS rose to 466 basis points, a four-year high; in September, $11.1 billion of junk bonds were issued, with the longest maturity yielding 9.75%, setting a record for a single corporate junk bond issuance. Things are not smooth on OpenAI’s side either: the fundraising target was cut from $30 billion to $20 billion, valuation dropped from $1.4 trillion to $1.25 trillion, with only about $11 billion in commitments; the IPO was pushed to 2027, and the related SB Energy IPO was also delayed. My view: short-term bearish. The November 10 earnings report is the first real test, with the key being whether the Vision Fund adjusts OpenAI’s valuation and how much the LTV rises from 13%. If the valuation is further lowered, pressure on the stock and bond markets will continue to transmit. But there’s no need to think of a crash: the LTV is still far from the self-imposed 25% limit, Arm is still in hand, and this round looks more like an AI valuation bubble deflation rather than SoftBank going under. Information compiled, not investment advice. For the November 10 earnings, which number do you most want to see? The probability of YES has dropped to only 17%, down 31 percentage points in the past 24 hours. Most people would take this as a sign of the market regaining confidence in Bitcoin's short-term bottoming, but I actually think this number looks more like an emotional turning point and shouldn't be taken directly as a directional signal. The reason is simple: the trading volume is about $66,000, which is not a large sample, so a small amount of capital could reshape the probability; moreover, the market settles around November 2026, so this is not a spot price commitment. On the other hand, if everyone bets on "not falling," once expectations are disappointed, won't the sentiment backfire? Would you take 17% as a signal or as noise? FABLES (RH Chain RWA Vertical Liquidity Protocol) TVL, Revenue, Burn Mechanism, Benchmarking and Ceiling Projection FABLES is positioned not as a general Meme launchpad but as a liquidity protocol specifically targeting tokenized stock RWA assets. It adapts to the unique trading hours of the US stock market, addressing liquidity gaps caused by 24-hour on-chain trading and US stock market open and close periods. Its track is the liquidity LP track, benchmarking against BSC's CAKE, ETH's CRV, and Base's AEVO. FABLES launched its TGE on October 20, 2026, with a total supply cap of 1 billion tokens. The initial circulating supply at TGE was capped at 75 million tokens. Most team tokens are locked, with 40 million tokens permanently locked as veFABLES, and another 40 million tokens locked for 6 months with a two-year linear unlock. Here is the mechanism you should focus on: FABLES currently does not have a contract-automated buyback and burn mechanism. Its value capture relies on veFABLES locked governance, with transaction fees distributed to veFABLES locked holders rather than buyback and burn. This model is homologous to CRV's veCRV model and completely different from the burn models of CAKE, PUMP, and PONS. FABLES has been live for a short time and is still in the early growth phase. Its historical highest TVL appeared one week after TGE, reaching a peak TVL of 142 million USD. The peak daily protocol fee income was 187,000 USD, with a seven-day average peak income around 120,000 USD.Seeing "Indian law enforcement raids exchanges," the first reaction is always: Can I still get my money out? This time, the raids were on CoinDCX and Delta Exchange, a total of 3 locations. The platforms said it was a routine inquiry, and trading, deposits, and withdrawals are all normal. To put it simply, they are investigating cross-border funds, not shutting down the platforms. If you really want to worry, it’s not about how much $BTC drops, but whether the money you put in will get stuck and be impossible to withdraw because a certain channel is blocked. My own habit is very simple: no matter how big the platform is, first check if you can withdraw. If you can withdraw, the news is just news; if you can’t, the news is an incident.那根清算针过去之后，盘面只做了一件事：把杠杆洗干净。二十四小时里近二十万人被强平、爆仓超过十亿美元，九成是多单；未平仓量一天掉二十亿美元。现在费率贴着零，读数在 52 上下，多空都没占住，也没人敢加仓——就是一个横住的台子。 源头不在币圈。美股 AI 交易线被从中间拆开，纳指单日跌 5.52%、费城半导体指数跌超 12%，是 2020 年 3 月以来最惨的一天，标普成分股一天蒸发约三万亿市值。中期选举的结果落地之后，在美国建数据中心变得更难，得州、佐治亚这些数据中心大州的反对声正在发酵，几家巨头开始重审第三方项目。挑这个时间点放这种口风，不是为了管住市场，是为了管住选票——算力资产的估值锚一变，先跑的一定是对冲基金，不是散户。 做个对照：2020 年 3 月、2022 年 11 月，那两次冲击之后的第一次反弹都是空头回补，真行情在后面。这次不一样的地方在于没有信用事件——没有哪家平台兑不出钱，也没有哪条链停摆，纯粹是杠杆把杠杆自己洗掉。杠杆清干净的坑，和坏消息砸出来的坑，性质完全不同：前者修得快，后者要等基本面自己拐。 把这条链说成人话：美债收益率不下来，美元就压着风险资产，钱只肯在最On November 4, Indian law enforcement officers appeared at CoinDCX's Bangalore office. As soon as the news broke, many people's first reaction was: another exchange is going down. But CoinDCX responded calmly—routine inquiry, full cooperation, and all trading, deposits, and withdrawals are operating normally. Comparing the two narratives side by side, the difference in tone is obvious. CoinDCX emphasized it was a routine inquiry, but during the same set of actions, law enforcement searched three locations related to CoinDCX and Delta Exchange, pointing to suspected unauthorized cross-border transactions. The inquiry is soft, the search is hard. So what is India investigating? CoinDCX is registered with India's financial intelligence agency and must comply with the Foreign Exchange Management Act of 1999, as well as fulfill customer identification, anti-money laundering, and reporting obligations. It is a licensed entity in India. When a licensed platform is investigated, the focus is often not on the license itself but on activities beyond the license—how money crosses borders and whether foreign exchange controls are circumvented. This line is a red line in any emerging market. Therefore, this matter has limited impact on the prices of $BTC and $ETH but a greater impact on the narrative around India. India has represented the crypto population dividend in recent years, but the dividend and regulation are two ends of the same rope: the more users, the larger the cross-border funds, and the more frequent the enforcement. What is worth considering is not whether there will be fines this time, but how much profit margin remains for emerging market platforms when compliance shifts from a one-time action to routine enforcement. What Wall Street fears most is not a nonfarm payroll surprise, but