Orbit Post Sitemap
The number of new coins coming in daily has decreased by about 75%, and this is mainly not due to the upgrade that happened a few days later.
In mid-October, the six-year vesting for early institutions arranged at genesis ended. According to public estimates, this originally contributed about 66.7 million coins per year. After it stopped, the new incoming coins are roughly only the block rewards, about 22 million per year, which is about a 75% reduction. The upgrade a few days later changed how block rewards are distributed, giving more to services that bring paid usage; any unearned rewards will be burned. It changed the distribution method, not the cut of three-quarters of the new supply.
The supply growth has slowed, but it hasn't automatically supported the price. The closing price on October 15 was about 1.08, now it's about 0.76, down roughly 29%. Less new issuance only means fewer new coins; the amount available for transfer also depends on staking and burning on the other side, so it won't decrease in sync with new issuance.
$FIL Ripple Chief Legal Officer Stuart Alderoty said at the Swell conference: Regulatory rules are meant to restrain bad actors, not those who comply with the law.
It sounds like common sense, but in the crypto industry, this is a clear positioning statement. Over the past few years, the entanglement between $XRP and regulators has been one of the longest battles in the entire industry. From being sued to having issues dissected one by one, Ripple has paid more than just legal fees; it has turned "we follow the rules" into a burden that must be repeatedly proven.
Alderoty’s focus is elsewhere: 67 million Americans who hold and use cryptocurrencies are truly concerned about security. This number shifts the perspective — no longer debating whether the industry should be regulated, but acknowledging that ordinary people are already using it and how rules should be adapted accordingly.
Designing regulation with the assumption that "you have a problem by default" means the cost is not only borne by companies but also by these 67 million people together. Compliance costs never disappear; they only get passed down.
$XRP won’t change its price structure in the short term. But narratively, a project long labeled as a "regulatory adversary" actively restating itself as a "law-abiding entity" is the hardest part to quantify in pricing and the easiest to underestimate. The compliance stories of $BTC and $ETH have long been digested; $XRP’s story is not yet finished.
It’s worth pondering: When everyone is fighting to say "I’m not the bad guy," who decides who the bad guy is?In prediction markets, if a whale pushes the odds up, I’m also hesitant to take it as a real chance of winning. When the market is thin, it might just be that the side with more money is louder. Unlike usual crypto buying, here you also have to consider how the question is phrased and how it will be settled in the end. For example, guessing whether a crypto project can launch on time—no matter how many contracts you buy, you can’t write code for the team. But when it comes to guessing the closing price of Bitcoin, I get a bit suspicious: after buying contracts, would they actually go to the spot market to push the price?Will it exceed expectations?
Most likely it will slightly exceed. Historically, it often surpasses expectations, especially with losses being much smaller than anticipated. Revenue also often slightly exceeds expectations. Analysts' previews generally believe that since the annualized revenue reached $3 billion by the end of June, as long as Q3 maintains growth, it will easily exceed $900 million.
But the real key is not just the quarterly numbers, but:
Whether the annualized revenue is progressing toward the year-end target of $7 to $9 billion.
Profit margins, customer prepayments, and contract fulfillment status.
Whether expansion funds are sufficient.
Currently, the business looks very good, with a high probability of exceeding expectations, but the market cares more about "whether it can continue to expand at such a high speed." Stock price volatility will be significant. A fascinating disconnect in the gold narrative.
The market is highlighting a reported 59% rise in gold reserves, yet $XAUT is down 0.14% and $XAU is down 0.26% in today’s snapshot.
Reserve accumulation and daily price movements measure different things.
One headline doesn’t explain the entire market.NBIS Earnings Forecast: Why I Lean More Towards NO?
There is a noteworthy issue: the source of the strike price and the EPS calculation basis for final settlement might actually be inconsistent?
The market sets -$0.61 as the GAAP EPS strike price, claiming it comes from the consensus analyst expectations of Nasdaq/Zacks. But Zacks usually uses adjusted Street EPS, while the market ultimately explicitly requires using official GAAP EPS for settlement.
How big is the gap between the two bases?
Taking NBIS last quarter as an example:
Adjusted EPS: -$0.12
GAAP EPS: -$0.68
Currently, Finviz's forecast for this quarter is:
Adjusted EPS: -$0.72
GAAP EPS: -$2.18
This means the market might be setting the strike price using the consensus adjusted EPS expectation, but judging the outcome using GAAP EPS, which includes depreciation, stock-based compensation, and other expenses.
This obviously makes NO more likely to occur.
I estimate the probability of NO at about 80%, and YES about 20%. On one hand, the strong non-farm payrolls have heated up bets on a December rate hike again, while on the other hand, ETFs have withdrawn 1.647 billion in two weeks. But I watched all night, and not a single one is dropping; this contrast is really worth mentioning 😮
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
The chain of events is not hard to follow. October's non-farm payrolls increased by 165,000, which is two and a half times the expected 65,000, with an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Even the San Francisco Fed President said a rate hike might still be necessary. Institutions reacted most honestly, with money flowing out through ETFs, only turning back once on November 4.
But the market didn't catch this panic. The total contract positions across the network are 131.6 billion, down only 0.40% in one day, basically unchanged; 24-hour liquidations were 61.93 million, 65% less than yesterday, with long positions accounting for 68.9%, far from panic levels. The three major mainstream coins fell less than half a percent, with ZEC down 1.83% at the deepest, but no trend formed.
Why can't it be shaken? The ETFs withdrawing are from allocation and arbitrage funds, afraid that valuation anchors will be changed by rate hike expectations; contract positions haven't fled, and on-exchange leverage hasn't been shaken. Strong employment is a double-edged sword for crypto: rate hikes suppress valuations, but if employment doesn't collapse, the money to take over positions doesn't stop flowing. This is the confidence to hold steady.
