Oli.
Oli.
🍓Web3投研 🍑人工智能 🚀《干翻狗庄》系列工具作者
5Following
278followers
Feed
Livestream
Feed
New proposals have emerged again in the US-Iran talks. I will first confirm: what exactly have both sides agreed on, or are mediators still conveying opinions?
On November 10, a senior Iranian security official stated that there are currently no negotiations with the United States. After the US engaged with Qatar, it still has not accepted the existing Iranian ceasefire proposal. At least based on these public statements, there is still a distance from a mutually recognized arrangement.
This does not mean diplomacy is ineffective. Contacts may continue through mediators, but circulating proposals, indirect communication, and formally reaching an agreement should not be considered the same progress.
However, crude oil prices tend to react in advance. As long as the market believes the probability of large-scale conflict is decreasing, it may first discount some risk premium. Prices leading execution is normal and also means subsequent actual actions are needed to support it.
What I want to see more is whether there is a unified stance on passage conditions, how the blockade will be adjusted, and when related measures will begin to be implemented. Each of these affects supply restoration and cannot be inferred solely from a statement like "talks are going well."
This round of fluctuating news is already testing patience. Just as judgments were made based on peace expectations, new statements cause hesitation. My attitude is to acknowledge the opportunity for easing while leaving room for execution difficulties. Before an agreement is finalized, the most expensive assumption in trading is often "this time it will definitely succeed."
#美伊和谈传出新方案，霍尔木兹通航能否恢复？
The S&P 500's strongest rise in seven months happened on November 9. The next day, with CPI exceeding expectations, the market had to re-digest interest rate pressures. Watching these two days together is more interesting than looking at just one day.
Monday's rise was supported by factors like falling oil prices and tech stock recovery; the Nasdaq rose about 2.74%, and the S&P about 2.35%. But the improved risk sentiment did not preemptively solve the inflation problem; the data released the next day still changed capital calculations.
This is also why I have become more cautious about big rally days. A single bullish candle can show strong buying on that day but hardly proves that earnings and financing conditions will improve over the coming months. Prices may recover quickly, but fundamental changes may not keep pace.
Especially during this period, the market has to handle AI investment returns, geopolitical risks, and interest rates simultaneously. Easing in one area can bring a noticeable rebound; renewed pressure in another can also take back some gains.
I am willing to acknowledge Monday's recovery and will continue to see if it can withstand subsequent news. Real substantial improvement is when the market can still gradually find buyers even after unfavorable data.
Rather than guessing which day the bottom has been reached, I want to know what my judgment really depends on. If holding positions only feels comfortable when oil prices fall, inflation cools, and interest rates ease all at once, then the assumptions might be too full.
#美股三大指数集体上涨，标普500创7个月最大单日涨幅
The most disappointing aspect of this CPI is that although the overall increase slowed compared to last month, core inflation did not come down as the market expected.
October's overall CPI rose 0.4% month-over-month, higher than the expected 0.3%; core rose 0.3%, also above the expected 0.2%. Food prices increased by 0.5%, housing by 0.3%, with the latter contributing more than 30% of the overall monthly increase. Price pressures are still evident in everyday expenses.
I think this is trickier than simply discussing energy prices. Oil prices can quickly fall with diplomatic news, but changes in housing and service prices usually don't happen that fast. Even though oil prices have recently dropped, that won't reverse the price increases that already occurred in October.
Previously strong nonfarm payrolls gave the Federal Reserve room to continue addressing inflation, but now with CPI not signaling the expected easing to the market, December policy expectations naturally become harder to relax.
However, in trading, we still need to distinguish: hotter inflation and how much the Federal Reserve will ultimately raise rates are two different things. Officials' opinions, subsequent data, and financial conditions will all influence decisions; you can't directly translate one reading into a definite outcome.
For BTC and tech stocks, the most painful thing right now is that funding costs are not coming down anytime soon. Long-term growth can still be optimistic, but the room for optimistic assumptions in valuations probably needs to be re-examined. Holdings need to withstand a longer period of high interest rates.
