Orbit Post Sitemap
判断稳定币是不是真的用得更多，你会先看有多少钱留在链上，还是链上累计转手了多少钱？Circle 最新财报里，这两个数字的增速差得挺远。 Circle 在 11 月 4 日公布的财报显示，第三季度 USDC 链上交易额达 13.9 万亿美元，同比增长 49%。同期平均流通量是 733 亿美元，同比增长 8%。到了季末，流通量约 739 亿美元，和上年同期基本持平。链上交易额是一个季度累计转了多少钱，流通量看的是某个时点或一段时间里有多少 USDC 在外流通。同一笔钱来回转几次，每笔转账都可能计入交易额，余额却可以没怎么变。 再看 Circle 自己赚的钱。季度总营收及储备收入为 8.65 亿美元，同比增长 17%，但其中的储备收入约 6.58 亿美元，同比下降 8%。公司解释，储备回报率同比下降了 0.61 个百分点，平均流通量增加只抵消了部分影响。同一季度，其他收入还包含 1.82 亿美元的 ARC 代币预售收入。所以公司这一季收入为什么增加，得看各项收入分别来自哪里。 我的判断是，USDC 的链上流转确实更活跃，但要看使用场景有没有扩大，我会同时跟踪流通余额和支付用途。Visa 的统Today (November 8, 2026), the four markets did not move in the same direction but were torn apart by the same macro theme: after the US midterm elections concluded, expectations of escalating geopolitical conflicts quickly faded. This theme simultaneously drove an epic crash in crude oil, a speculative sell-off in gold, and a narrow tug-of-war for Bitcoin amid "extreme fear." The stock market, however, showed a completely different logic—local overheating of A-share stocks with consecutive daily limit-ups diverging severely from fundamentals. --- 🛢️ Crude Oil: Plunged over 16% in one week, the largest weekly drop since 2020 This is the most intense anomaly today. The Brent crude oil front-month contract fell a cumulative 16.42% over the week, and the WTI front-month contract dropped 12.76%, both marking the largest weekly declines since 2020. On November 7 intraday, New York crude briefly fell below $90 per barrel. The core driver of the crash was a concentrated sell-off by hedge funds. After analyzing CFTC position data, Goldman Sachs' FICC team found that from October 27 to November 3, managed money net sold Brent crude oil positions totaling $6.6 billion, marking the seventh time in five years that weekly sales exceeded $6 billion. The trigger for the sell-off was the market's rapid shift from "rushing to price in war escalation" to "rushing to price in war ending" after the Democrats swept Congress—reports indicated Trump favored negotiation over military strikes, Iran's Supreme Leader authorized the president to engage in dialogue, and Qatar-mediated calls were continuously made. Long positions betting on a supply disruption in the Strait of Hormuz were forced to liquidate massively, creating a chain reaction of negative feedback. However, the supply side is not亏光不是最可怕的，把"重仓赌一波"误当成"行情快来了"才是 🫧 你有没有过那种时刻：明明只是波动放大，却觉得必须马上做点什么？ 昨晚看到那条动态，心里咯噔了一下。钱没了，感情也散了，最后说要去送外卖、等翻身。我不想消费别人的难处，但它像一面镜子，照出一个很常见的误判：把波动阶段当成趋势起点，然后不自觉把仓位越加越重。$BTC $ETH $ZEC 我自己的观察是，最近这种拉扯感特别明显。大饼上下扫，山寨偶尔冒头又迅速熄火，ZEC 这类老币冷不丁被拎出来讲两句故事。表面看是热点轮动，实际更像波动率被反复挤压后的情绪消耗。很多人以为"波动大等于机会多"，但波动阶段真正考验的不是方向判断，而是节奏和仓位纪律。方向看对、节奏踩错，照样被扫出去。 传导路径其实不复杂。新闻催化先点燃情绪，短线资金涌入，价格快速脉冲，然后获利盘和止损盘互相踩踏，波动被进一步放大。这时候 BTC 的走势决定风险偏好能不能稳住，ETH 跟着看资金愿不愿意承担久期，山寨则负责放大贪婪和恐惧。一旦大饼收回涨幅，山寨的反弹往往最先失效，追高的人被留在原地。 偏多的路径也存在：如果波动之后成交量能跟上，BTC 站稳关键区间，ESanDisk: 6x PE, the market is discounting the "cycle length"
Current price $835, TTM PE about 6.1x, analyst consensus target price $2047. The disagreement is not about the authenticity of earnings, but how long the earnings can be sustained. NBM's long-term contract guaranteed revenue is $93.9 billion, with an average term over 4 years, and about 50% of bits locked for FY2027, which indeed improves visibility; however, SanDisk's NAND market share is only 11.7%, ranking sixth, with pricing power still held by Samsung and SK Hynix. Long-term contracts can lock in their own volume but cannot lock in the entire industry's supply discipline. If the leaders loosen contract prices, SanDisk can only maintain volume, not valuation multiples. The November 20 stock split only lowers the entry threshold, not the logic. Monitor NBM's new contract signings and contract price divergence. $PONS Bearish news: The buyback budget dropped from about 18.7 million to about 2 million in one month
Current price 0.1657 USDT, down 13.52% in 24 hours, volume about 3.48 million, lowest seen at 0.1644
According to DefiLlama data verified by Coindoo today, Pons Launchpad's fees were $137.1 million in September, but only $16.8 million in October, a decrease of 87.8%. Protocol revenue dropped from 23.4 million to 2.5 million
According to the EU white paper, the platform keeps 30% of the fees, 80% of which is used to buy back and burn PONS. Using the same calculation, about 18.7 million was used for buybacks in September, but only about 2 million in October
Galaxy Research's daily fee chart on November 6 also shows a drop from about 11.4 million on September 5 to about 250,000 in early November, with market cap falling from over 600 million to about 120 million. The only channel for holders to receive platform income has been almost completely drained.ETF withdrew $1.28 billion in one week! All inflows this year have been lost, are institutions the least faithful?
Really, stop blindly believing in institutional long-termism. The BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $1.28 billion last week, wiping out all net inflows since 2026 and turning it into a net outflow for the year.
This happened in just one week. At the beginning of the month, there were still positive inflows of over a billion, but now they're gone. This is the worst single-week performance since the end of June. Just BlackRock's IBIT alone ran off with more than $400 million on Friday, accounting for over 80% of that day's outflows. Even the most stable leading institutions are rushing to exit. $ETH
Frankly, it's not surprising. The non-farm payroll data exploded, December rate hike expectations were fully priced in, and with the midterm election results settled, funds that had bet on regulatory easing cashed out and fled. Institutions are a hundred times more pragmatic than retail investors; they take profits when they can and exit faster than anyone when bad news hits, without any talk of long-term faith.