My two short positions are still floating profits; I won't add or close them tonight. The real hurdle isn't this 1.6 billion, but the inflation data on Tuesday night: if it again exceeds expectations, bets will shift from heating up to being confirmed, and withdrawals will turn from portfolio adjustments to a trend. If it stands back above 77,000, I'll first reassess the shorts; if it falls below 75,000, I'll consider adding positions. What do you think, after this 1.6 billion withdrawal, is the bad news fully priced in, or is it just the beginning? 🤔Will the rise in $XLF PPI improve banks' net interest margin?
The US October PPI is scheduled to be released on November 13. If input price increases transmit to market interest rates, asset yields and deposit costs will still be repriced at different speeds. If loan yields increase and deposit costs remain controllable, there is room for net interest margin improvement. However, if deposit competition intensifies or corporate debt repayment ability weakens, high interest rates may instead squeeze profits.It's often said that when the US dollar weakens, Bitcoin should rise.
This week, the dollar weakened, but Bitcoin still dropped by 5%.
It's the opposite.
Why is this happening?
First, let's talk about how the dollar weakened.
The US government spends money by borrowing. This week, with a change in Congress, the big spending plans got blocked, so less borrowing happened. With fewer borrowers, interest rates dropped—from 5.3% down to 4.92%.
When interest rates get cheaper, money doesn't want to stay in dollars. The dollar fell to a five-week low.
According to the old logic, this should be the time for crypto to rise.
But crypto is falling. That's because sellers aren't calculating interest; they're afraid of AI.
Tech stocks have been dropping sharply these days. Many people buy stocks on margin.
When stocks fall, the platforms that lent them money worry they won't get repaid, so they sell the stocks directly to get cash. Cash gets tight, and Bitcoin is the easiest to sell, so they sell crypto first.
So this week, it's not that the dollar weakens and crypto rises,
it's that when money is tight, everything gets sold.
This week doesn't count.
Wait until people stop fearing AI; when the dollar falls, Bitcoin will rise again. $BTC 在这个75500到76400的缝里磨了两天了。不上不下，看着看着就想把软件关了。恐慌指数勉强爬到了28，还是那个半死不活的样子。 过去一天又爆了8000多万刀，多单占了6000多万。一句话，现在的行情就是钝刀子割肉，多头在熬，空头也不敢太嚣张。 不过钱可没闲着，全去$ZEC 那儿抱团了。 大盘跌成这个鬼样子，ZEC周线居然是红的，NU7升级完了之后，硬生生在1250到1300扛住了。链上还有个奇葩事：有1600多个ETH从Tornado洗出来，反手全换成了ZEC。还有个关联地址跑到Hyperliquid去开了20倍的BTC多单。 你看，洗黑钱的在买隐私币，赌命的在开多，大家都不买现货，都在玩心跳。ZEC现在就是靠着筹码集中和叙事在硬撑，1250是它的底裤，上面1344过不去的话，千万别无脑追，这种币洗盘起来六亲不认。 聊个八卦，币安的CFO今天辞职了。 彭博刚爆的，Kaiser Ng走人，换了个以前在摩根士丹利做投行的新人上来。官方说这是半年前就定好的计划，但大家心里都有数，前脚刚被黑客搞走60多亿，提现刚恢复，后脚管钱的大佬就不干了，这让外面的人怎么Short positions make money by others paying
Three short positions have an unrealized profit of over 9 million U.
At the same time, there is also over 12 million U in funding fees collected.
What does this number mean:
Funding fees are not rewards issued by the platform.
They are payments made by long position holders to short position holders at fixed intervals.
What was actually done:
$BTC and $ETH used 5x full margin, $SOL used 7x.
The nominal value is 420 million U, with very heavy positions opened.
Common misinterpretations:
Low leverage does not equal safety.
Under full margin, the three positions share one margin; a single rebound affects all.
A distant liquidation price does not mean unrealized profits won’t be given back first.
Funding fees can be collected because long holders are still willing to pay during this period.
If this premise changes, the ledger immediately reverses direction.
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 $BTC $ETH 13亿美元，这是本周华尔街现货ETF单周净流出的数字，其中BlackRock一天就被抽走4亿多，创下六月末以来最猛的一次撤离。你猜这种时候，谁在悄悄接货？ 早上刷到这组数据时我愣了两秒，因为上一次见到这么难看的流出曲线，正好是BTC砸到6万出头那会儿，而那天恰恰是我定投记录里最舒服的一笔。 先把事实摆清楚：ETF大额赎回叠加金价走弱，海外媒体开始追问"华尔街今年还买得动吗"。但真正值得盯的不是赎回本身，而是钱撤出之后往哪儿去了——这才是板块强弱的信号源。 我自己的定投系统今天照常扣了400 USDC，成交均价75719美元，连续第三天买在持仓成本线下方，账户来到1.7515枚，进度58.38%。说这个不是晒单，是想说明一个节奏感：当BTC在7万5附近被反复摩擦时，定投型资金的动作是机械的，而ETF型资金的脚步是情绪化的，两者错位的地方，往往就是短期底部酝酿的位置。 这轮最容易被忽略的一点是强弱排序变了。BTC被ETF赎回压着走，但ETH和部分山寨并没有同步破位，跌幅更收敛，说明抛压主要集中在被动型敞口上，而不是全市场风险偏好整体塌陷。换句话说，恐慌是局部的，不是系统性的。 偏多路径看：When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was the most common mistake in business: mistaking revenue for profit. The books may look lively, but if you can't clearly calculate input and output, cash flow may not be stable, and risk reserves definitely cannot be spared.
The Solana ecosystem weekly report revealed a net inflow of $2.6 billion in on-chain Real World Assets (RWA) over the past six months. Progress with Samsung Wallet and Schroders Fund was also highlighted this week. My judgment is that this is generally positive attention for RWA, but it is not enough to prove that the related business has been successfully executed.