that the U.S. economy is too resilient! Is the rate cut dream slipping away again? What are investors most concerned about recently? The answer might not be which company's earnings exceeded expectations, but when the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates. However, the U.S. October nonfarm payroll data seems to have doused the market with cold water. New jobs added were 165,000, far exceeding expectations; the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%; and employment data for the previous two months was revised upward by 84,000. This indicates that the U.S. labor market is not as weak as the market had previously feared. For ordinary households, more job opportunities are certainly good news. But for investors hoping for a low interest rate environment, this data may bring new worries. Because the stronger the employment, the more likely the Federal Reserve is to remain patient with its policy. As long as inflation remains above target, policymakers may not be willing to ease monetary policy easily. Especially growth stocks and tech stocks, which are often sensitive to interest rate changes. If the market raises its interest rate expectations again, valuation pressure may reappear. Of course, strong employment data alone does not necessarily mean the Fed will hike rates. Future moves will still depend on inflation trends and other economic indicators. The most interesting part of this game is: everyone hopes for a healthy economy, but also wants interest rates to drop quickly. Investors' mood is probably: U.S. economy, please be healthy, but don’t be too healthy! #CLARITY bill may be shelved until 2028 I don't really believe that the harder the technology, the easier the coin is to rise. Whether an upgrade can bring demand to the token involves many other factors in between. Memes might be more easily driven by emotions, but I'm also afraid that just when I understand what everyone is excited about, the hype will die down. If it were written as a strategy, technical progress and buying pressure should be recorded separately. But how do you measure the heat of a meme? If it's all just accounts from the same batch shouting at each other, can that really be considered market consensus?$UNI What is the significance of stocks entering on-chain trading pools for Uniswap? According to official records from Ondo, its tokenized stocks entered the Uniswap StablePair pool on Robinhood Chain in October. With a broader range of assets, there is an opportunity to bring originally fragmented trading demand into the on-chain liquidity network. However, stock trading involves underlying market closures, subscription and redemption restrictions, and price update rhythms. Just because the pool can trade doesn't mean it can provide equally good execution at all times. I focus on price spreads, trading depth, and real fees during non-trading hours. If liquidity remains long-term and the arbitrage mechanism is smooth, the network value is stronger; if price deviations are frequent and market-making costs eat into profits, the expansion of new assets may not improve the economic model.When I came across this, what popped into my mind wasn’t the market trend, but a common phrase from code reviews: "The normal flow works, but have you tested the exception branches?" 💻 Having been a programmer for a long time, when I see "fixed," my hand instinctively scrolls down to the test records. This time the input is very clear: Solana's perpetual contract platform Percolator disclosed two fixes in v2.2, involving that after liquidation the market can only be closed, and that liquidity providers cannot initiate exits after the vault is paused. My judgment is that disclosing fixes is a plus, but what’s more valuable is whether it can serve as a verifiable exception handling explanation. Both issues occur after state transitions: liquidation changes the market state, pausing changes the vault state. The functionality working individually doesn’t mean the transitions still connect as expected, and that’s the logic I want to review. If it were me, I would require adding the trigger conditions, the expected behavior after the fix, and corresponding regression tests. It’s especially important to distinguish the permission boundaries between "vault paused" and "whether users can initiate exits"; otherwise, if another protective switch is added later, it might inadvertently lock another process. This is my engineering speculation, not a known new vulnerability. I will continue to look at the verification information for the exception paths and will not take the version number update as direct security acceptance.$OKB OKXICE submitted a stock tokenization application to the SEC in early October. Among the first batch of 62 companies, 56 have expressed opposition, while the remaining 6 that did not oppose are all related to crypto business. It is clear that for RWA innovations involving existing equity and dividends, traditional finance and listed companies remain cautious and conservative. Their main concern is still the issue of pricing power. The first batch focusing on crypto-friendly and highly related blue-chip stocks is also good, setting an example first~ According to the process, the report should be disclosed soon.I almost directly translated “net inflow” as “holders became more determined.” Most people tend to treat this kind of news as bullish, but I want to ask: just because money has come in, does that mean it intends to stay for a long time? According to SoSoValue data, on November 6 Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from ZCSH; the historical cumulative net inflow is $209 million, with a total net asset value of $772 million. Thinking about it the other way, I believe the power of this set of numbers to prove confidence among $ZEC holders is overrated. There are two reasons: net inflow is the result of offsetting inflows and outflows, so it doesn’t reveal how much two-way trading is behind it; net asset value is not equal to cumulative investment, and the difference between the two cannot be directly taken as holder profit. If you interpret all this as “firmly bullish,” your judgment is likely to be off. Would you use ETF net inflow to judge holding confidence, or do you need to see the holding period? I welcome those with opposing views to debate.