Orbit Post Sitemap
ETH rose 6% in a week to hit $2439, but Wall Street ETFs haven't bought a single day in 23 days
The price rebounded from the $2200 trendline, reaching the 0.618 retracement level at $2439
However, the US spot ETH ETF has had zero net inflows for 23 consecutive trading days since September 29, setting the longest record since its launch
In October alone, $1.61 billion flowed out, the largest monthly outflow since its July 2024 launch
On November 3, another $85.35 million flowed out, totaling $515 million outflows in the past 7 days
On-chain activity is also quiet: the 14-day average of active addresses dropped to about 365,000 on October 17, the lowest since December last year
During this rise, trading volume has been declining
I think this rally looks more like a short squeeze rebound rather than institutions coming back
The invalidation point is if the ETH ETF shows a single day of net inflow or volume surges above $2439
Which side are you on: will the rebound hold above $2439, or will it drop back to $2200 first?
$ETH $BTC
#以太坊草案EIP-8363引争议 ORCL disclosed AI infrastructure utilization at 98%. My first thought is the worst-case scenario: if expansion is blocked, high utilization might mean growth is stuck rather than profit accelerating.
Chip rental prices are rising, yet semiconductor stocks are falling. I don't directly count tight computing power as a crypto positive: the uncertainty of expansion hasn't disappeared, and the cross-market benefit logic hasn't been proven.
My risk control habit is to first calculate how much loss related positions could incur together in a drawdown, not to treat holding different assets as natural diversification.$53 million, I’d rather use this figure to explain "net inflow" to newcomers than rush to call a reversal. Farside data shows that on November 4, the US Ethereum spot ETF turned to a net inflow after seven consecutive trading days of net outflows. I see this as an improvement in capital flow, but it’s not enough to serve as a basis for opening $ETH contract positions.
📌 Using this data as an example: a net inflow of about $53 million refers to the net difference between subscriptions and redemptions, not that only this amount of funds subscribed that day, nor that the same amount will directly translate into a price increase. It reflects the movement of a certain type of capital but cannot calculate the drawdown space after entering the market for you.
A common misconception among newcomers is translating "funds have returned" into "it’s time to leverage up." But ETF flows won’t bear the volatility of contract positions; the higher the leverage, the less room there usually is for price to move against you. My reminder is: use news to gauge direction, but assess your position size based on how much drawdown you can personally tolerate. I do not agree with the phrase "institutional retreat." IBIT alone had a net outflow of about 201 million USD, which is indeed eye-catching, but the overall US spot BTC ETF still had a net inflow of about 74.6 million USD. After excluding IBIT, the remaining products actually had a combined net inflow of about 275.6 million USD. This structure looks more like flagship product funds dispersing and rotating positions, rather than institutions collectively exiting the market.
Spot BTC has reached about 80,575 USDT, up about 3.34% in 24 hours, with a high touching 81,200. More interestingly, ETH ETF had a net inflow of about 53 million USD, ending a continuous 7-day net outflow; spot ETH rose about 5.71%, with strength even higher than BTC. The funds are not uninterested, just the direction of relay is no longer so singular.
Of course, the opposing side has a strong argument: if IBIT's outflow is the real signal, the inflows of other ETFs might just be short-term absorption. But I currently lean more towards the "rotation" side. Do you think this is fund dispersion, or is IBIT's outflow the real alarm? #BTC进入摩根大通长期预测，机构配置仍谨慎 $BTC $ETH Shorts squeezed, ETF funds quietly rotating
BTC 80,500 (+3.95%), ETH 2,424 (+6.59%). After the election results, BTC rebounded from 75,600, and the fear and greed index rose back to 50.
Rebound driver: Shorts squeezed. 24h total liquidations on the network reached 992 million, with short liquidations at 577 million dominating the clearances. This is a short squeeze rebound triggered by existing shorts cutting losses; bulls have not actively launched a major attack.
Capital flow: ETF internal rotation. On November 4, BTC ETF net inflow was 74.56 million (Fidelity inflow 237 million, BlackRock outflow 201 million); ETH ETF net inflow was 53 million. Funds have not fully exited but are switching between products.
Macro focus: Democrats control both chambers, slowing the CLARITY Act legislation. Tonight's non-farm payroll data is the key trigger, directly determining December's rate hike expectations.
Key levels:
BTC resistance above at 82,000; only a firm break above will signal recovery; psychological support at 80,000, break below targets 78,000.
ETH resistance above at 2,500, support below at 2,400.