No wonder the market has been soft like cotton lately, with every rally lacking follow-through. This rally was originally driven by incremental ETF funds, but now the inflows have turned into outflows. With no one injecting fresh capital, the price naturally can't rise.
Don't listen to nonsense about a strong bottom or bottom-fishing. As long as ETF fund flows don't turn around, all support is paper-thin. Wait until there are consecutive net inflows again before talking about stabilization.#RocketLab financial report ahead: How is the progress of the Neutron rocket? Bitcoin has fallen exactly like the Nasdaq, so where are the buyers when it rises?
On November 5th, three numbers lined up: Nasdaq -5.52%, Bitcoin -5.49%, Ethereum -7.70%. Same day, same direction, almost the same magnitude.
Many still treat it as an independent asset, but its current pricing is based on a single variable: "global risk appetite." The reason is simple — the money buying Bitcoin and the money buying Nasdaq come from the same group, flowing through the same channel: spot ETFs. This week, this channel saw a net outflow of $1.28 billion, and cumulatively for 2026, it has already turned into a net outflow.
What’s even more interesting is the reverse: the next trading day, Nasdaq rebounded 1.09%, while Bitcoin barely moved. When falling, they move in lockstep; when rising, Bitcoin’s buyers are absent.
So don’t ask "Is Bitcoin a safe-haven asset?" Instead, ask "How many Nasdaq-style crashes can your position withstand?"
Is your position allocated for defense or offense? Share your thoughts in the comments.
BTC #Nasdaq #ETFFlows #MarketAnalysis现在我很慌，这个周末，市场安静地过分了，太像暴风雨来临前的宁静了。 明天早上，韩股就要开盘了，一旦海力士的表现不佳，恐怕$SNDK 会暴跌。 到时候，$NVDA 很有可能被拖下水，一旦发生这种情况，美股就炸了。 美股炸了，世界都不好过。 加密也不例外，$ETH 更是不例外。 这么一讲，明天海力士的表现就至关重要，一旦表现不好，全球可能就要开始集体暴跌了。 —————————————————— 现在我内心其实有一个顾虑，就是加密提前开始跌。 在我记忆里，之前是有这种情况的。 说实话，现在$ETH 的合约数据其实还可以，多空比和持仓量都挺高，说明现在还是有不少人看多的。 但是，加密行情不完全由自己决定，尤其是现在这种情况，加密的行情就系于美股了。 现在，最好的策略就是空仓，然后等明天海力士的表现。 这是比较稳妥的办法。 —————————————————— 我现在是在空。 因为我分析了之前的趋势，周末晚上是有可能暴跌的。 我想搏一搏。 而且，我现在不认为明天海力士表现会好，所以做空大概是不亏的。 我认为，现在做空，大概率不亏，有概率爆赚，小概率爆亏。 这种情况，我认为对于我来说是值得冒险的Every time I see "Hong Kong is going to issue crypto licenses," my first reaction is: Here we go again? After the last round of licenses were issued, the market didn't really react; if it was going to drop, it dropped.
But this time the situation is a bit different. Trading, custody, consulting, and management—all four require licenses. Before, they only focused on exchanges; now even "helping you store coins" and "giving you advice" are included.
To put it bluntly, Hong Kong is regulating crypto as a financial industry, not as a tech product. It sounds serious, but in reality, the threshold is higher and fewer people can get in.
For ordinary holders, there probably won't be much impact in the short term; $BTC will still fluctuate as usual. Just remember to ask first when looking for a place to store your coins: Do you have a license?Hong Kong has made it clear this time: by the end of the year, it will submit a crypto bill requiring four types of licenses for trading, custody, advisory, and management businesses respectively.
First, let's look at what it breaks down. In recent years, the most ambiguous regulatory area worldwide has been "custody"—who holds the coins, and who is responsible if something goes wrong has never been clearly defined. This time, custody is singled out for a separate license, which acknowledges one thing: the core that truly needs regulation in the crypto industry is not trading but asset custody. Trading, advisory, and management are independent, indicating that Hong Kong does not intend to use one big license to cover everyone but rather stratifies by risk.
From a mechanism perspective, the consequence of layered licensing is a change in the cost structure. Trading platforms bear the heaviest compliance costs, advisory and management are much lighter, and custody is in the middle but has the highest capital and audit requirements. This will lead to an expected differentiation: licensed institutions handle custody and distribution, unlicensed ones handle traffic entry, and the middle layer gets squeezed.
For mainstream assets like $BTC, the significance lies on the demand side. Once compliant custody is established, the last procedural barrier for institutions entering the market is removed—not because the bill makes the coins more valuable, but because internal control clauses of funds, insurance, and family offices can finally be approved.
One point worth considering: among the four licenses, the most expensive is not trading but custody. Whoever is willing to pay this cost will control the next round of capital inflow. And this cost is unaffordable for small platforms. Berkshire's financial report has been released, and this time I'm more interested in the money it spent.
In the third quarter, the company repurchased about $9.6 billion in stock, more than double the approximately $4.5 billion in the second quarter. Meanwhile, quarterly operating profit was about $12.7 billion, down 5.8% year-over-year. Putting these two facts together is more interesting than just focusing on the cash balance alone: operating performance is under pressure, yet management was still willing to buy back its own shares at the prices at that time.
Of course, buybacks only reflect capital allocation choices during that period; they don't allow us to judge today's price, nor do they guarantee an immediate stock price increase. But at least it is an action that has already occurred and can be verified by the amount.
Whenever the market sees Berkshire's large cash reserves, it likes to write a line saying "waiting for a crash." I think this explanation is too simplistic. The company needs to retain funds to meet insurance and operational needs, while also weighing the attractiveness between external acquisitions, securities investments, and buybacks. The answer is not necessarily just one.
This financial report reminds me that patience and using funds can happen simultaneously. There's no need to force money out just because you can't find a particularly satisfying opportunity at the moment; and when you do encounter an acceptable price, you don't have to wait for all news to improve.
Rather than guessing when it will make a big bottom-fishing move, I prefer to observe the next few quarters: whether buybacks will continue, whether operating profits can improve, and where the funds ultimately go.
#伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 What was stopped: an offline event or the entire onshore promotion narrative?