#uPEG Concentration Change: The combined holdings of the Top 20 decreased slightly from 68.4% to 67.9%, a drop of 0.5%, continuing the trend of liquidity dispersion but at a slower pace. The only noteworthy event today is the #3 address consolidating 4.2 uPEG to Bybit — although it did not reach the >5 uPEG warning threshold, the order splitting technique suggests an intention to quietly offload. Source: Etherscan + Dextools Holdings Tracking (Real-time Networked) Tech stocks sold off sharply overnight, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index posting its worst single-day drop since March 2020, and $BTC and $ETH slid alongside them. That correlation matters ahead of tonight's nonfarm payrolls release. The question is not which direction the data will point, but whether rate expectations absorb another layer of upward pressure. The bearish path is straightforward. If hiring and wages come in clearly stronger than expected, rate-hike anxiety returns, TreasThe Nov 6 rebound in Nvidia and AMD lifted the Nasdaq, but it followed a Nov 5 selloff that pushed the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index down more than 12%. That makes the bounce worth watching, not proof of renewed conviction. Regulatory exposure, returns on heavy AI capex, and valuations still need clearer answers. #TechStocksReboundWatch The week’s wreckage was not evenly distributed. A hot nonfarm payrolls print landed squarely on rate-sensitive assets, liquidation queues stretched across crypto, and a contested midterm backdrop drained appetite for leverage. Yet the more telling signal sits in how $BTC and $ETH are behaving around specific levels rather than in the headline body count. $BTC is the pivot. The 75,000–75,500 band is now the line that decides whether this is a pause or a deeper repricing. A clean hold there keeps First, a bit of cold water: No matter how impressive the historical net inflows are, they are not a guarantee of new demand. PANews, citing SoSoValue data, reported that on November 6 Eastern Time, the total net outflow of the US SOL spot ETFs was $25.076 million, with BSOL net outflowing $14.4424 million, while the historical cumulative net inflow still stands at $1.109 billion. My judgment on this news is bearish, targeting short-term capital sentiment, not a death sentence for $SOL's fundamentals. I care about two things. First, you cannot mix stock and flow: historical cumulative inflows indicate past capital allocation but cannot offset the direction of net withdrawals on the day. Using cumulative numbers to prove that buying remains strong, in my view, is a conceptual sleight of hand. Second, BSOL alone contributed more than half of the net outflow, so it cannot be directly interpreted as all institutions collectively bearish; however, the capital movement in leading products may also dampen market expectations for ETFs to continue attracting funds. Of course, the bulls might be right; a single day's data is indeed insufficient to confirm a trend. If subsequent net outflows do not continue, more products resume net inflows, and prices can absorb this capital change, I will retract my short-term bearish view. My habit is to first watch whether new funds can connect, rather than using past performance reports to bolster confidence today. $AKE In the early morning, I wrote about AKE, saying that the negative fee rate wouldn't turn positive, so this wave wouldn't be over. Now the fee rate is +0.0154%, which is 50% higher than the 0.01% benchmark. The market has indeed ended — ending downward. In 24h, it moved from 0.0029 to 0.00632, now at 0.004874, down about 23%. At 11 o'clock, there were still 39.29 million contracts, but by 13 o'clock only 6.45 million remained, one-sixth. 24h trading volume is 443 million, but open interest is only 4.46 million, a 99x turnover, all short-term traders probing each other inside. The bulls are still holding, paying 0.0154% fees. I won't chase this price; my previous guess was half right, but the direction was wrong. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Nonfarm payrolls "shock" causes initial joy then concern in crypto market October nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000, far exceeding the expected 65,000, with the unemployment rate falling to 4.1%. Employment resilience weakens easing expectations, with December rate hike bets rising to 70-80%, putting pressure on risk assets. BTC briefly surged to 76,100 before pulling back, now fluctuating between 75,500 and 76,000, with 75,000 as the bullish defense line; if broken, downside space may open. ETH fell below 2,300 and is now hovering around 2,230, weaker than BTC. The Fear and Greed Index dropped to 28, indicating rising bearish sentiment. Strong data makes it harder for the Fed to pivot, making crypto's short-term outlook uneasy. Watch BTC around 75,000 and ETH near 2,300; if sentiment continues to weaken, beware of increased volatility. $BTC $ETH #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $BTC $412 million. Yesterday, the net outflow of Bitcoin spot ETFs was this large, with IBIT alone withdrawing $403 million, which is 78% more than the entire day's trading volume of OKX Bitcoin spot. As for the price, it moved from 75,694 to 75,933 in 24h, up 0.3%, no crash. I think the key is the fee rate, now at 0.0019%, less than 20% of the 0.01% benchmark. No one is willing to pay a premium to go long, and no one is in a hurry to act. At 06:00, the 1H candle still had 213,000 contracts, but by 13:00 only 29,000 contracts remained, volume shrank sevenfold, price held steady without breaking. This is not panic, everyone is just too lazy to move. Wait for volume to return before making a move. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 A weekly decrease of $5.767 billion. As a quant newbie, what I most want to do is add a validation condition to the phrase "capital inflow." DefiLlama shows that the total amount of USD stablecoins across the network is also shrinking within the day, with USDT and USDC also decreasing on a weekly basis. If I were to write it as a strategy: if stablecoins decrease net on a weekly basis, then do not check the explanation "new capital is driving the market." My judgment is that this data is more suitable for filtering narratives rather than directly predicting direction. The advantage is that it can constrain myself from assuming that off-exchange funds have arrived just because the price is lively 🤖 The flaw is also obvious: total circulation does not equal available funds on exchanges. I speculate that if existing funds accelerate turnover, then a shrinking total might also accompany localized activity, and this rule would miss that situation. So I will treat it as an observation tag, not a trading switch. When you write this condition, do you use a single week's net decrease, or require consecutive weeks and a certain decline threshold to trigger it? A trader's confession, posted just days ago, offers a sharper read on this market than any single price candle: a short $ETH opened at 2297, scaled up to 2343, and still held despite sitting underwater. That stubbornness is the tell. When leveraged traders add to losing shorts rather than capitulate, it usually signals conviction in a ceiling — or the quiet hope that a reversal will bail them out. The same post reveals the cost of that hope elsewhere. On $AKE, the trader admits being wrong, havi$BTC has returned to just above 75,000, ETH dropped to 2226, and SOL is holding the 90 mark. The voices of bottom-fishing in the background are intensifying again, but I still say: no rush. Look at a more honest indicator than price, the funding rate. A true oversold rebound rally is often accompanied by the funding rate being pushed to deep negative values, with shorts extremely crowded and a short squeeze providing the fuel. But the current funding rate is still mildly positive, showing neither panic nor capitulation. In other words, this looks more like a pause in a volume-shrinking downtrend, not the kind of pattern a bottom should have. Bottom-fishing is not about who acts fastest, but who can wait the longest. Without the fuel in place, I'd rather stay on the sidelines and watch.$ETH $BTC $SOL From frenzy to freeze, the AI stock crash triggered over $1 billion in liquidations in the crypto market, with major coins collectively retreating to key defense lines. BTC: Current price around $75,979. Bitcoin sharply dropped nearly 6% from above $80,000 and is consolidating weakly. The US spot ETF saw a single-day net outflow of $430 million, and traders view $77,000 as the critical line for whether the rebound can continue. ETH: Current price around $2,246. Despite exchange ETH reserves dropping to the lowest since 2016 (about 14.5 million coins), the price is still dragged down by AI stock sell-offs. It is currently holding the $2,243 support, with RSI approaching oversold territory, and rebound momentum is building. SOL: Current price around $90.31. As a high-beta asset, SOL was prioritized for liquidation during risk events, breaking below the $90 mark with a maximum 24-hour drop of nearly 7%. Shrinking open interest indicates leveraged funds are exiting. Summary: The core market conflict has shifted from crypto's endogenous narratives to the spillover impact from US tech stocks. The sustainability of AI capital expenditure is being reassessed, and the chip stock crash has triggered cross-asset liquidations, making it difficult for the crypto market to remain unaffected. Before ETF funds return and macro risk appetite stabilizes, rebounds in major coins are more likely to be "breathers after selling pressure eases" rather than trend reversals. #US October nonfarm payrolls exceeded expectations, bets on December rate hikes are heating up Currently, there is absolutely no fresh liquidity willing to enter the OTC market; both the US stock market and the crypto space are frantically deleveraging. Today, the three tokens on the altcoin hot list are all manipulated by pump-and-dump operators playing pig-killing games in a liquidity-drained pool. Anyone who impulsively touches them is a pure fool. First, look at $AKE AKE, which surged more than twenty points, but the trend is extremely ugly. Take a close look at the 15-minute chart—it's full of erratic spikes up and down, the MACD shows a high-level death cross heading downward, and even with a slight increase in volume, the price stagnates. This is the market maker violently sweeping out high-leverage positions with minimal chips, causing both longs and shorts to be wiped out completely. Chasing the highs now is just handing your head to the market makers; if you want to play, you must use low leverage. Next, look at $ONE ONE, which is purely a speculative token. It was forcibly pumped nearly twenty-four points today, but if you carefully observe, there is a severe volume-price divergence, the MACD's top red bars are shrinking, and the price is propped up by just one or two large trades. This old-fashioned token has no ecological support whatsoever; once the hype fades, its true colors will be exposed, and when it falls, it won’t even find a bottom. Don’t catch the falling knife. Finally, look at $LAB LAB, which dropped over one point, a classic stagnant zombie token. The trading volume has shrunk to a pitiful level, and the 15-minute chart is just moving sideways like an ECG. The pump-and-dump operators have long cashed out and fled. This kind of worthless trash with no trading value isn’t even worth looking at; keeping it in your watchlist is an eyesore. In summary, the current macro environment is high-interest water extraction, with Bitcoin hanging in midair, ready to test the bottom again at any time. Control your hands and don’t be cannon fodder; hold onto cash and endure this wave of consecutive shakeouts.$1INCH Aggregator integrates tokenized stocks, who will benefit from the growth? In the update on November 5, 1inch confirmed that Ondo stocks and ETFs on Solana have been integrated into its swap process, with transactions executed by the independent parser Tokka Labs. The addition of new assets expands trading access, but how the aggregated flow is allocated among parsers, protocols, and tokens needs to be calculated separately. An increase in nominal trading volume does not necessarily bring a proportional increase in net revenue. I will observe execution spreads, failure rates, and user reuse. If the new assets bring sustained trading and fee distribution is clear, the commercial value increases; if orders rely on subsidies or liquidity is concentrated among a few parsers, the quality of expansion still has discounts.There hasn't been much big news in the market these past two days, but there's a signal worth noting in the capital flow channels: the