Net inflow indicates that funds have entered, but it does not mean sustainable income has been generated. From my business perspective, we still need to see whether these assets can be continuously utilized and whether the income generated can cover customer acquisition, compliance, and operating costs. The materials do not provide these accounts, so for now, I cannot count it as profit.
Cash flow and risk reserves also need to be examined separately. I speculate that if the underlying asset repayments are slow and user withdrawal demands are concentrated, then even if on-chain circulation is convenient, it may not eliminate maturity mismatches. What ordinary users really need to understand is what the repayments rely on and who bears the losses, rather than just looking at the scale of net inflows.
I will continue to follow this fund movement, but I am more interested in seeing whether subsequent disclosures can clarify asset quality, exit arrangements, and risk buffers; in business, scale is the facade, but the ability to withstand risk is the real strength.The whole network is crowded with short positions, am I the only one bullish?🤔
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
Hyperliquid whale's BTC short positions have piled up to the highest level since October 2025, with net shorts nearly twice the size of longs; spot ETFs continue to see large outflows, macro selling pressure is obvious, on the surface there really seems to be no reason to be bullish.
But my view is different:
73K is the core structural support this round, 75K is the first short-term defense line. If it breaks below 75K, it will likely quickly test around 74K, but there is still buying support below 73K, so it’s not suitable to be purely bearish.
Logic:
Currently, shorts are actively positioned and have not reached an extremely crowded level, funding rates have not hit extremes.
Once the price stabilizes in the 73K–75K range and climbs back above 76K, it can easily trigger a chain short squeeze, leading to a sharp rally. ETF outflows and macro bearish factors are facts, but the rebound elasticity from contract squeezes should not be ignored.
Trading idea:
I prefer to lightly and gradually go long in the 74K–73.2K range, with stop loss below 72.8K; aggressive traders can try small long positions near 75K.
If there is a strong volume break below 73K, confirming the bearish logic, exit immediately;
If it holds the range and breaks above 76K with volume, watch for a short squeeze rally, with the first target at 77.5K–78.5K.
$BTC $ETH The weakest link has never been getting the direction wrong, but starting to average down before the stop loss is executed. Have you ever had the moment of "just hold on a bit longer"? This week I saw two very typical cases: a $700 loss on crude oil and a $2000 loss on SanDisk. The numbers aren't exaggerated, but the process is painful—the information was misinterpreted, the judgment followed suit, the stop loss wasn't executed in time, and when the price moved in the opposite direction, instead of cutting losses, the average price was pulled down, resulting in a position so heavy that even reducing it became impossible. 🍓 I stared at this review for a long time because its rhythm is almost identical to what I see in derivative structures. On the surface, "the heat is still there," with contract positions and trading volume quite lively, but the real support is thin: once the price moves against the position, leveraged positions are pushed first, stop loss orders cluster in the same area, slippage amplifies, and only then does the spot market sentiment react. It looks like news is driving it, but what is actually being traded is often the fragility of the position structure itself. Of course, a bullish path exists: if positions are cleared during a pullback, leverage decreases, and spot buying re-enters key ranges, the rebound will be lighter and cleaner, and altcoins will have a chance to switch from "only contracts are lively" to "spot is willing to follow." But the risk points are clear—the positions with average costs continuously moving down are the ones most likely to be forced to sell chips on the next spike; and until the crowding on the derivatives side eases, any false breakout may first wash out a batch of people thinking "it's about to reverse." So my current judgment is: this round looks more like the structure squeezing out water rather than sentiment fully turning bullish On November 8, market analyst Murphy published an article discussing "Will BTC return to a bear market?" He cited the Realized Profit-Loss Ratio Momentum (RPLR-M), noting that observing periods of accelerated growth or decline in the profit-loss ratio under the entity metric helps identify trend turning points. Looking at the long-term cycle, the most valuable references are how long the red or green zones persist, whether the peak of the top green line decreases, and whether the trough of the bottom red line narrows. Typically, at the start of a bear market, the red line trough is at its lowest, indicating accelerating losses. Afterwards, the price hits new lows again, but the trough begins to narrow, meaning the new round of decline can no longer trigger panic selling of the same scale, until it finally "turns green." This process represents a full bear market cycle. From 2018 to 2019, this process lasted about 14 months; from 2021 to 2023, about 13 months; and this current cycle has lasted about 11 months. Based on the duration and the narrowing of the red line trough since the initial bottom, there has been a sufficiently long period of losses and panic, meeting the criteria for a cyclical bear market. $ETH $OKB #软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？
If the New York Times report is true ("SoftBank is reportedly investing hundreds of millions of dollars in OpenAI"), I believe OpenAI is currently in a death watch period...
According to Ramp's data, OAI accounts for 55-60% of ANT token spending, but this is only sustained by burning over $10 billion in cash each quarter. If they cannot complete the current funding round, they will have to drastically cut subsidies and cede more market share to ANT.
If SoftBank does not continue to invest, and ANT's IPO valuation is downgraded to $1.25 trillion, OAI basically should not be valued higher than its previous $852 billion financing valuation deal.As of the morning of November 8, during the full trading week (US session 11.2–11.6), BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $1.282 billion, which at first glance looks like a collective institutional exit 😮
Breaking down the data, the divergence is quite clear: on Friday, BlackRock's IBIT had a net outflow of $403 million, but Fidelity's FBTC actually had a net inflow of $42.8 million.
Capital pressure is a fact, but directly concluding a "collective institutional retreat" is somewhat one-sided. Net flow cannot pinpoint specific sellers, nor does it mean BlackRock itself is bearish. The total amount needs caution, and the differences between funds are also worth noting.
A reminder: US stock ETFs are closed over the weekend, so this data is from last week’s statistics, not new outflows today.