#美国10月整体与核心CPI双超预期
🟢 Oli Daily Brief｜2026.11.11
BTC has fallen below $74,000 again, ETH has retreated to around $2,050, and SOL has further dipped to $83. After the release of the US October CPI, the crypto market continues to face significant pressure. But what is most noteworthy today is not just the continued price decline, but that the market's capital structure is sending several warning signals. The latest full trading day saw a net outflow of $201 million from the US BTC spot ETF and a net outflow of $184.6 million from the ETH spot ETF. Even more notable is that yesterday the BTC ETF temporarily showed a tentative net inflow, but after missing data was filled in, the final result turned into a clear net outflow. Meanwhile, global stablecoin supply has decreased by 4.56% over the past 30 days, Solana's on-chain perpetual contract weekly trading volume increased by 65.49%, but on-chain stablecoin supply continues to decline. Increasing trading activity does not necessarily mean new funds are entering. On the other hand, Visa has added Monad stablecoin settlement options, institutions like Coinbase are involved in regulatory disputes over US stock perpetual contracts, and ETH withdrawals from staking queues have also noticeably increased. These events collectively indicate that industry development, regulatory changes, and market capital flows are moving in different directions. The real question today is: when macro data releases lead to continued price pressure, ETF and stablecoin funds have yet to improve, but derivatives trading volume is clearly expanding, is the market accumulating strength for a rebound, or is it still in a high-volatility defensive phase? 📉 Market: BTC falls
This time when Vitalik talks about ETH as a store of value, I think the most worth discussing is whether fee burning can provide a reliable valuation floor.
His point is very specific: if on-chain activity and ETH price rise and fall together, then when the market weakens, activity and burning may also decrease simultaneously. Using the fees from prosperous times to estimate a long-term floor is not as solid as it seems.
He still supports retaining EIP-1559 and does not advocate canceling burning; the key is that there is no need to push the network toward higher fees and more active intervention just to increase burning in the long term.
I can understand this part. From a user perspective, cheaper transactions are usually an improvement; it shouldn't be considered bad news just because holders want a bit more burning and low fees.
But the positioning of value storage also needs more concrete support. Network security, censorship resistance, and how much financial activity ETH can facilitate all affect whether people are willing to hold long term. Simply changing the narrative name won't automatically support the price.
I am willing to shift focus from how much ETH is burned daily to what long-term demand the network actually accumulates. At the same time, issuance and burning are still worth tracking, but a single metric shouldn't bear the entire valuation burden. This discussion finally touches on harder and more important issues.
#Vitalik重提ETH价值存储定位，手续费销毁还是核心吗？
The 401(k)-related rules have entered the final review stage. What I am more curious about is whether ordinary participants will be able to understand what they have actually bought in the future.
The previous proposal emphasized the process by which managers evaluate investment options, involving factors such as liquidity, valuation, and complexity. The final text is still under review, and specific arrangements are yet to be announced. Even if the rules move forward, retirement products need to clearly explain these issues.
Underlying crypto assets can be traded around the clock, but once packaged into retirement products, participants may face a different set of valuation and subscription/redemption arrangements. When the net asset value is calculated and how transactions are handled during severe market fluctuations are all related to the actual experience.
I have expectations for this direction, but also some concerns. The inflow of long-term funds can promote industry improvements and services; however, if product structures become increasingly complex and users only see the phrase "gain crypto exposure," they may easily overlook what risks they are actually taking on.
With the CLARITY Act stalled and market structure rules still not fully determined, it is even more necessary for products to clearly explain responsibilities and operational boundaries.
What would truly make me feel progress is if a retirement saver without any crypto experience can also understand where the returns come from, where losses might occur, and how to exit. The industry has earned the opportunity to be considered, and going forward, it will depend on clear disclosures and stable services to make participants willing to stay.
#美国加密监管：《CLARITY法案》推进受阻，401(k)规则进入最终审查
In the discussion about Anthropic's valuation, I want to look at one more question: if customers use more, can revenue grow proportionally?
The prospectus reveals that as of the end of September, more than 11,900 customers contributed over $100,000 in revenue in the past 12 months, showing that enterprise adoption is indeed rapid. But the document also mentions that price cuts on the new model and contract discounts offset about $600 million of quarter-over-quarter revenue growth in Q3.
This detail is very important. Increased usage proves product demand, but price changes affect how much of that demand actually turns into revenue. Even if customers rely more on the product, the company may not be able to keep all the efficiency gains for itself.
I think this is closer to what IPO investors really want to calculate than just looking at user numbers: how much future growth comes from new customers, how much from existing customers expanding usage, and how much price concession is needed to achieve that.