Around November 6, the Financial Times published a response from a central bank department head: it was monitored that domestic entities displayed Solana branding on the exterior walls of the Citigroup Tower in Lujiazui, Shanghai, which was classified as virtual currency marketing. The People's Bank of China, together with local financial, public security, and market regulatory departments, stopped the "Solana Accelerate China 2026" offline event before it started and will investigate the related organizations and individuals. The official stance is that SOL "is essentially a virtual currency" and also provides technical services for the issuance and trading of USDT and others; according to a February notification from eight departments this year, such promotion is already in violation.
So far, no names, no penalty lists, and no timetable have been released. Foundation President Lily Liu explained around October 16 that the postponement was due to registrations increasing about fourfold overnight, exceeding the venue capacity already filed, and needing to comply with local requirements—both explanations can coexist and do not contradict each other.
This is not a "comprehensive ban on SOL in China," nor an upgrade to a trading ban; it is more like a sample of the boundaries for onshore promotion.
Why it matters: this time provides a verifiable on-site reference point for what overseas public chains can and cannot say onshore.
Confidence level: medium | official media relay, no penalty results yet. Will you focus more on the investigation list later or on whether the foundation has new statements? $SOL Only veterans in the crypto circle know the truth
Actually, the Democratic Party coming to power is a huge positive for crypto
How much liquidity did Trump drain from the crypto circle when he was in office
The Bitcoin ETF was approved during the Democratic Party's tenure
The Democratic Party does not ban crypto, but wants regulation
Trump seemed to support cryptocurrencies, but in reality, he was greedily making money, completely harming the industry!#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
The weekly decline is 3.4%, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunging 12% in a single day before quickly rebounding. Many are debating whether this is a "technical dip," but from an institutional perspective, this is far from a simple emotional release; it is a repricing after the AI narrative has entered the "accounting period."
Sharing three core judgments:
1. The essence of the plunge: from "buying dreams" to "looking at financial reports." The market's concerns about AI data center regulation and the return on massive capital expenditures (Capex) are heating up. In the past two years, any association with AI could boost valuations, but now institutions are doing the math: major companies have spent hundreds of billions on GPUs, so when will this translate into profits? Once ROI (return on investment) is disproven, high valuations are just castles in the air.
2. Why the rebound is so fast? Because of "short covering" plus "denominator-side" games. The rally in Nvidia and AMD is largely due to the previous sharp drop, where some hedge funds hit their "stop-loss" lines and were forced to liquidate, combined with technical buying after overselling. Additionally, if subsequent macro data weakens and rate cut expectations reignite, it is positive for the valuation denominator of tech stocks (long-duration assets).
3. Divergence is the main theme going forward. The Nasdaq has rebounded, but the Dow Jones still closed down. This means funds have not fully returned to risk assets but are switching between "weeding out falsehoods within tech" and "defending traditional value sectors."
Conclusion: Don't mistake a single-day rebound for a reversal. $QQQ $BTC dropped to 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidated in 24 hours, longs making up the majority. But the funding rate stubbornly didn’t turn negative, and Binance’s long-short ratio even rose to 2.16; what’s buried is leverage, not positions. The real drag is the ETF, which net ran off 1.28 billion in November, cumulatively turning negative for the year, with no one catching the rebound.
$ETH is the most conflicted. Total staked is 45.2 million, with 1.37 million queued to enter, waiting 24 days, yet the ETF ran off over 1.2 billion in October, and ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low. Those locking coins and those withdrawing funds each tell their own story.
China A-shares saw 100 stocks hit daily limit up, with turnover of 1.78 trillion, looking lively. But banks and coal are the only two sectors closing in the red against the trend; money is only flowing into AI manga dramas and baijiu, with broad-based ETFs seeing 129.5 billion inflows, going into indices, not individual stocks.
US stocks lost 4 trillion in a week; chip stocks rebounded on Friday but the Nasdaq still fell for the whole week. Tuesday’s CPI was the real knife, with December rate hike bets pushed close to 80%.
All three markets are stubbornly holding on amid divergence. Many people yearn to follow Bitcoin's old path: writing a whitepaper, open-sourcing the code, zero pre-mining, no fundraising, and building a public chain from scratch.
Technically, this process is still feasible today, but the era is completely different. Back then, the field was blank, regulations were loose, and home computers could participate in mining; now, computing power is highly concentrated, regulations are tightening, and launching a new PoW chain from cold start is extremely difficult and prone to 51% hash rate attacks.
The code can be copied exactly, but the consensus, liquidity, and first-mover advantages accumulated over more than a decade cannot be replicated. Even if successfully launched, most can only remain niche experiments and it is hard to replicate Bitcoin's legendary success.
$BTC When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was budgeting for starting a company: just because the business scope is expanded doesn't mean the cash flow is stable. The same goes for trading; input and output must be calculated, and risk reserves cannot be skimped on.
The rules finalized by the Russian Central Bank will take effect on November 17: non-qualified investors can purchase up to 300,000 rubles worth of cryptocurrency per year through each intermediary, qualified investors have no limits, and all investors must pass a mandatory test before trading.
My judgment is that this looks more like a reshuffling of channel business rather than a personal risk cap. The test means service providers have to bear the cost of access management, and whether they can cover the cost depends on the business volume; the quota is calculated per intermediary, which does not equal a cap on an individual's total annual investment. If users spread their purchases across multiple intermediaries, the total exposure could still increase—this is my speculation.
For friends in business, if you encounter such channel-based quota rules, how would you set the line for your total investment and risk reserves? $XAU The trading volume of a certain secure tokenized gold has hit a record high. Simply put, the crypto market has crashed badly, and high-volatility assets are no longer playable. Panicked funds are rushing to find a safe haven to hold on, fully maximizing the safe-haven attribute.
Looking deeper at $BTC, gold has dropped by 30% this year and has only just stabilized around the 4000 mark. There's no real bottom to buy into. This is purely an internal reshuffling of existing funds under extreme panic. It indicates that market confidence is extremely fragile. Chasing gold now has very low cost-effectiveness. Once the market crashes deeply and sentiment warms up, this safe-haven capital will be pulled back in a flash to continue the game.#SoftBank's Heavy Bet on OpenAI: Can Q2 Earnings Deliver Impressive Results? SoftBank Q2: OpenAI's Paper Gains Celebrate, But Single Exposure Risk Remains
On November 10, SoftBank released its FY2026 Q2 earnings report, with the spotlight still on OpenAI. Having invested a total of $64.6 billion and holding about 13% equity; OpenAI's valuation reached $852 billion, generating cumulative unrealized gains of approximately $45 billion, with about $25 billion in a single quarter, making Q2's paper gains highly likely to be impressive.