$BTC #BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 Whale groups are massively shorting Bitcoin, with shorting pressure reaching the highest point since October 2025. Currently, the short positions held by whale accounts range between $892 million and $924 million, while long positions are only between $454 million and $483 million. The largest single short position is valued at approximately $178.5 million, with an average entry price of about $76,400, while the current Bitcoin price hovers around $75,800. Data shows that these whale accounts have been continuously increasing their short positions since turning net short on October 27. However, some market analysts point out that an extremely crowded short position is a double-edged sword. If the price does not drop as expected but instead breaks upward, shorts will face forced buybacks to close positions. This forced covering could trigger a sharp short squeeze, driving prices to accelerate upward. #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 $BTC Latest ETF data revision shows that this week's capital outflow is much larger than previously estimated 📊
On November 6, the US BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $412 million; from November 2 to 6, the total net outflow for the week was $1.282 billion. On Friday alone, IBIT saw an outflow of $403 million, which many previous statistics did not include, making it easy to underestimate the real selling pressure.
This is why I am now paying extra attention to the timing of data updates. Market fluctuations are fast, and subsequent data revisions will directly change the assessment. Judging "institutional selling pressure is about to end" based on incomplete data can easily backfire.
Key question: With such a large continuous redemption volume, how much incremental buying is needed to absorb it?
Short-term sentiment may warm up, but the incremental funds that can steadily digest the selling pressure need time to be verified.
A single week's outflow does not mean BTC will perform poorly in the long term, but short-term changes in supply and demand must be taken seriously. Going forward, focus on two points: outflows starting to slow down and prices stabilizing at lows—these are the signals worth tracking.
The hardest part at this stage is the selling pressure right in front of us, while occasional rebounds interfere with judgment.
At this time, being less eager to guess the direction and more patient is far more important than obsessing over price points.
#BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 One day, 3 trillion dollars. Trump directly attributed this to the election results, saying the US "has taken a big step backward in history." Setting aside the stance, this number itself is worth pausing over—3 trillion is not a single stock hitting the limit down, but the entire market's pricing benchmark being re-evaluated.
Note his wording: within one day. Not a week, not a month. This speed usually corresponds to liquidity suddenly withdrawing, not fundamentals gradually deteriorating. Fundamentals don't change a 3 trillion judgment within 24 hours.
Mechanically, risk assets form a network. Margin pressure on the stock side transmits through leverage; the first to be sold are often not the worst assets, but the easiest to sell—in the crypto market, that's $BTC, the deepest liquidity asset. So the real issue isn't "whether coins fall," but "whether the hole on the US stock side has been patched."
Trump added later that America will definitely make a comeback, becoming stronger and more glorious. This is political language, not market language. The market only recognizes two things: when selling pressure stops, and who is buying. He didn't answer.
My judgment is, in the short term, neither $BTC nor $ETH should be seen as safe-haven assets; pricing power has been in the hands of US stocks these past few months. The real signal isn't how much it rebounds on a certain day, but whether US stock trading volume can shrink at low levels—that's what clearing selling pressure looks like.
A question to leave: if 3 trillion evaporates in one day, what conditions are needed for 3 trillion to be replenished in one day? Thinking this through is more useful than staring at K-lines.The buying logic for $ENA should be a "short-term rebound after confirming a bottom in a weak coin," not trend-following or bottom-fishing at a specific price.
The latest external reference price is about 0.15354, with an intraday data range of 0.15235—0.16138; $BTC is about 75,825. The quote does not have an exact transaction time; use OKX as the standard.
Project buying logic and execution conditions
The trading goal is to capture the short-term rebound brought by BTC stabilization, ENA bottoming, and short covering; no preset mid-term trend reversal.
Potential favorable factors: In the last CoinGlass snapshot, ENA funding rate was negative; if the price stops falling, short covering may amplify the rebound. Negative funding rate itself does not trigger buying.
Current unfavorable factors: The high and low points on the previous 15-minute chart are moving lower, and the rebound lacks sustainability; ENA is still weaker than BTC, and buying pressure has not yet proven it can reverse the structure.
Price confirmation: Form higher lows on the 15-minute chart, then break through the most recent rebound high; only after a pullback holds can entry be evaluated.
Capital confirmation: Spot CVD improves synchronously, and rising trading volume increases. If the price rises but OI decreases, consider that it is mainly short covering and should not be regarded as continuous new buying.
Market conditions: BTC must at least hold the recent correction structure; if BTC breaks the previous low, cancel the ENA rebound buying plan.
Stop-loss principle: Place below the actual pullback low, leaving reasonable fluctuation space; exit once stop-loss is triggered, no averaging down.
Take-profit principle: First look at the previous rebound high or dense trading area; potential profit after fees should be at least twice the risk. 周末流动性薄得像一层纸，任何一点卖压都能被放大成心理折磨。有位交易者凌晨刷新账户才发现，$BTC 均价78596.8、现价75719.9，浮亏-199.65U，ROI-366.02%，维持保证金率1441.39%，强平价69350.9——仓位暂时安全，但这份"安全"正被时间慢慢啃食。真正值得琢磨的不是亏损数字，而是他选择什么都不做。 这轮下跌最反直觉的地方在于：不是杠杆先崩，而是流动性先撤。周末订单簿变薄，价格下滑的摩擦力被放大，$SOL 从均价95.79跌到89.19，浮亏-94.57U，ROI-137.80%，强平价58.35，卖压持续而承接稀薄。同一时间$SNDK 从896.7滑向830.1，浮亏-23.63U，ROI-74.25%，跟随大盘走弱。三个仓位、三种跌幅，却共享同一个背景——没有增量资金的周末，任何方向都显得格外沉重。 多数人盯着"浮亏扩大"这个结果，却忽略了更关键的信号：这位交易者明确不加保证金、不随意止损，选择持仓等待市场选方向。这不是麻木，而是一种被动的仓位管理——用时间换空间，把决策权交还给市场结构本身。当维持保证金率仍高达1441.39%、强平价远离现价时，Today I looked back at the daily chart of $BTC from the last bull market and found something quite surprising!