Price cuts may also attract more usage and cannot be simply judged as a bad thing. The key is whether the service cost per task can decrease simultaneously, and whether the economic returns left to the company ultimately improve.
I acknowledge Claude's progress in commercial adoption and understand why investors still want to press down the valuation. There is a gap between a good product and what the stock is worth, bridged by costs, competition, and returns. Calculating these clearly before discussing how much one is willing to pay is more meaningful than arguing over a trillion-dollar figure.
#Anthropic仍计划11月IPO，投资者下调估值预期
NVIDIA's current risk is now difficult to judge solely based on how many chips it sells next quarter.
The board has announced the launch of an independent investigation, overseen by a committee of independent directors with assistance from external independent lawyers, focusing on reports that Jensen Huang has become a target of foreign intelligence activities. The investigation is not yet complete, and the allegations in the reports should not be taken as established facts.
The board also stated that there is currently no reason to believe that national security or company secrets have been compromised, and clearly expressed confidence in Jensen Huang and the management team. These pieces of information need to be considered together and not just cherry-picked for the most sensational sentence.
What concerns me more is how much NVIDIA depends on key individuals. Jensen Huang has long been involved in product direction, customer relations, and global strategy, so the market naturally prices his leadership; now that an investigation has emerged, investors will also reassess this uncertainty.
On November 9, while other tech stocks rebounded sharply, NVIDIA fell 4.27%, at least indicating that funds are treating the company's risk separately.
At this stage, it is easy to fill in the story with rumors, but truly useful information will have to wait. Whether the scope of the investigation changes or whether the board provides further explanations is more worth watching than guessing whether someone will resign. Corporate governance issues need facts to clarify; emotional speculation won't solve them.
#英伟达启动独立调查，管理层稳定性受关注
Oil prices have already reflected hopes for negotiations, but the diplomatic process has not yet reached a reassuring stage.
On November 9, the U.S. side stated that regional countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia tend to avoid new strikes. For these countries, energy transportation and regional security are both affected, providing very practical motives to push for de-escalation.
However, the desire to reduce conflict does not mean that all parties have accepted the same plan. Iran's proposed arrangements involve ending the port blockade, easing some sanctions, and stopping bombings, while hoping to discuss nuclear issues and other topics later. Which steps are implemented first still affects whether the agreement can move forward.
This is also why I am currently cautious about crude oil: the market can quickly price in negotiation progress, but actual implementation requires confirmation of actions by all parties. After prices fall, if execution does not keep pace, the previously deducted risk premium may reappear.
On the other hand, falling oil prices will affect inflation expectations, further impacting U.S. Treasury bonds, tech stocks, and BTC. Geopolitical news has already influenced a chain of assets, making it difficult to treat this as merely an internal matter of the oil market.
I look forward to results from the negotiations and hope that subsequent reports will gradually reveal clear implementation steps. At present, all parties are still striving for conditions more favorable to themselves. Directly interpreting diplomatic easing as the disappearance of supply risks is still too much of a leap.
#美伊外交斡旋持续，霍尔木兹通航分歧待解
BTC and ETH spot ETFs saw outflows exceeding $1.6 billion in one week, which is indeed significant pressure. But when analyzing, we need to separate fund redemptions from asset price declines.
From November 2 to 6, the two types of products had a combined net outflow of about $1.647 billion, reflecting changes in funds due to subscriptions and redemptions. The decrease in fund asset size is also affected by coin prices, so we cannot treat all shrinkage in size as withdrawals.
For example: a portfolio with $10 billion in assets, even without any redemptions, would see its size decrease by about $1 billion if the underlying assets drop 10%. Conversely, price increases can mask fund outflows, making the total size look less bad.
I think these two factors need to be considered together to understand what is really happening with demand. If there is only a price rebound without sustained net subscriptions, it means new allocation demand still needs verification; if funds start to flow back but prices fail to hold gains, other selling pressures need to be observed.
What makes people anxious now is that every day there is data supporting either a bullish or bearish view, but it’s hard to piece them together.
I will first align the statistical periods, then see if subscriptions/redemptions and prices improve together. Weekly outflows are worth watching, but they don’t explain the entire market. Describing every asset shrinkage as institutional withdrawal tends to amplify emotions and misses the real changes that need attention.
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