However, the profit and loss statement is highly tied to OpenAI's valuation: In the previous fiscal year's Q2, net profit was 2.5 trillion yen, and the Vision Fund earned 2.38 trillion yen; in FY2026 Q1, the Vision Fund's pre-tax profit was only 5.4 billion yen, a year-on-year plunge of 98.8%, mainly because OpenAI's valuation remained flat quarter-over-quarter. When valuation rises, profits explode; when valuation stalls, profits nearly vanish.
The funding side is even more concerning: Jefferies reports that OpenAI raised about $70 billion in the past 12 months, nearly 85% (about $60 billion) coming from SoftBank, creating a self-reinforcing valuation loop; SoftBank borrowed another $20 billion in April, partly to invest in OpenAI. Meanwhile, Grab's decline during the same period has offset some gains; Malaysia's $50 billion AI data center remains an intention without formal agreements or timelines.
Assessment: The strong Q2 performance mainly relies on OpenAI's valuation. The key question is whether SoftBank can hedge the extreme single-asset exposure using Arm's cash flow, telecom business, or AI infrastructure deployment. If not, the more dazzling the $45 billion unrealized gains appear, the more underestimated the concentration risk becomes. The on-chain weekend report provided a market forecast for Monday, showing that storage chips are clearly stronger. SK Hynix is expected to open up 4.5%, Samsung about 2.6%, while the overall US stock market is opening flat to slightly weak.
This price is the pre-pricing of Trade.xyz's perpetual contracts. The stock market is closed on weekends, and only this can trade continuously, reflecting market expectations in advance. Popular AI storage stocks like Nvidia, Micron, and SanDisk all quoted slightly below Friday's close over the weekend, showing weakness.
The differentiation is clear: capital is currently prioritizing bets on Korean storage giants. After a sharp drop in the storage sector, capital is speculating on a cyclical recovery, with SK Hynix and Samsung showing greater elasticity. But for US AI leaders, capital is cautious and unwilling to go long. $SKHYNIX
Everyone should understand this is only the advance expectation from on-chain contracts, not a guarantee that Monday's open will follow this trend. It should only be used as a sentiment reference, not an accurate result.
In the crypto space, pay attention as well: weak sentiment in tech stocks will indirectly suppress high-risk assets. The storage sector's isolated strength is a sectoral divergence, not a broad recovery. Don't blindly chase SK Hynix's expected rise; wait for the official open to see real support before making plans. $BTC $ETH
#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Vitalik, the founder of Ethereum, posted on X, disagreeing with the recent negative reactions to the anti-data center movement, believing that slowing down the hyper-scale expansion of computing power is overall more beneficial than harmful. Coming from the founder of $ETH, this statement carries a different weight compared to environmental organizations shouting for a decade.
What he offers is not "AI is dangerous so don't build it," but rather a timeline misalignment. With algorithmic progress, the AI capabilities that will require larger-scale data centers in the next two years might be achievable within about four years, or even less, using existing data centers. To translate: the demand priced today as "computing power is never enough" might be cheaply eliminated by algorithms tomorrow.
From this, he draws a second point—the anti-data center movement may not cause catastrophic consequences. What to do with the time saved? His answer is that the world needs more time to address cybersecurity threats and biosecurity risks.
There is also an easily overlooked sentence: scientific research is constrained by factors beyond AI, so a one-year slowdown in AI development causes an actual delay in scientific progress of less than one year. This breaks the equation that "slowing down equals an equivalent loss."
For the market, what’s worth pondering is the scarcity premium of computing power. The AI infrastructure valuation over the past two years has been based on the assumption of "constant new construction," but if algorithms can spread out the two-year demand, the foundation loosens.
One question remains: is the money currently paid for "computing power is never enough" actually paying for a demand that might never come? The Georgia House of Representatives has a total of 180 seats; obtaining 91 seats constitutes a majority. Before the memory card vote supplement, preliminary counts estimated the Democratic Party would secure 93 seats (a safe margin of 2 seats). If this one seat is ultimately certified and reversed, the Democrats would have 92 seats, still exceeding the 91-seat majority threshold, thus retaining control of the state House but with a majority reduced to just 1 seat, making it extremely narrow.
Market reversals usually come with news; awaiting results #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% Can the money saved from $ABNB customer service automation be retained?
Airbnb disclosed that its customer service cost per order in Q3 dropped by more than 17% year-over-year. Improved handling efficiency can enhance profits, but error resolution might shift costs to refunds and complaints. If subsequent repurchases remain stable and the refund rate improves, the savings will be more solid. If the issue escalation rate rises, the net benefits of automation should be reassessed.$CORE ⚠️ Important Reminder
1. No fixed timetable
Zeroing out (price approaching 0) is not a fixed point in time; it is a process of liquidity gradually disappearing:
It doesn't suddenly become 0 on a certain day. The usual path is: exchanges successively delist → depth worsens, slippage becomes huge → only niche OTC/on-chain scattered trades remain → almost no one takes the position, price approaches 0 indefinitely.
If the core support remains (mainnet blocks normally, exchanges still keep trading pairs, community nodes continue running), it can linger at a low level for a long time, months or even longer without zeroing out; but if negative triggers concentrate, the decline will be rapid.
2. Several key triggers that accelerate this process (these are the red lines you watch on your dashboard)
- Multiple mainstream exchanges officially announce batch delisting of CORE trading pairs
- Deposits and withdrawals remain closed for a long time with no clear recovery plan
- Remaining stolen large chips concentratedly dumped
- Large number of validator nodes exit, causing chain operation issues
As long as these signals do not erupt simultaneously, it will not quickly approach zero; once multiple appear at the same time, the risk will sharply increase. CORE Short-Term Risk List
Summarizing the four major short-term risks currently facing CORE, holders need to pay close attention. First is the supply security risk: after the b14g token theft incident, about 19 million tokens have yet to be recovered, compounded by ghost tokens created from the August reward loophole overflow, resulting in long-term selling pressure expectations; two major security incidents occurred consecutively, with unclear compensation plan details, continuously suppressing market sentiment.
Second is the governance trust crisis: there are only about twenty active validator nodes, the project team can quickly coordinate hard forks to intervene in on-chain accounts, casting serious doubt on the decentralization narrative; core members have announced their exit from the DAO, but there is no verifiable handover plan for the treasury and code permissions, and the previously anticipated revenue buyback has yet to materialize.