After the effective breakout above the 365-day moving average in 2023, it took a full 756 days—more than two years—before it fell below it again! This time, it only took 48 days!
Currently, BTC has dropped back to around $75,800, with the 365-day moving average near $76,600. A few days ago, it barely managed to climb above it, but didn’t hold for long and fell back down—almost like just checking in briefly! Honestly, this is quite different from the 2023 trend. I originally thought this moving average would provide solid support, but it’s been repeatedly broken.
However, I’m not ready to declare the bull market dead just because of this dip below the line. Next, we’ll see if it can quickly climb back above $76,600. The historical pattern isn’t as reliable this time; the market really isn’t giving any leeway!
Hopefully, Bitcoin can quickly reclaim the 365-day moving average!#RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？ Rocket Lab earnings report is here: making money as usual, Neutron is still "catching up" 🚀
Q3 earnings released after market close on November 9, market expects revenue around $257 million, up nearly 65% year-over-year — the small rocket and satellite business are performing well, losses mainly come from Neutron.
What everyone cares about most, Neutron: delayed again, pushed to 2027.
The bottleneck is very specific: first stage tank. It cracked during pressure testing in January this year, and recently voids were found in the carbon fiber, so production had to stop and redo. To put it simply: if the cake batter has lumps, the baked cake won't be solid; the rocket tank holds liquid oxygen fuel, insufficient strength is unacceptable.
Good news: the engine is promising. In July, the second stage vacuum version Archimedes completed a full-duration ignition test, the core is fine, now the "body" manufacturing process is the bottleneck. Most analysts believe this is a manufacturing process issue, not a design flaw.
Market reaction: after the delay, the stock price dropped about 14% in two days, but most analysts still give "buy/overweight" ratings, consensus rating remains "strong buy" — frustrating, but no uproar.$BTC is currently between two waves of liquidations; a sharp drop could wipe out many accounts.
The chart from November 7 shows a large concentration of long positions around $75,700. Additionally, there are short positions waiting to be liquidated above $75,900 and $76,500.
Either side could be completely defeated. It is still unknown which side Bitcoin will sweep first; it is too early to draw conclusions now.Strong jobs +165K vs 65K expected pushed December hike odds to 76% (CME FedWatch, Dec 9 meeting), up from last week.
The 10Y spiked on the data but closed Friday at 4.86%, still far below its October peak (5.3%).
$BTC is the weak link, under 76.8K even as yields fell.
CPI on Tuesday is the next test. NFA.
Is this a rates story, or is crypto waiting for its own catalyst? #USJobsBeatExpectations $SOL is being seriously discussed for the first time today, here’s the conclusion: this wave of movement is a volume-shrinking slow decline, not a start.
The 24-hour trading volume is only 53 million U, about 30% of usual volume, and the price is still stuck near the 7-day low. It has dropped 5.9% in 7 days, and it was 18% more expensive 30 days ago — those who bought a month ago are now fully stuck, and the first wave of selling pressure on the rebound is right above.
It’s on the movement list because someone made a move here: bulls see it 17% higher than 90 days ago and think it’s cheap; bears see a 29% pullback from the half-year high with shrinking volume and think it’s not done falling. Both sides have a point, but coins that grind down on shrinking volume often wear down the first movers.
On-chain activities are as usual; SOL isn’t without stories, it’s just that there are no new stories this week. Pure capital game, whoever has deeper pockets calls the shots. $SOL The issue with altcoins has never been "how long they have fallen," but rather "where the money comes from."
Under the structure where ETFs lock incremental funds in top assets, stablecoins keep observers on the sidelines, and perpetual contracts take pricing power away from buyers, expecting a textbook waterfall rotation is like still waiting for a river that has long since changed its course. #RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？
Rocket Lab's core medium-term growth driver, the Neutron medium reusable rocket, has faced another critical delay. The company officially announced in October 2026 that the maiden flight is postponed to 2027, nullifying the original Q4 2026 maiden flight target. Currently, the project bottleneck lies in defects in the manufacturing process of the first stage carbon fiber tanks, with internal void issues in components requiring re-production and a full set of cryogenic and pressure tests. Overall validation work will continue into early 2027. At this stage, the Neutron engine, reusable fairing, and launch site facilities have all met standards; the issue is not a technical principle problem but a structural manufacturing quality control risk. The order backlog is sufficient, with multiple commercial and defense launch contracts secured, providing strong long-term revenue certainty, but delivery pace fully depends on the maiden flight schedule. Continued delays will increase R&D capital expenditures, accelerate cash flow consumption, postpone the launch of the high-margin medium launch business, and suppress the company's profit recovery in the short term. #RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？
With only a few days left until the after-hours release of the Q3 2026 earnings report on November 9th for the US stock market, combined with the company's previous revenue guidance of $250 million to $265 million, I'll briefly share my thoughts.
But let's be rational:
1. Long R&D cycle: There are still many technical milestones to overcome from testing, first flight to commercial reuse;
2. Difficult to contribute revenue in the short term: In this quarter's earnings report, Neutron will most likely be focused on R&D progress and test milestones disclosure, not directly reflected in revenue;
3. Risk points: If R&D progress is delayed or costs exceed expectations, it may affect market sentiment.
So for this earnings report, the focus is on management's statements about Neutron milestones: engine testing, structural component progress, and whether the first flight schedule has been adjusted.
3. Summary
In the short term, Electron + Space Systems stabilize the core business performance; in the long term, Neutron will determine whether RocketLab can grow from a "small rocket company" into a true medium-lift launch provider.
After the earnings report is released, focus on three key indicators: whether revenue meets expectations, gross margin trends, and updates on Neutron R&D progress.
What are your thoughts on Neutron's first flight progress? Feel free to discuss in the comments.