US spot Bitcoin ETF had a net outflow of $412 million yesterday, marking the second consecutive trading day of large net outflows. Looking at the $412 million alone isn't shocking, but its consecutive occurrence changes the nature of the situation. ETF subscriptions and redemptions act like a one-way valve: subscriptions bring in real spot buying, while redemptions represent real selling pressure. Large outflows for two consecutive days indicate that marginal buying isn't just weakening—it's completely absent. Ethereum confirms this trend simultaneously. The spot Ethereum ETF had a net outflow of $93.3 million yesterday, also marking two consecutive trading days of net outflows. Both assets moving in the same direction and rhythm basically rule out a single product's portfolio adjustment, and instead suggest the same group of funds is overall reducing their crypto asset exposure. The implications for price should be viewed on two levels. First, ETF outflows don't mean the price will immediately drop; the market still has leveraged longs and over-the-counter support, so the common pattern is stagnation rather than a sudden crash. Second, if outflows continue into a third trading day, then it's not just portfolio adjustment—it's a trend. This window is more direct than any technical indicator. My own approach these days is to neither chase longs nor rush to short; I'll first wait for tonight's subscription and redemption data. If outflows clearly narrow, it means selling pressure has mostly been released; if they continue to expand, then this round of positioning needs to be reassessed. One question to leave you with: when ETFs are selling but prices haven't dropped much, who exactly is absorbing the supply? The answer to this usually determines the next direction.Local buzz VS overall market warming, I would place this list in the former category. On the CoinGecko trending list, $PEARL ranks first, up 11.6% in 24 hours, with a market cap ranking of 88; ZEC is up 2.7%, while BTC has dropped 0.3%. I usually separate heat from market coverage: the fact that the 88th largest market cap tops the search list shows that attention is not distributed according to market cap, so it can't be used as a thermometer for the entire market; the list includes both gains and losses, and searches may also come from people asking "what happened," not necessarily all bullish. To me, this looks more like a local topic cluster rather than evidence of overall market warming. My judgment is that this list is suitable for finding research clues, but not for directly confirming market direction. Do you stand with "local buzz" or "overall market warming"? Besides search volume, what other indicators would you use to verify?The cryptocurrency market has entered a tight consolidation phase following high volatility. To understand current price action, we must analyze the overlapping forces of U.S. political shifts, regulatory legislation, and Middle Eastern geopolitical developments. 📊 1. Current Market Action: Structural Consolidation Post-Liquidation Health: Following aggressive short squeezes and liquidation cascades, major assets like Bitcoin ($BTC) and Ethereum ($ETH) are ranging. The leverage flush has establQ: Berkshire holds a huge cash reserve. What should we focus on in this earnings report? A: The core focus is on two things: changes in cash scale and the management's capital allocation strategy. Previously, a large amount of funds were placed in short-term Treasury bonds to earn interest. The market has been guessing whether Abel will make large acquisitions, increase buybacks, or continue holding cash and wait. Q: Is having a lot of cash a good thing or a concern? A: On one hand, a huge cash reserve is a safety cushion and can earn stable interest through Treasuries, providing strong risk resistance; but if no quality targets are found in the long term and funds remain idle, the market will worry about capital return efficiency. Q: How will the earnings report trends affect market judgment? A: If cash continues to stay high without large-scale spending, it means management remains cautious; once signals of large buybacks or acquisitions are released, the market will likely interpret it as a capital allocation push, becoming a key focus. Of course, insurance and profitability performance of various businesses should not be overlooked either. #伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 Hard to hold back, the market originally expected cooling in employment, but instead got a very strong report. The nonfarm payroll increase of 165,000 far exceeded the expected 65,000, with unemployment rate, additions, and revisions all strengthening comprehensively, directly causing the Fed's December rate hike probability to rise from about 70% to around 80%. I have to say this is the most contradictory aspect of the current macro environment: if the economy is too weak, the market worries about recession; if the economy is too strong, the market worries about continued rate hikes. But I’m not buying into that superstition. Although the Fed focuses on inflation and employment, it also has to consider financial conditions. The sell-off in AI caused the stock market to drop this week, financing costs have risen, and the tightening effect is already happening. If they raise rates again, that would really be tightening on top of tightening. $BTC and growth stocks are going to have a hard time, I can’t even imagine 😭#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Brothers, the "doubling" shock of last night's nonfarm payrolls is not about the absolute figure of 165,000, but about the expectation anchor being set too low. The market had only bet on 65,000 before, and once the data came out, the expectation gap instantly widened, causing the dollar and US Treasury yields to jump simultaneously, and the pressure on risk assets immediately became apparent. Interest rate futures then pushed the probability of a December rate hike to about 80%. For the crypto market, this means the "higher for longer" tightening expectation has been re-anchored into the pricing framework. $BTC's reaction was typical: a brief surge to 76,100 was quickly sold off, then it oscillated between 75,500 and 76,000, with the 75,000 area becoming the last psychological buffer for short-term bulls and bears. More notably, $ETH, after breaking below 2,300, showed weak rebound and consolidated near 2,230, with a decline clearly larger than BTC's, indicating that funds prioritized withdrawing from high beta assets under strong macro signals. The Fear and Greed Index dropped to 28 on the same day, plunging from "neutral" directly into "panic," with sentiment and price resonating. Currently, what the crypto market lacks is not the willingness for an oversold rebound, but a macro variable that can loosen the tightening narrative; until then, the defense quality at 75,000 and 2,230 is more worth watching than any intraday rebound. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 First, a bit of cold water: stablecoin shrinkage is a warning, not a verdict on price drops. I lean bearish on the funding environment, but I don't accept directly translating this data as "an imminent crash." I tend to look for risks first, but I also have to guard against interpreting all news as bearish. DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $292.5 billion, down $1.387 billion daily and $5.767 billion weekly. Among them, $USDT is about $176.8 billion, down $3.091 billion weekly; USDC is about $70.6 billion, down $1.327 billion weekly. My judgment is that the funding side faces headwinds, but this is not conclusive proof of short-term direction. There are two reasons: both major stablecoins are shrinking in volume, so it can't be explained solely by switching between single coins; the potential contraction of purchasing power is worth watching. However, circulating supply is a stock figure, not a flow of sales, so it cannot alone determine the reasons for redemptions, nor confirm how much capital is preparing to sell risk assets. Of course, those who are outright bearish might also be right. If stablecoin shrinkage continues and risk asset trading and prices weaken together, I will see this change as a stronger signal of capital withdrawal; if the shrinkage stops and the market remains stable, I will reduce bearish weighting. Don't rush to get excited, nor to panic. Regarding this shrinkage, are you bullish or bearish? Share your reasons: which data would you most want to check to verify your judgment? Woke up to all red: BTC breaks below 80,000, is non-farm payroll the last hope? Before sleep, BTC was still steady above 80,000, but waking up to a screen full of red chills the heart. US tech stocks, especially AI-related ones, collectively plunged, dragging the crypto market down. 1. BTC quickly retraced From above 80,000, it dropped all the way to around 75,000, hitting a low of 75,500, a decline of nearly 6%. The short-term key is whether 75,000 can hold. 2. ETH is weaker Dropped from above 2,400 to above 2,200, down over 7%. More volatile assets fall faster during risk-off retreats. 3. Liquidations concentrated release Nearly $1.1 billion liquidated across the network in just a few hours, over 200,000 positions wiped out, the vast majority long positions. Leverage-induced stampede amplified the decline. 4. Non-farm payroll as an emotional variable If tomorrow's non-farm payroll is weak with moderate wages, it might give the market some confidence; if data is strong, rate hike expectations will rise, and risk assets will remain under pressure. My view: This wave is the external tech stock adjustment transmitting to the crypto circle, combined with concentrated liquidation of long leverage. Don't rush to bottom-fish before non-farm payroll, first see if BTC can hold 75,000 and ETH can stabilize at 2,200. Manage your position size and wait for the data to land before deciding the direction.Non-farm data update, no significant reaction in the crypto circle, despite employment data beating expectations, the market's anticipation of a rate hike has not diminished! #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 It's the weekend again, so market volatility is even smaller! Considering the previous statement about one rate hike this year, a rate hike in December is highly likely! $BTC $ETH $ZEC Weekend watch: Bitcoin is currently around $75,878, trading narrowly between $74,888 and $76,378 today. The $75,000 level is still holding, but the real line is at $75,600 — that's the low on election night and near the 50-week moving average. If it can't hold this, it will be the fifth consecutive week of decline, closing below the 200-day moving average. Interestingly, Strategy holds 849,000 BTC at an average cost of about $75,451, and the current price is only about 0.6% higher, meaning the whole market is watching the same line. After the non-farm payrolls, the probability of a December rate hike is nearly 80%, with the Fear & Greed Index at 25, indicating extreme fear. This weekend, the focus is on whether $75,600 can hold; only a recovery above $77,700 will signal a breather $BTC #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: if a large on-chain purchase occurs, it would be recorded as a demand observation sample, but it would not directly add points to a bullish signal. After learning quantitative analysis, the habit I most want to change is automatically translating large amounts into large information content. 🤖 According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi's monitoring, an address spent $19.62 million three hours ago to buy 8,773.52 ETH at a cost of $2,236.75 each. This $ETH purchase is very eye-catching, but my judgment is: it is suitable to enter the observation pool and is not enough to independently change the trend assessment. The advantage of this rule is that it separates actual transactions from market interpretation. The purchase did happen, but the data does not disclose the address identity, other positions, or the use of funds; without seeing these, this transaction cannot be directly understood as a complete bet on the future market. There are also loopholes: by the time verification conditions are met, the signal may already be delayed. But I am more afraid of double counting—if multiple addresses buy later but belong to the same funding entity, what appears to be dispersed demand may just be the same action. This is my speculation, not something this message has proven. So I will separately record "how much was bought" and "whether the number of independent buyers increased." If you write this condition yourself, would you filter by holding duration or by the number of independent buyers? What specific conditions