Third is liquidity risk: Bithumb will delist CORE at the end of November, further shrinking liquidity, thinning market depth, making flash crashes and stampedes highly likely, while there is also potential risk of other exchanges following suit.
Fourth is pressure from the sector and the broader market: Babylon and Merlin continuously divert BTCFi staking funds, and if BTC weakens, the consensus-fragile CORE is very likely to experience a larger pullback than mainstream coins.
Technical bugs are minor issues that can be fixed; the most fatal risks are consensus collapse, liquidity decay, and being caught in downward momentum.$BTC fell below 75,800 in the afternoon, the panic index climbed from 25 to 28, still in the panic zone [reference:0]. Nearly 100 million liquidations in 24 hours, but the funding rate hasn't turned negative, and the long-short ratio even rose to 2.16; what's being washed out is leverage, not positions.
The real awkwardness is with ETFs; in November, a net outflow of 1.28 billion occurred, no one is catching the rebound, and the whale's replenishment volume is just enough to fill the gaps.
$ETH is even more typical; Grayscale ETF just pledged 850,000 ETH, locking nearly 3.9 billion USD. But the ETF overall is still bleeding; the staking lock-up and capital withdrawal are completely out of sync.
A-share media sector gained 13.4% in a week, power equipment 9.3%, but banks and coal stocks closed down against the trend; all the money is betting on elasticity, no one wants the heavyweights.
US chip stocks violently reversed on Friday, AMD jumped 11 points, but the nonfarm payroll of 165,000 pushed interest rate bets to 70%, and the Dow alone dropped 237 points.
All three markets are stubbornly holding amid divergence; whoever can't hold first will be cleared out first. Oil prices plunged 16% in one week, but has the Middle East situation really eased?
After the US midterm elections, the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress. The market once bet on a cooling of US-Iran conflicts, pushing international oil prices down more than 16% in one week. On Friday, Brent crude oil ($BZ) remained above $97, while WTI hovered around $90.
But the reality is not so optimistic.
Oil tankers near Oman were attacked in succession, explosions reoccurred around the Strait of Hormuz, and the US's third aircraft carrier strike group is also heading to the Middle East. Trump stated that he does not rule out taking military action against Iran again. Both sides are conducting diplomatic communications through Qatar, but significant differences remain in the negotiation terms.
Meanwhile, Rapidan Energy believes the probability of a renewed US-Iran conflict is as high as 80%. If the war restarts, oil prices may break through $100 again.
My view: This round of oil price decline is more about the market trading peace expectations in advance rather than the actual disappearance of geopolitical risks.
Next, focus on three key signals:
1. Whether WTI can hold $90; if it effectively breaks below, it indicates the market's confidence in peace talks is strengthening.
2. Whether the situation in the Strait of Hormuz further deteriorates, which directly affects global crude oil supply.
3. The US November CPI and December Federal Reserve interest rate decision; a rebound in oil prices may push inflationary pressures higher again.
For $BTC, rising oil prices may exacerbate inflation concerns, compress the Federal Reserve's room for rate cuts, and thus affect liquidity in risk assets. CORE DAO's "Darkest October": Two Security Incidents, Founders Exit, Can It Still Carry the BTCFi Banner?
October became a defining dark period for Core DAO: first, the official announcement that two core contributors, Rich Rines and Brendon Sedo, stepped down from their DAO positions, externally framed as a move toward decentralization; at the end of the month, the b14g protocol suffered a major vulnerability, with hackers exploiting a zero-amount withdrawal logic to steal 97.05 million CORE tokens. Although about 70% of the assets were recovered through a hard fork, the tracing of the remaining tokens remains uncertain. Coupled with an underlying vulnerability from August involving validator reward overflow, security risks have been repeatedly exposed.
Under multiple shocks, the market has begun to reassess whether CORE can continue to lead the BTCFi sector. The project's biggest pain point is not merely code bugs but a governance trust crisis: the ability to quickly coordinate nodes to push hard forks to modify account states confirms network power centralization, continuously damaging the decentralization narrative. Meanwhile, competitors like Babylon and Merlin continue to divert BTC staking funds, intensifying internal competition within the sector.
Even though the underlying narrative logic of BTC staking remains, the consecutive incidents have severely damaged confidence among institutions and retail investors. To reclaim the leading position in the sector, it is not enough to rely solely on technical fixes for vulnerabilities; transparency of the treasury, transfer of governance rights, and implementation of compensation plans are all indispensable. Security incidents can be remedied, but once consensus is lost, rebuilding becomes extremely difficult.要问 meme 和技术叙事哪个更容易涨，我觉得短时间里，梗确实更容易点火。技术项目讲半天架构，听的人还在查名词；土狗甩张图，群里就能接着玩了。传播这关，技术叙事挺吃亏的。但容易传开，也不等于买盘能接住。我挺爱看梗，可碰到连路线图都写成段子的项目，就有点犯嘀咕：这是在整活，还是压根没打算干活？#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% 【闪迪（SNDK）1拆8观点】Lowering the threshold to unlock liquidity, short-term profit prevention, long-term focus on computing power
SanDisk (SNDK) is implementing a 1-for-8 stock split, which does not materially change the company's market value or fundamentals, but will have a direct impact on market trading logic and psychology:
1. Significantly lowers the threshold, releasing retail liquidity: The high single stock price makes it difficult for retail investors and employees to hold shares. After the split, the stock price drops to 1/8 of the original (down to around a hundred dollars), greatly lowering the trading threshold, directly stimulating retail participation and turnover rate, significantly enhancing intraday liquidity.
2. Triggers short-term chip game, preventing emotional exhaustion: Stock splits are often seen as a signal of management's confidence in long-term performance. However, the split itself is a non-profit adjustment, and the market may experience a short-to-medium term "good news realization" emotional pullback and institutional profit-taking, causing short-term volatility to increase significantly.
3. Premium transmission to AI storage and Crypto sectors: As an important support for AI data centers and high-bandwidth physical flash memory, SanDisk's split enhances market attention on the storage cycle, and this heat will also positively transmit to decentralized storage infrastructure (such as FIL, AR, and other DePIN ecosystems).
Summary: The stock split is a catalyst for optimizing chip structure and liquidity, with short-term focus on sentiment and turnover, and medium-to-long term still depending on the actual supply and demand of physical storage chips for AI data centers. $SNDK Today (November 8), Bitcoin is around $75,776, down 39.9% from the high of $126,102 on October 6, 2025; Ethereum is around $2,235, down 54.8%.