The above is my personal opinion and does not constitute any investment advice. #SpaceX业绩大增，与特斯拉合并能否推进？
The 15th Starship flight will be the first time the launch tower simultaneously catches both the spacecraft and the booster. If successful, it will be historic; if not, it will be another "next time for sure."
But the market is not currently focused on the launch tower. After the Democrats swept the midterm elections, SpaceX's five-year CDS surged to 286 basis points, a record high, making financing costs hotter than rocket exhaust. Texas also flipped blue, and the environmental and tax incentives around Starbase will likely be reexamined.
On December 9th, there is still a 17% lock-up expiration waiting to hit. Deutsche Bank calls 250, saying the political risk is "perception greater than reality," but the CDS rising daily is the real money attitude. SpaceX is now betting that Starship can succeed before the credit market loses patience.The moment the non-farm payroll data came out, my first thought wasn't to short immediately, but: the market is going to start tossing and turning again 🤔
New job additions far exceeded expectations, and the unemployment rate fell back to 4.1%. The US economy is very resilient, giving the Federal Reserve more confidence to maintain a hawkish stance. The probability of a rate hike in December has surged to over 75%, which is not good news for the crypto space.
But I don't feel comfortable chasing shorts right now either.
The negative impact of the non-farm data has already been priced in, and the expected drop has been realized. The real main event coming up is the CPI data on the evening of November 10:
Inflation continues to exceed expectations, making a rate hike almost certain, strengthening US Treasuries and the dollar, and $BTC will continue to be under pressure;
If inflation unexpectedly cools down, the market script will instantly reverse. The more people crowd into shorts now, the stronger the rebound might be once the data is released.
Looking around these days, there seem to be opportunities everywhere, but in reality, they are all traps. Bulls lack capital support, shorts are highly crowded, and rushing in is easy to get wiped out.
The mindset can lean bearish, but don't get carried away. Watch more, act less, and don't rush into the fray. The market loves to harvest those who just grasp a bit of logic and then go all in.There's something I've never understood: a company spends 3 billion USD buying Bitcoin, the news keeps shouting it's a huge positive, but why does my account still look the same?
Then I realized, they're buying assets for the balance sheet three years from now, while we're watching the K-line for the next three minutes. After Strive increases its holdings, it becomes the world's second largest publicly listed company holding coins; they don't sell, and they don't need the price to rise today.
So for small retail investors like us, this kind of news is at most background noise. If you really want to take action, you still have to watch how $BTC itself moves; don't just rush in when you hear the words "world's second largest."Yesterday's analysis of ZEC mentioned "It's difficult to break through the high point in the 3 region. So you can try a first short position at this level." I did indeed open a short position at that time, and it is now profitable.
Now revisiting this judgment logic:
1. On the funding side, ETF-driven funds have recently not kept up.
2. Technically, a small-scale head and shoulders pattern appeared here; the position in yesterday's screenshot is also the right shoulder.
3. After a sharp drop on Friday, BTC's rebound is basically weak.
4. In the external environment, gold and US stocks are both in a weak trend with a downward continuation.
5. The catch-up drop logic: this round of BTC's sharp decline is actually a very resilient target for ZEC. But just like BTC, with Nasdaq and semiconductors sharply down on Thursday, BTC also followed with a catch-up drop on Friday, while ZEC did not fall much and even recovered some of the previous small-scale losses. So if BTC continues to follow US stocks down further, ZEC will also undergo a very intense catch-up drop.
Of course, if BTC violently rebounds upward at this level, that would be a different scenario.
But purely from the ETF funding perspective, it indeed has not kept up.
Personal analysis record, not investment advice. DYOR.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
$ZEC An asset management company has bought so much Bitcoin that it ranks second globally; the key point of this news is not the $3 billion, but the identity of the buyer.
After this additional purchase by Strive, the holding size will approach $3 billion, ranking second among publicly listed companies worldwide. Note the wording is "about to reach" and "about to become"; the money hasn't fully landed yet, the position was announced in advance.
Mechanically, buying coins by such companies is completely different from individuals buying coins. Their money comes from financing and equity, and the coins they buy are usually held long-term, effectively locking a portion out of the circulating supply. The market is willing to give them a premium because they transfer volatility from themselves to their shareholders.
This also means their buying pace is determined by financing windows, not by price. If financing goes smoothly, they buy; if financing becomes expensive, they stop. So when you hear "additional purchase," it reflects the result of a financing round, not their judgment on future prices.
For $BTC, this kind of structural buying does reduce the available circulating supply, but the scale is not enough to offset macro-level selling pressure. Consider it a slow variable, not a reason for today's price movement.
What’s truly worth thinking about is: as more and more listed companies treat Bitcoin as a reserve asset, pricing power is shifting from exchanges to balance sheets. This won't happen overnight, but it is already happening.#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ ¥64.6 billion invested for only 13%, and it's money borrowed through high-yield junk bonds. This is not an investment, but a high-stakes liquidity gamble. Microsoft holds priority liquidation rights and board seats, while SoftBank is just a creditor in the back row providing funds. OpenAI's valuation has been downgraded, and its IPO keeps getting delayed. Whether the Q2 financial report looks good or not is basically irrelevant—as long as the IPO window is postponed, double-digit interest will continue to erode cash flow. The rise in CDS already indicates that the credit market has been pricing in the risk in advance. Masayoshi Son is not betting on AGI; he is betting that OpenAI can go public and cash out before the debt defaults.$BCH Observation: Dropped more than 5% in one day, is it an issue with itself or just falling along with altcoins?
Current price is $243.98, down 5.55% in 24 hours, trading volume about 4.34 million USDT, highest at 259.43, lowest at 243.68
No findings so far regarding BCH's own upgrade incidents, regulatory warnings, or project crashes
In the past 7 days, it has fallen from 282.81 to now, a drop of about 13.73%
During the same period, NEAR dropped about 14.8%, HYPE about 11.5%, XLM about 10.8%
The decline is real, but it seems more like altcoins have been dropping together this week, not just BCH having a problem alone.All the money from ETFs this year has been returned, resulting in a net loss of $914 million.