In short: Short squeeze provides the rebound, ETF funds are rotating. No one-sided bets before the non-farm data, no chasing longs; wait for BTC to retest 80,000 and stabilize or break above 82,000 with volume before lightly trying longs. Position control is priority. [Schroders Brings Emerging Market Bonds to Solana, RWA Begins to Move Beyond "Only Buying US Treasuries"]
This time, the on-chain asset is Schroders' actively managed emerging market bond strategy, covering sovereign and corporate bonds, rather than the usual short-term US Treasuries or money market funds. Its significance lies in traditional asset management institutions starting to bring more complex fixed income products with diversified risk-return profiles into on-chain finance. Investors in the future will have access not only to US dollar cash management tools but also potentially to emerging market interest rate, credit, and currency risks.
Solana's infrastructure has also reached a certain scale: by the end of July, the on-chain non-stablecoin RWA value was about $3.7 billion, rising further to approximately $5.19 billion by the end of October; moreover, its share in RWA transaction count and volume is significantly higher than its share of asset scale. This indicates that Solana's advantage lies not only in asset issuance but also in supporting on-chain transfer and trading.
This is a positive factor for Solana's long-term narrative. After bond funds go on-chain, theoretically, it becomes easier to digitally hold and transfer them, and to connect with stablecoins and on-chain financial infrastructure. However, fund shares do not mean they can be freely traded on DEXs; investor qualifications, redemption rules, and compliance restrictions still apply.
RWA is expanding from low-risk cash management tools like US Treasuries to actively managed credit assets. Although it cannot yet directly translate into buying pressure for $SOL, it brings Solana one step closer to a true on-chain capital market.Last night, the most noteworthy thing wasn't the market trend, but a post deletion.
The results of the U.S. midterm elections came out, with the Democratic Party regaining control of both the Senate and the House of Representatives. After the election, Musk deleted his previous post on X urging voters to support the Republican Party. In this election cycle, he invested $474 million, setting a record for the highest political spending by a non-candidate in a single election cycle.
Four hundred seventy-four million dollars, exchanged for a delete button. This contrast itself is information.
Why should the crypto market pay attention to this? Because over the past two years, part of the valuation of $BTC and the entire industry was based on the expectation that "regulations would loosen." Who is in power and who controls both chambers directly affects the scheduling of bills and enforcement standards. Now that both chambers have changed hands, the original expectation basis has weakened. Musk deleting the post can be read as his reassessment of the political winds—he is extremely sensitive to political odds; the money has been spent, but the posture is being retracted.
Therefore, in the short term, high beta assets like $ETH and $SOL are not facing fundamental pressure but rather a re-pricing of expectations. Funds won't immediately flee but will first deleverage and wait for new policy signals.
One question remains: If regulatory tightening is only delayed rather than canceled, should this round of correction be seen as an opportunity or the first phase of a trend?When I saw this message, my first thought was: the odds of political investment cannot be calculated solely based on how much money is spent. Money can buy exposure, but it may not buy regulatory certainty, which is the hardest part to estimate in terms of expected value.
According to reports, Sherrod Brown defeated Jon Husted on November 3rd to return to the Senate. The entire industry spent over $68 million in this election, but the CLARITY Act still requires 60 votes to advance, and bipartisan support is unavoidable.
My judgment is that this looks more like an increase in the difficulty of regulatory implementation, not a one-vote rejection of the industry's prospects. Brown has previously blocked stablecoin legislation multiple times, so negotiation resistance may increase; majority control cannot replace bipartisan vote gathering. My speculation is that if the investment can lead to enforceable regulatory compromises, it is valuable; if it only raises campaign costs without expanding support, it is not cost-effective.
When evaluating Fairshake's strategy, do people value the win rate of a single election more, or the odds of long-term legislative progress?Short sellers were liquidated for 320 million to push BTC back above 80,000, ETH above 2430 is all trapped positions, ZEC upgrade hasn't activated yet but shorts are already being squeezed
$BTC's rise is due to liquidations, not new long positions
Up about 4.3% in 24 hours. In a 30-minute period at dawn, $320 million worth of short positions were forcibly closed, directly pushing the price back above 80,000. The rise is from short stop-losses, not incremental buying. ETF net outflow over three days is 1.16 billion; before 81,300 is broken, the rebound is still a correction
$ETH above 2430 is full of people waiting to get out of losses
Up about 6% in 24 hours. Pulled from 2,172 to 2,428, strong on the 4-hour level, but 2430 to 2450 is a previous dense trapped zone, all positions above are waiting to be freed. After the sharp rise, RSI is about 55, Stoch has reached 85 in the overbought zone, the cost-effectiveness of chasing highs is decreasing
$ZEC upgrade window hasn't arrived yet, shorts are squeezed first
Up over 14% in 24 hours. NU7 upgrade is expected to activate around 9:30 PM Eastern Time, block time will be reduced from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, about 12,000 Sprout pool ZEC will be permanently unspendable. But the official page shows the activation height is not yet finalized, so the upgrade cannot be written as completed in advance. 1,300 to 1,330 is strong resistance; if it can't hold above, the upgrade realization is a selling point
Summary: Watch if BTC can reclaim 81,300 with volume, ETH watch 2,411 support and 2,430 trapped zone, ZEC watch if it can hold above 1,330
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ Trump loses both chambers, crypto market first falls then rises, answering some questions for friends!!!