On the US stock side, on November 5, the Nasdaq dropped 5.52% in a single day, falling 11.9% from the October 6 high, just entering a technical correction; the S&P fell 5.7%.
■ Three scenarios
Scenario A: Bottoming out: ETF outflows stop the decline + the Fed does not act in December, BTC oscillates between 68,832 (200-week moving average, -45.4%) and 75,000.
Scenario B: Typical bear market intensity: a retracement of 60%~68%, corresponding to $40,350~$50,440.
Scenario C: A repeat of the November to December 2018 period (which was -50.6%): about $37,500.
■ Buying pressure is the key variable this round
■ Focus on four signals only
1. Whether ETF weekly net inflows can turn positive; 2. Whether the 68,832 200-week moving average breaks; 3. Whether the Fear and Greed Index (currently 28) can drop to extreme levels and trigger short-term holder loss selling; 4. Whether the 10-year US Treasury yield will break 5%.#软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ #软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ Regarding this question, the simple explanation is that SoftBank is betting heavily on OpenAI, using borrowed huge sums to buy a "large stake" in the ChatGPT company. Whether the financial report looks good mainly depends on how much this stake has "appreciated on the books." How much has SoftBank actually invested? SoftBank Group has cumulatively invested about $64.6 billion in OpenAI, holding approximately 13% of the shares. This means that for every 10 dollars OpenAI's value rises, SoftBank earns a bit more than 1 dollar. This money was invested in several rounds, with an additional $30 billion added this year, paid in three installments of $10 billion each, the last one completed on October 1. Much of the money was raised through debt issuance. What does this have to do with the Q2 financial report? A large part of SoftBank's profits does not come from selling phones or running businesses, but from "valuation increases" of the companies it invests in recorded on the books. When OpenAI's valuation rises, SoftBank can record an "investment gain" in its financial report. In previous quarters, OpenAI's valuation soared from several tens of billions to $852 billion, and SoftBank earned a huge profit from this. So, will Q2 be "impressive"? Most likely not, and I believe there is a possibility of underperformance. The reason is simple: the latest round of financing raised OpenAI's valuation to about $1.25 trillion, but this$BTC fell below 76,000 in the afternoon, closing at 75,800, with SOL and HYPE dropping even more sharply. The fear and greed index climbed from extreme fear to 28, but the funding rate remains positive, stuck at the floor level. Bulls are taking hits while paying interest, and the cleanup is far from over.
$ETH is the most conflicted, with 45.2 million tokens staked, 1.37 million queued to enter with a 24-day wait, diluting yields to 2.2% and still blocked. However, ETFs ran off over 1.2 billion in October, ETH/BTC is clinging to a three-month low, and those locking coins and those withdrawing funds each have their own story.
The A-share market saw 100 stocks hit the daily limit and a turnover of 1.78 trillion today. AI manga and liquor stocks took turns leading the rally, but banks and coal stocks closed down against the trend. Broad-based ETFs saw inflows of 129.5 billion, with money flowing into indices rather than individual stocks.
US chip stocks rebounded on Friday, with AMD jumping 11 points, but the Dow still closed in the red. Nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, with Tuesday's CPI being the real test. Each of the three markets follows its own fate; anyone trying to force a single logic will get hit.In the contract accounts, the number of long positions is about 5.2 times that of short positions. However, among the top traders, the long positions are only about 0.72 times the short positions.
On one side, the number of people is overwhelmingly long, but on the other side, the positions are actually more short-biased. The number ratio looks at how many accounts are on the long side, not which side has heavier combined positions. The spot market also dropped about 1.4% in the last 24 hours. Just looking at the number ratio, it cannot be concluded that the bulls have already stabilized the market.
$DOGE $APP Is the high cash flow driven by advertising efficiency or industry tailwinds?
AppLovin's latest quarter disclosed about $1.4 billion in free cash flow. The more stable the advertiser returns, the more likely budgets will stay on the platform, but seasonality and client concentration can amplify single-quarter figures. If reinvestment and cash conversion remain during the off-season, efficiency improvements are more credible. If budget withdrawals coincide with rising traffic costs, growth projections need to be adjusted downward.$BTC is hovering around 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidations in 24 hours, mostly long positions, yet the funding rate stubbornly refuses to turn negative, and Binance's long-short account ratio has even risen to 2.16. What’s buried is leverage, not faith, but ETFs saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion in November, the rebound lacks institutional support, and the whale buybacks are just enough to fill the gaps. $ETH is struggling at 2,244, the Glamsterdam upgrade testnet has been delayed again, ETFs had a single-day outflow of over 90 million, and the staking narrative can’t save the short term.
This week, the STAR 50 index in A-shares gained 7.95%, media led with 13.6%, and the CSI 1000 outperformed the CSI 300 by nearly four points. But banks and coal stocks closed lower against the trend; the gains are all sentiment-driven, not a broad bull market, as funds only bet on elasticity, not on heavyweight stocks.
The Nasdaq has fallen for four consecutive weeks on the weekly chart, down 3.37% cumulatively. Nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 have pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, and Tuesday’s CPI will be the real test. Chip stocks bounced back on Friday, but that was an oversold rebound, not new money entering the market.
Each of the three markets follows its own fate; anyone trying to force a single framework will get hit.$ACT 现在更像挤压后的博弈段，不是舒服的追涨段。你也在盯着那批被埋的多头吗？ 我复盘了一下：ACT 现价 0.011768，24 小时涨 13.41%，15 分钟高点摸到 0.012950 又滑下来。KDJ 在低位，短线动能有点泄气，布林上轨也在压。最关键的信号在衍生品：24 小时总清算 28.01 万，其中空头清算占 55.5%，这波拉升本质是空头被挤出去，而非新多主动进场。 再看清算流动性，下方约 1.25 亿，上方只有 3006 万，最大密集区在 0.01 附近，跌 5.89% 就可能触发。也就是说，空头清洗基本完成，但下方埋着一大片多头仓位，向上空间被压住，向下扎针的风险反而更大。板块强弱这个镜头下，ACT 的反弹更像一次情绪修复，不是资金偏好整体转向山寨的信号。 偏多逻辑也有：上方卖压相对轻，只要守住 0.01 一带，空头回补还能给一次脉冲。但要注意，这轮上涨的预期已经被提前计价，追高的人接的是挤压尾声，不是启动点。若 BTC 和 ETH 风险偏好回落，ACT 这种小市值更容易先被抽走节奏。 我的判断是：现在属于洗筹和博弈混合段，不是追涨段。想买要防扎针，想卖可等回升时的#US Military Expands Blockade on Iran, Disagreements Persist Over Reopening of Hormuz
The US military has launched a new round of strikes against Iran and has specially formed the "Iron Gate" task force, extending the blockade from the sea to land and the Caspian Sea, significantly intensifying the blockade.