The US spot $BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about $1.28 billion last week, the largest single-week outflow since the end of June and the seventh largest single-week outflow since its launch. Over the five trading days in the week, except for Wednesday, all days saw outflows.
More importantly, looking at the annual account: before this week started, the ETF had a net inflow of about $368 million for 2026, but Monday alone wiped that out. By the close of Friday, the year-to-date figure turned into a net outflow of about $914 million. The positive gains accumulated from the rebound at the end of September were completely lost within a month.
The $ETH ETF is also seeing outflows: about $365 million outflow last week, marking six consecutive weeks of outflows, with a total outflow of about $2.02 billion since the end of September, and a net loss of about $406 million this year. Last week, only Wednesday saw a positive inflow of $53 million.
The account has turned negative; the next focus is Tuesday night’s CPI.An 8.8% rise and a 17% drop mean the same thing in a low-volume market
RSR is now at 0.001686, up 8.84%, pulled from 0.001531 to 0.001691 in 24 hours, basically stuck near the daily high. But its total trading volume for the whole day is only $1.1734 million, with a market cap of 105 million and a turnover rate of 0.11%. This increase is not driven by demand, but because the float is too light.
Looking at ACT, it’s at 0.010244, down 17.47%, with a market cap of 9.66 million. It dropped nearly 18% in one day, also because it’s thinly traded—just a few sell orders can break through.
BTC further illustrates the issue: earlier it touched the upper Bollinger band at 76,086, now it has fallen back to 75,946, up only 0.10%, never once reaching the resistance at 76,135. With BTC stagnant, money can only shuffle pockets among a few small caps.
PEPE remains the same, at 0.0000050512, up 3.90%, stable within a 2.1 billion market cap, but it also hasn’t broken through the daily high of 0.0000050689.
My judgment: today’s top gainers list looks more like an illusion. Instead of looking at gains, look at trading volume—$1.17 million pulling 8.8% up and $9.66 million dropping 17% both essentially reflect thin liquidity, not capital choosing direction.
Focus on two points: whether BTC can retake 76,135; and whether RSR’s daily trading volume can climb from the million level to the ten million level. Gains that can’t climb are just paper wealth.
#RSR #BTC #ACT
Not investment advice, DYOR.Every day at midnight, I post screenshots of my real BTC and ETH positions, entry prices, and stop-loss levels exactly as they are. For 61 consecutive days, I haven't deleted any stop-loss triggered trades. If you want to verify whether I say one thing and do another, just check the history.
Today BTC is at 75,928, with a 24-hour change of 0.0%; ETH is at 2,236, down 0.4%. Looking at these two numbers alone is boring, but ETH/BTC dropping to 0.0295 is the line I care about most this week. HOT surged 28.2%, stealing all the attention, while the majors remain still. This clearly shows that existing funds are rotating within small caps, with no new inflows. In this structure, chasing hot coins has a much lower success rate than waiting for macro developments in the majors.
On the macro side, the employment report has raised the probability of rate hikes again, and CPI will test the December rate path. Strong data and fading rate cut expectations are never good news for overvalued assets, which is also why BTC is stuck sideways at 75,000 — neither bulls nor bears want to add positions before a CPI release. My approach is to keep 40% of BTC with a stop-loss at 73,800, and only 15% of ETH with a stop-loss at 2,140; I don’t average down during weakening ratios.
ETH/BTC is already at 0.0295. Are you switching your ETH position to BTC, or continuing to add ETH while it’s weak?
Follow me for daily public real position updates and stop-loss logic, and I write honestly even when losing.
#OKXProphet Michael Saylor has posted another Bitcoin reserve chart. The numbers are: Strategy has made 120 cumulative purchases, holding 849,300 BTC, with an average cost of $75,446.
These three numbers convey more information than a single candlestick chart. The 120 purchases indicate this is not a one-time bet but a continuously executed process; holding 849,300 BTC shows it is already an unavoidable position holder; the average price of $75,446 converts all sentiment into a concrete price coordinate.
The profit side is also worth noting. As of November 6, the reserve's market value was $64.44 billion, with a 0.21% increase that day, equivalent to $133 million. Although 0.21% is small, at this scale it represents a real fluctuation of over a hundred million. The scale itself acts as an amplifier.
The most thought-provoking mechanism is the public disclosure of cost. A company using 120 purchases to keep the average price at $75,446 turns the holding cost from private information into public information. The market knows where its cost lies and thus knows its most vulnerable position. This is both a display of confidence and a reveal of its bottom cards.
Therefore, I do not see this chart as a purely bullish signal. It proves a company's execution discipline but does not predict the market's next move. The price of $BTC is determined collectively by all buyers; Strategy is just the loudest one.$SOXL This looks more like a "speculative phase bottom" clashing with the "triple leverage bottoming grind" hard battle, rather than a tailwind for a trend reversal.
Trader 800 tried going long around 69.8, betting that the rebound after the 67.66 low could reach 120, but the lesson from the account drawdown from 10 million to 5 million is clear: after giving back profits at high levels, only light positions are dared at lows, no reckless adding. On the chip side, 109 volume steadily dropped to 67.66, with longs cleaned out and panic released fairly thoroughly; after SKHY and SNDK plunged simultaneously without making new lows, it gave SOXL some confidence for resonance stabilization.
But this is a speculative bottom after bad news has been priced in, not a trend bottom. 74.69 is the first resistance; if it can't hold above it, a second dip could come back anytime. The triple-leveraged SOXL has brutal spikes; even if you catch the low, the bottoming grind and oscillation are tough to endure. Trader 800 seems to have caught the bottom this time, but whether the "dog trader wins or not" depends on 74.69 and position discipline, not just on saying "break even so no more contracts." $BTC $SOXL
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #NebiusAI cloud business rapid growth faces financial report test
Nebius Group (NBIS) is expected to release its Q3 2026 financial report before the market opens on November 12, 2026, Eastern Time, with a conference call at 8 AM that day.