must be met to be considered valid? A fund with "Tokenized" in its name doesn't hold a single cent of digital assets. ARK's new ETF is pretty straightforward: exposure to $ETH and $SOL is indirectly obtained through swaps linked to ETPs, and it doesn't even buy those ETPs itself. So what exactly is it buying? It's buying companies that help others issue tokens, store tokens, and collect fees from clearing. Sounds like selling shovels during a gold rush; even if coin prices drop, it might still make money. So stop asking whether this is good news for coin prices—they never intended to touch the coins in the first place. When I see this kind of news, I first look at the risk-reward structure and don't rush to treat net inflows as a bullish signal. SoSoValue data shows that on November 6th Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from ZCSH, with a historical cumulative net inflow reaching $209 million. My judgment is that this is somewhat positive for $ZEC's capital situation, but a single day's data is not enough to support a trend judgment. First, net inflow indicates there was a net subscription of funds that day, but it doesn't prove that demand will continue; second, the increment is concentrated in one product, and there is still no evidence of broader capital participation. It makes me slightly increase the weight of the scenario of sustained inflows, rather than directly boosting confidence in chasing the rally. According to my speculation, if subsequent net inflows continue and the price hasn't already priced in expectations prematurely, this clue is worth further study; if it's just a one-day inflow that pushes up market expectations, the odds might actually worsen. I will focus on sustainability and won't use one day's data to bolster my confidence.These four negative factors are not independent of each other; they form a layered causal chain. Many people treat “ETF sell-off, treasury liquidation, custody theft, quantum risk” as four parallel bad news items and calculate their impact separately. This is wrong. Their true relationship is: each one is deeper than the last, and each layer amplifies the previous one. First layer: Capital layer: passive redemption, tokens "must sell regardless of price" The redemption mechanism of spot ETFs is a rigid sell: when investors redeem shares, the fund manager must sell the corresponding spot assets. It does not judge price levels or consider sentiment; every redemption triggers a sale. A continuous net outflow at the $1.5 billion level means someone is persistently and mechanically selling Bitcoin, passively selling regardless of price. This is the strongest evidence: it shows this is not a "sentiment-driven sell-off," but real capital withdrawing. Second layer: Confidence layer: benchmark capital exits, buyer camp collectively defects Trump media sold 99.99%, the damage is not in the amount but in the demonstration effect. It was the most representative example of the narrative "policy-friendly + corporate treasury hoarding coins." Its near liquidation is equivalent to publicly admitting: at this position, holding heavy BTC as a reserve asset is no longer profitable. The consequences are chain reactions: - Other corporate treasuries lose the "buy-only" role model and start treating BTC as a liquidatable book asset; - Retail investors see "the big players fled first," shifting from "waiting for institutions to bottom buy" to "selling along with institutions"; - The market's largest buyer group turns from a support force into a source of selling pressure. This is the most fatal turning point of this round: the buyers disappeared, and those who disappeared were the most influential. Third layer: Chip layer: cracks in custody security, low-cost chips become a ceiling After Binance was hacked, the market learned two things: 1. Coins held on exchanges are not truly under your control: top platforms can be infiltrated by state-level social engineering and have signature permissions hijacked; 2. Stolen native coins cannot be frozen or recovered: stablecoins can be blacklisted by issuers, BTC cannot. This creates a deadlock: Hackers hold BTC at zero cost and have motivation to sell whenever there is a rebound, with no legal recovery channels. This means every rebound naturally carries a "ceiling": prices pushed up by buyers are pressed back down by zero-cost chips. Meanwhile, institutions and whales continue withdrawing coins, capital leaves the market, and liquidity thins. When liquidity thins, sell orders of the same size can cause double the price drop. Fourth layer: Narrative layer: AI and anti-quantum reassessment lower the "valuation ceiling" This layer does not directly generate sell orders but determines how high long-term capital is willing to value BTC. The narrative of BTC as "digital gold" is built on "independence, invulnerability, and long-term security." Now: - It can be stolen (custody layer); - The underlying secp256k1 elliptic curve faces long-term quantum cracking risk, and community upgrades and governance are extremely slow; - No cash flow, no sovereign credit backing. As a result, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign funds increase risk premiums and lower valuation ceilings when making long-term allocations. This manifests as "unwillingness to buy," not "urgent selling"; but it is this "not buying" that leaves the sell orders generated by the first three layers without counterparties. In one sentence: hard evidence determines direction, soft narrative determines the floor. On November 7, ARK's ETF trust filed with the SEC to launch the ARK Tokenized Market Infrastructure ETF. The name is long, but what's worth noting is what it invests in. The focus is on asset tokenization and on-chain capital market infrastructure: tokenization platforms, stablecoin issuers, exchanges, brokerages, custodians, and settlement networks. This entire list consists of companies, not a single coin. It invests in businesses that build the roads and collect tolls, not the vehicles on the road. How is exposure obtained? The fund mainly uses total return swaps and can also directly invest in equity of related companies. $ETH and $SOL exposure is obtained indirectly through swaps linked to US-listed crypto ETPs. The filing states: the fund does not directly hold digital assets nor these ETPs. Why take this roundabout approach? Directly holding coins involves facing the three mountains of custody, compliance, and accounting. Using swaps, the assets remain on the counterparty's books, and the fund only receives the net return difference, keeping the financial statements clean. This is the standard approach for traditional asset managers entering the space. I see this as a narrative fork. Previously, investing in crypto meant betting on coin prices; now it's about tokenized infrastructure, betting on who ultimately collects the tolls on the channels. ARK previously profited from trading-related assets and now applies the same logic within an ETF wrapper. One thought to leave with: if the product succeeds, pricing power will increasingly reside in the invisible links like custody and settlement. Code and management fees have not been disclosed, and the filing is not yet effective. 