On one hand, there is continuous military pressure; on the other, diplomatic negotiations are progressing simultaneously. The US side does not rule out military options, while Iran demands sanctions be lifted first. There are major disagreements between the two sides regarding navigation and blockade conditions in the Strait of Hormuz, with intermediaries like Qatar continuing to mediate.
Many people's first reaction is to go long on crude oil and simultaneously speculate on Bitcoin's safe-haven rally. But it is important to note that recent Middle East conflicts have changed the market's feedback:
Currently, capital prioritizes pricing in the Federal Reserve's interest rate hike expectations; geopolitical news mostly causes short-term pulses and rarely leads to sustained trends. Oil price premiums fluctuate repeatedly with negotiation news, and risk assets like $BTC and $ETH often get pushed back by liquidity pressures after surging.
Simply put: conflict escalation can trigger a wave of sentiment, but don't treat it as a main trend. Going forward, focus on two points—the actual obstruction of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and whether oil prices will continue to strengthen. Without a real supply cutoff, this is mostly short-term sentiment speculation; avoid heavy positions chasing news. The non-farm data disappointment didn't cause a crash, but after the sideways deadlock over the weekend, could there suddenly be a waterfall tonight?
I'm on the bearish side watching, and the current calm doesn't look like a shift to strength, but more like a brief equilibrium after a decline. After the stronger-than-expected non-farm data, the market first fell then recovered, but BTC is currently at 75,882.90 USDT, down 0.20% in 24 hours; ETH is at 2,234.60 USDT, down 0.49% in 24 hours. Neither has escaped a weak structure: BTC's daily MACD is still a death cross with a super trend downward; ETH retains a short-term MACD golden cross but remains in a bearish moving average alignment and a downward super trend.
More importantly, the volume. BTC's daily volume is only 0.19 times the 7-day average, ETH only 0.11 times. This narrow sideways trading over the weekend indicates bulls haven't launched an active attack, and bears haven't continued to apply pressure; once liquidity returns, the previously compressed volatility could be quickly released.
ZEC had an independent rally earlier but is now at 1,260.53 USDT, down 3.75% in 24 hours, having clearly retraced after the spike, with capital flow turning to net outflow. It still maintains a bullish moving average alignment but hasn't escaped the downward super trend pressure. My bearish scenario isn't a definite call for a waterfall but a watch: if major coins break below the weekend balance on volume, ZEC's catch-up decline pressure could amplify simultaneously; if volume returns and it reclaims the mid-term moving averages, the bearish thesis needs to be reconsidered. $BTC dropped to around 75,700, with over 1 billion liquidated in 24 hours, longs dominating, yet the funding rate stubbornly stayed positive, and Binance's long-short account ratio even rose to 2.16. What’s buried is leverage, not faith, but ETFs ran off 1.28 billion in November, no one caught the rebound, and the whale's replenishment volume barely fills a gap.
$ETH is in a bind, with 45.2 million staked, 1.37 million queued to enter waiting 24 days, yields diluted to 2.2% and still stuck. But ETFs saw a net outflow of over 1.2 billion in October, ETH/BTC clings to three-month lows, on-chain locked coins and traditional withdrawal channels each telling their own story.
The A-share market today had 100 stocks hitting the daily limit, turnover of 1.78 trillion, AI manga dramas batch at 20CM, but banks and coal stocks bucked the trend and closed in the red, rotation is as fast as flipping pages.
The US Nasdaq has fallen for four consecutive weeks, nonfarm payrolls pushed December rate hike bets close to 80%, and Tuesday's CPI is the real deal.
Each of the three markets goes its own way; anyone forcing a single logic will lose out. 最近期权交易者的押注正在走向分化，比特币（$BTC）和以太坊（$ETH）的成交结构传递出不一样的信号。过去 24 小时，比特币期权看涨成交量占 54.00%，看跌占 46.00%，整体小幅偏向多头，但看多力度并不算强。以太坊（$ETH）则明显转向防守，看跌期权成交量达到 55.90%，看涨仅占 44.10%，短期资金流已经偏空。 两个品种各自有一个关键痛点价位，比特币为 84000，以太坊为 2800，都高于当下价格，在到期阶段会带来向上的引力。不过两者名义赌注差距悬殊，比特币对应的名义规模达到 6.6 亿，以太坊只有 7288 万，说明博弈重心集中在比特币这边。 这种结构值得留意。比特币看涨份额勉强过半，算不上资金大举进场；以太坊的看跌占比，则代表不少交易者已经提前为下行风险布局。虽然盘面整体持仓仍偏向看涨，但资金正在悄悄做对冲，乐观之余防守意愿很强。要注意，痛点只是一个参考位置，不是稳固支撑，如果比特币 84000 这个磁力价位没能吸引买盘，资金持续流向看跌合约，后续行情的波动空间可能被进一步放大。Nonfarm payrolls night clashes with SanDisk breakdown, oversold rebound possible, but it's too early to talk about a reversal
Dear shareholders, tonight at 21:30 is the nonfarm payrolls release. $SNDK hit a low last night breaking below 800 (reaching 793.7), now pulling back near 880, with extremely volatile intraday swings.
Let's talk about nonfarm first. The market expects an increase of only 60,000, but the ADP and ISM data from the past two days were actually not weak. Don't treat tonight's nonfarm as a signal for rate cuts—the data being too weak will first trigger hard landing panic; if the data is too strong, it will directly raise rate hike expectations, causing US Treasury yields to spike and Nasdaq and crypto markets to get hammered. Tonight will most likely be a meat grinder with spikes up and down.
Now about SanDisk. Why did it break below 800? Because of the Nasdaq plunge, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index crash, and concerns about tighter AI regulation after the Democrats took both houses, dragging the whole sector down. SanDisk's Q1 earnings were actually very strong (revenue 11 billion, EPS 49.51 beating expectations), completely dragged down by macro sentiment overreaction.
My judgment: oversold pullback can be watched, but definitely don't treat it as a reversal.
The MA lines above are still diverging downward, and trend pressure remains heavy. The real mid-term turning point is the 1-for-8 stock split on November 19; before that, any sentiment recovery can only be considered a rebound, not a reversal.