Core conclusion: short-term slightly bearish, medium to long-term neutral with some volatility, not a one-sided crash or a one-sided big rally. Trump is crypto-friendly, originally expecting the Republican-controlled chambers to push through relaxed regulatory bills like the "Clear Act"; now with Democrats taking both chambers, the legislative focus shifts to stricter regulation, but Trump retains presidential veto power, allowing mutual checks.
Scenario 1: Short-term negative sentiment (just after the news)
The expectation of "Republicans controlling both chambers and crypto-friendly bills accelerating" turns into concern that Democrats will tighten regulation, restrict stablecoins, and strengthen SEC enforcement. BTC and ETH may see a quick sharp drop, driven by sentiment-led selling, with amplified volatility.
Scenario 2: Medium-term tug-of-war and volatility (1–4 weeks, mainstream scenario)
Democrats can propose stricter crypto bills but lack the two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto, so Trump can veto directly; conversely, if Trump wants to push relaxed crypto legislation, Democratic chambers won’t cooperate with the vote.
Scenario 3: Long-term potential positive (low probability)
With a bipartisan deadlock, Congress is unlikely to pass new regulatory legislation, and enforcement actions by agencies like the SEC may ease, maintaining the current regulatory gray area. After the negative factors are exhausted, capital flows back into risk assets, and the market recovers.
For market review reference only, does not constitute any trading advice $BTC $ETH $ZEC #美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 🔥 Trump Talks Iran War: When Will the Conflict End? This Statement Could Shake the Entire Financial Market!
Recently, the US-Iran situation has once again become a global focus.
Trump stated that the timing of the end of the Iran war is up to him, while there remains dual uncertainty between negotiations and military actions between the US and Iran. Reuters' latest report also points out that Trump emphasizes war objectives on one hand, while facing domestic pressure to end the war on the other.
What does this have to do with the crypto space?
I think there are mainly three transmission directions:
1. If the conflict escalates
Crude oil and transportation costs may be impacted, market risk aversion may rise, and risk assets like BTC, ETH could face short-term selling pressure.
2. If US-Iran negotiations make progress
Geopolitical risk premiums may decrease, oil price pressure could ease, and risk appetite for funds might rebound, providing emotional support to the crypto market.
3. Ultimately, what determines coin prices is capital
The US dollar, US Treasury yields, ETF fund flows, and market leverage conditions all deserve simultaneous observation. One should not assume Bitcoin will definitely rise or fall just because of war news.
What I’m most focused on now is whether the US-Iran situation will shift from military confrontation to substantive negotiations, and whether BTC can hold key support amid market volatility.
The war affects not only oil prices but may also change global capital flows. What the crypto space needs to guard against next could be the intense volatility caused by sudden news.
#Trump #USIran #Geopolitics #BTC #ETH #Bitcoin #CryptoMarket My first reaction is: when stocks become tokens, are you really buying the same thing? I've only been in the circle for a year, and now when I see new products, I tend to ponder this point first 🤔
Hyperliquid co-founder Jeff Yan went to London to meet policymakers and hinted at possibly offering tokenized products of large company stocks in the future, believing their liquidity could surpass traditional stock markets. The report also states that core contributors hold at least 238 million HYPE tokens, valued at about $20 billion; he also mentioned that third-party roles are important and development is hard to predict.
What I understand is that this is more a test of product rules than just novelty, but I'm not sure if that's correct. If the tokens do not correspond to full shareholder rights, then convenience in trading does not mean you actually bought stocks; if it relies on third parties, users also need to clarify who is responsible for redemption and handling exceptions. I haven't figured it out yet—if the price follows the stock, is that enough? I'd like to ask seniors: when evaluating this type of product, which holder rights should be verified first?A common idea is: when AI stocks are under pressure, money should rotate to the crypto space. However, Hayes estimates that SpaceX may add about 8.6 billion shares to its float by June 2027, increasing supply by about 50%, and warns that crypto liquidity could be dragged down.