My judgment this time is: most likely in line with expectations to slightly exceeding expectations~
Let's see if Orange Brother's analysis makes sense:
The company did not provide separate Q3 guidance; the market is focused on Wall Street consensus: revenue about $906 million, EPS roughly a loss of $0.65.
Last quarter revenue was $582.3 million, a significant year-over-year increase, and the performance beat consensus, indicating deliverability, but it also raised expectations for this quarter.
The full-year company guidance is revenue of $3.0–3.4 billion, Wall Street's full-year estimate is about $3.35 billion, already close to the upper range; the first half was about $981 million, if Q3 is about $900 million, Q4 still needs a push to reach the full-year midpoint. Management also mentioned many large orders are more weighted toward the end of the year and 2027, so Q3 looks more like a transitional quarter where capacity starts to be realized.
If revenue significantly exceeds about $906 million and the full year is revised upward or 2027 is strongly emphasized, that would count as a substantial beat; if revenue is significantly below consensus or profit margins are far below the full-year target of about 40%, that would be below expectations.
So in the end, it's not bearish, but expectations are already not low, the upside for beating expectations is compressed, and sentiment focuses more on ARR, grid connection, and financing.
The above is my personal opinion, not investment advice. The PONS line looks like a decline on the surface, but looking deeper, it seems more like the narrative is fading.
The short-term movement is very straightforward: OKX spot current price 0.1625, 24-hour open 0.1894, high 0.1897, low 0.1618, decline of -14.20%, amplitude 14.73%, trading volume about 3.56 million. It almost opened at the high point, then slid all the way down, not like a back-and-forth tug.
Going one layer deeper, the phase structure is more than just a single bearish candle. According to Galaxy Research, Pons platform daily fees once surged from about $250,000 to about $11.4 million, then fell back to around $250,000; PONS market cap also dropped from about $600 million to about $120 million. When the growth story is hot, the price is willing to believe in advance; when the story needs to be continuously fulfilled, the pullback follows.
So I tend to think: the fee buyback flywheel has stopped turning, and the price is filling the narrative gap. If it were just a cooling of risk appetite, discussion heat might still support some imagination; but this looks more like capital is even starting to reprice the narrative itself.
Short-term moves, phase structure, or narrative position — which layer is easiest to be overlooked?
#OKX星球话题来啦
$PONS 🚨 $STAMP IS MORE THAN A MEME. LOOK AT THE CODE.
A largely overlooked GitHub commit reveals a STAMP-paired Meteora launchpad, alongside infrastructure for managing trading fees.
This could give STAMP a role beyond speculation: powering liquidity pairs for new token launches.
The code dates back to September. Live adoption still needs verification.
The real question: what happens if builders start using it?
#STAMP #USJobsBeatExpectations ckRock continues to reduce holdings, are institutional funds retreating? 1. Daily fund flows of US spot BTC ETFs last week Statistical period: November 2–6, 2026. Data source: Farside Investors historical fund flow data. 2. How much BTC did BlackRock actually sell? Here are some key data points: BlackRock IBIT had a cumulative net outflow of about $1.2095 billion over five trading days. IBIT held approximately 811,115 BTC as of November 6. The 12 US spot BTC ETFs collectively hold Historically, whenever the market "turns green" and enters Zone B, there has never been a precedent of returning to Zone A and starting another bear market cycle. Although Zone B occasionally experiences intermittent "red turns," these periods are usually short-lived and accompanied by a decline in the peak of the green line, indicating a slowdown in profit acceleration. Therefore, analysts are not overly pessimistic about concerns that a U.S. stock market crash would push BTC to new lows again. Currently, the correlation between BTC and U.S. stocks has reached 0.8, close to the high point since 2020. According to mean reversion principles, after reaching a certain threshold, the correlation often declines. If in the long term it were just "U.S. stocks rise and BTC falls, U.S. stocks fall and BTC still falls," why would long-term holders continue to hold about 14 million BTC instead of converting all to U.S. stocks? This logic does not hold in the long run. Rome was not built in a day; despite setbacks, each panic release, chip turnover, and confidence restoration accumulates strength for the next phase of the trend. Of course, historical patterns do not guarantee future repetition, macro uncertainties remain, and BTC may experience more extreme volatility than expected. But at least based on current data, there is no evidence sufficient to overturn this cycle's recovery. #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 $BTC $TIP Inflation is higher than expected, how will inflation-protected bonds perform?
The CPI released on November 10 will affect inflation expectations, but the price of inflation-protected bonds is also influenced by real yields. If inflation expectations rise while real interest rates remain stable, these bonds are more supported compared to nominal bonds. However, if real interest rates jump, the net value may still decline. The key is to separately observe the two yield curves.Opening price around 80.86, floating profit about 4.56 million, this is the bill for the approximately 550,000 SOL long position at address 0x9c6a.
Hyperliquid on-chain public position shows this address used 20x full margin to long about 550,088 SOL, with a nominal value of about 49.04 million USD. The average opening price is about 80.86 USD, the mark price at the time of writing is about 89.15 USD, unrealized profit is about 4.56 million USD, liquidation price about 68.35 USD. Account equity is about 3.99 million USD. Since opening the position, the accumulated funding fee is about 1.06 million USD. At the time of writing BTC≈75853, ETH≈2235, SOL≈89.15.
Honestly, making about 4.56 million floating profit with 20x leverage is not easy, but these are floating profits that will move with the market and do not mean they are secured; the funding fee alone has accumulated about 1.06 million, the higher the leverage, the more you have to watch the drawdown.
Do you think SOL will first approach 100, or will it first retrace to the opening price of 80.86?
If you want to see the follow-up, please follow.
$SOL