With nonfarm landing tonight, I will stay put in my live trades and not catch a falling knife. No matter how much rebound there is, I won't go heavy without seeing a right-side stable candlestick. This is not investment advice. Shareholders, do you think 800 can hold tonight? #非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ Looking at the latest lending data, one thing is becoming increasingly concerning: leveraged long positions are heavily dominating the market. $BTC longs borrowed 1,864.85 coins, compared with just 50.9 coins on the short side. $ETH long borrowing reached 17,600 coins, while both long and lending activity in $SOL continue to increase. This imbalance raises an important risk. When too many traders position themselves in the same direction, even a relatively small price correction can trigger cCircle's Q3 report and Stripe stablecoin payments are heating up on Orbit.
Circle officially disclosed that in Q3, USDC on-chain transaction volume reached $13.9 trillion, a 49% year-over-year increase, with total revenue and reserve income of $865 million, up 17% year-over-year. Guotai Haitong Overseas Technology said revenue and profit exceeded expectations, but part of the other income came from ARC pre-sales, so daily settlements are not as full as the books show.
Simply put, stablecoins are more like becoming a payment collection channel. The West Securities computer team wrote that AI Agent payments are often counted in cents per transaction and can reach thousands per day. Traditional card organizations charging per transaction are not very cost-effective in this scenario. Friends connecting with US clients or making agent tools can ask if the other party can use Stripe to send USDC to wallets. Official documentation states the receiving end covers over 160 markets, usually settling in minutes, and small cross-border payments can save on wire transfer costs.
Currently, I am more focused on how to use this channel to save fees; no matter how good the numbers look, I don't take it as a direction. Friends handling overseas orders, can your clients pay with stablecoins now?
Just my opinion
#CircleQ3营收超预期，USDC链上交易量增长49% I've never understood one thing: why would someone hold a short position losing 20 million and not close it?
This whale is exactly that. $HYPE short position floating loss of 20.91 million USD, I would have cut losses long ago. But he doesn't stop because there's one line — accumulated funding fees collected of 4.66 million.
Oh, turns out he's not betting on direction, he's collecting overnight fees. The longs pay daily to keep his short position alive; if the price doesn't rise, he just takes it for free.
By the way, those two short positions on $BTC and $ETH also made a profit. This guy knows something, but unfortunately, I only get anxious watching the floating losses in my account.In this cycle, if we take the low point of 57,809 on July 1, 2026, as the lowest starting point of the bull market, and the highest point of 87,399 on September 21, 2026, the maximum increase is +51%, lasting 82 days.
During this phase, the BTC price did not experience a correction exceeding -10%. The continuous decline starting in October can be considered the first correction exceeding -10% in this cycle, reaching the lowest point of 74,888 on November 6, 2026, with a maximum correction of -14.31%.
Comparing with the correction data from the previous cycle and considering the current market sentiment cycle, here is a bold speculation:
1. The Nasdaq 100 in the US stock market retraced from the high of 31,616.50 on October 7 to the low of 26,366.50 on October 6, a correction of -16.60%, which is greater than BTC's correction. Theoretically, BTC's volatility should be greater, but this time BTC's correction was not significant, indicating BTC is still relatively strong.
2. The US stock market is currently falling from a high with no signs of bottoming out, and the trend is continuous. BTC most likely has not bottomed out and probably has room to decline further.
3. According to the comparison with the previous cycle's data, if this correction subsequently falls to 71,385, a retracement of -18.3% from the peak, or to 69,919, a retracement of -20% from the peak, these might be good support levels.
[Bold speculation, does not constitute any investment advice.] One address earned 2.14 million USD in 24 hours, climbing to fourth place on the Hyperliquid profit leaderboard. What's interesting is not how much was earned, but that it was all from short positions.
First, look at the fundamentals. Address 0x45d2…4029 has a net worth of about 65.08 million, with a historical cumulative profit of 64.85 million—almost equal to the current balance, indicating this is a machine for repeated compounding.
Next, look at the positions. Shorting about 436 $BTC, nominal 33.09 million, 20x leverage, unrealized profit 479,000; shorting about 13,950 $ETH, nominal 31.19 million, also 20x leverage, unrealized profit 2.9 million. The direction and leverage are consistent, not hedging but a one-sided bet on a decline.
What’s worth noting is the third position. Shorting 4.3308 million $HYPE, 10x leverage, unrealized loss 20.91 million. But on the same line, there’s a note: cumulative funding fees collected about 4.66 million USD.
Putting these two sentences together reveals the truth. This short position isn’t a wrong directional bet; it’s collecting rent. Low leverage, distant liquidation line, the unrealized loss is bearable; positive funding fees indicate longs are paying to hold. Shorts on PUMP, DOGE, XRP also have unrealized profits.
So this address doesn’t represent a "whale bearish" stance, but a strategy: correct direction, collecting funding fees as rent, full position in one direction. If one day HYPE’s funding fees turn negative while the price still rises, this machine will switch from collecting rent to paying rent. $BTC hovered around 75,800 for a whole day, with a fear and greed index of 32, and no one dared to move. The entire network liquidations exceeded 90 million, with XRP liquidations surpassing those of BTC and ETH. Altcoins' weekend liquidity dried up, revealing their true nature. After the core PCE landed at 3.1%, BTC touched 81,500, but then retracted over the weekend; the negative news has been digested, but no money has flowed in.
This week, the Sci-Tech Innovation 50 in the A-shares market gained 7.95%, with media leading at 13.6%. The CSI 1000 outperformed the Shanghai and Shenzhen 300 by nearly four points, as funds bet only on elasticity, not on weight. Today, 100 stocks hit the daily limit with a turnover of 1.78 trillion, but banks and coal stocks closed down against the trend; the gains are all sentiment-driven, not a broad bull market.
On Friday, the Nasdaq rose 1.09%, but still fell 3.37% for the week, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index hammered down 12% for the week, while the Dow was the only green. Nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 pushed the probability of a rate hike next month to 70%. Chip stocks rebounded but don't mistake it for a reversal. $ETH hovered around 2,230, with staking stories ongoing, but the price just doesn't follow.$LRCX has a large buyback authorization; when will it affect earnings per share?
Lam Research added a $25 billion buyback authorization on November 5. Whether earnings per share will benefit depends on the net change in shares outstanding after deducting stock-based compensation from the actual buyback volume. If cash flow is stable and the share count continues to decline, the buyback support is clearer. If a weakening cycle causes execution to slow, the short-term impact of the authorization amount is limited.