这一轮 $BTC、$ETH、$SOL 的下跌，不只是单纯杠杆踩踏。比特币（$BTC）有超2000枚被提取，以太坊（$ETH）大户资金净流出 35900 枚，SOL（$SOL）净流出接近 100000 枚，大额钱包在持续减仓，筹码被散户多头承接。这种资金分歧值得留意，当机构主动降风险、散户坚守多头，行情很容易失去上行动能。 本轮抛售还叠加了政策带来的连锁冲击，AI 相关预期走弱，资本开支计划被打乱，加密资产跟着整体风险资产一同波动，和芯片、AI 基建标的联动性明显变强。原本支撑市场的 AI 算力需求叙事，刚好和去杠杆同时遭遇质疑，两大利好逻辑同步松动，修复难度随之上升。 接下来市场焦点落在非农就业数据。如果数据不及预期，悲观情景下比特币有望下探至 74000–72000 区间。但这个位置也有可能是抛盘衰竭的区域，只是在大户停止减持、重新囤币之前，多数反弹大概率只是资金离场窗口，很难直接开启新一轮上涨趋势。BSOL had the largest outflow, with a single-day net outflow of $14,442,400. To pour some cold water first: this is not good news for the bulls, but I also disagree with directly translating it as "institutions collectively bearish on $SOL." My judgment is that this data is bearish but not enough to define the trend. Other products also experienced outflows, and the total net outflow of the entire SOL spot ETF on that day does indicate a negative signal. I'm stuck on two points: BSOL contributed more than half of the net outflow that day, so the pressure is concentrated on one product, which is different in meaning from a synchronized large-scale withdrawal across multiple products; net outflow only tells me that funds left the product, but not why they left. If it’s a portfolio rebalancing between products, then the directional indication is weak; if it’s an active reduction of SOL exposure, then the bearish logic is stronger. This is my scenario speculation, as the data does not provide redemption motives. I usually prefer to analyze fund behavior first, then discuss sentiment, to avoid mistaking a result for a complete explanation. Of course, the bears might also be right. If subsequent outflows continue to spread to more products and the price comes under pressure, I will raise my alert for a weakening trend and won’t use "single-day noise" as an excuse for the bulls. This time, are you bullish or bearish? Do you focus more on the concentrated outflow from BSOL, or do you wait for multiple products to have consecutive withdrawals before making a judgment? Share your reasons.Saw Strive ASST's Q3 report during lunch 😮 Q3 net profit about $509 million Looks scary Revenue is actually only 2.7 million Profit is almost entirely BTC unrealized gains of about 534 million Bought another 15,124 coins in October Holding a total of 43,124 coins Only 877 coins behind the second place on the listed companies' coin holding leaderboard But the average cost for the Q3 batch was about 78,885 Now BTC is around 75,800 The unrealized gains from this quarter might have to be partially given back next quarter The financial reports of this kind of company Basically just shadows of the coin price I'll first see if they keep buying next month October payrolls rising 165K against a 65K forecast, alongside 4.1% unemployment, gives December rate expectations a firmer labor-market foundation. The dollar index surge shows markets are already repricing that risk. Still, with CPI due Nov. 10 and high prices a concern, the data argue for caution rather than certainty. #USJobsBeatExpectations CORE: Not the second ETH, but a negative example of ETH The market once hoped that CORE, relying on EVM compatibility + BTCFi narrative, would replicate Ethereum's rise, but reality has proven: it not only cannot become the second ETH, but has become a typical negative example in the public chain sector. Ethereum was able to grow into the leading public chain by overcoming the DAO crisis, with its core strengths being decentralization foundation, a large developer community, and a self-consistent value capture system. When facing crises, the community fully negotiated, and multiple participants reached consensus to overcome difficulties together. Later, the EIP-1559 burn mechanism further empowered ETH, creating a positive ecological cycle. In contrast, CORE, although having an EVM-compatible shell, has deep-rooted fundamental flaws: only 21 validator nodes, inherently insufficient decentralization; after reward loopholes were exposed, a large amount of ghost tokens remained, causing long-term selling pressure; on-chain fee income is meager, the protocol lacks self-sustaining capability, compounded by exchanges delisting it one after another, liquidity continues to shrink. Ethereum first grew a strong ecosystem before facing crisis tests; CORE, however, prioritized narrative first, with its ecosystem and economic model not fully developed before major flaws were exposed. Both faced major security incidents, but one was reborn from the fire, while the other continues to be under pressure. This is the most essential difference between the two. Grand narratives can never make up for fundamental shortcomings.$LINK Cross-chain institutional asset expansion: Should Chainlink focus on the number of partnerships or paid demand? Chainlink has released CCIP 2.0, aiming to expand institutional digital asset cross-chain usage. Cross-chain capability can reduce the friction of assets being isolated on a single network, but technical availability is only the starting point for commercialization. What is worth tracking are repeated calls in production environments, payment scale, and security performance. A single test or announced partnership does not automatically translate into stable revenue. If institutions incorporate cross-chain processes into daily operations, with continuous payments and controllable risks, the value foundation will strengthen. Conversely, if there are many pilots but little actual use, or security incidents increase adoption costs, expectations for the speed of realization should be lowered.