On the other hand, I don't believe funds necessarily rotate. First, banks are deeply involved in AI investments, so the two are not unrelated; second, if AI credit contraction leads banks to shrink their balance sheets, the dollar supply might directly decrease rather than just shift to another market. I'll put aside the notion that "bad news next door is good news for me" for now. #Oklo核能供电布局距离商业化还有多远？
Oklo is still in the early stages of commercialization, and nuclear power revenue has not yet scaled, so continued losses this quarter are within market expectations.
Key positives: An agreement has been reached with Meta to support the development of a 1.2GW nuclear energy park, and a 12GW overall power supply agreement has been signed with Switch, directly benefiting from the long-term power demand of AI data centers.

Financial strength: As of the end of June, it holds about $3 billion in cash and marketable securities, with sufficient short-term funding reserves, but capital expenditures are expected to reach $400–500 million in 2026.
Main risks: The first Aurora commercial nuclear power plant is targeted for deployment in 2028, with commercialization still facing risks related to approvals, nuclear fuel supply, and construction delays.$BTC
The Bitcoin four-year cycle perfectly coincides with the US midterm elections, which is quite a coincidence.
Every midterm election period marks the end of a bear market. This was the case in 2014, 2018, and 2022. After the midterm elections, there is another sharp drop, the market bottoms out, and the bull market begins.
The difference is that each bottoming time has been occurring earlier. #SonyQ2GamingAndMusic Is Brother 800 really gearing up to fight $SOXL with a liquidation rhythm this time? 🙀🙀🙀 Even though $AMD's earnings exceeded expectations, it can't change the downward trend in semiconductors 😭😭. The only breakthrough now lies in $AAOI's earnings beating expectations!
SOXL has now touched 60.44, almost breaking the previous low of 60.31, which is indeed scary to watch. AMD's earnings clearly beat expectations, yet the market still crashes down, leaving many confused—why did the good news completely fail?
Currently, capital doesn't look at the earnings logic of individual companies at all; it's the overall semiconductor sector sentiment weakening. The macro expectations of the broader market outweigh the positive news of individual stocks. When good news comes out but prices don't rise, it's the most frustrating "buy the rumor, sell the fact" scenario—using the good news to lure in a batch of buyers, then continuing to wash out the market downward.
AAOI (Applied Optoelectronics), listed on Nasdaq, is an AI optical module target, on the same semiconductor track as SOXL.
AAOI makes high-speed optical modules for AI computing data centers, supplying major cloud companies. It belongs to the upstream of AI computing power, tied to the Nvidia and AMD industry chains, a small-cap stock with great elasticity in the semiconductor sector.
Its market cap is relatively small, with huge volatility and strong explosive power when it rises. It has a high correlation with SOXL, and when the semiconductor sector market comes, it acts as a conduit.【Gold surges over 5% in two days, regains 4100, how far can the rebound go?】
Gold $XAU has clearly rebounded for two consecutive days, rising 3.4% on Wednesday alone and nearly 2% more intraday on Thursday, climbing back above $4100. The direct drivers of this rally are the weakening US dollar and falling US Treasury yields after the US midterm elections, with the 10-year Treasury yield dropping to 4.87%. Meanwhile, Brent crude oil $BZ plunged, easing inflationary pressures and reducing the burden on gold.
After the Democrats won control of Congress, the market bets that Trump's fiscal expansion and policy space will be limited, putting pressure on the dollar and Treasury yields. Expectations of easing US-Iran tensions also pushed oil prices down, giving gold support from both interest rate and inflation perspectives.
This is a macro-driven recovery rally, not the start of a new one-sided bull market. The market is still pricing in the possibility of a Fed rate hike in December, and Friday's US employment data could push yields higher again. Whether $4100 can hold is the first test; if it can break through $4200 later, the rebound will be more convincing.Trump is considering restarting strikes against Iran, and the probability of this happening is not low. Crude oil has dropped quite a bit these past two days, but as soon as the strikes resume, oil prices will immediately rebound. $BTC $ETH $SNDK
Crude oil is falling now, and QQQ is still so weak; if a real conflict breaks out, the scene would be unimaginable. BTC has looked quite strong these past two days, essentially because some funds are moving into gold and incidentally treating BTC as a safe haven.
But looking back at history, BTC has never been a safe haven asset; at its core, it is still a risk asset. It can resist inflation when things are calm, but when real trouble hits, it definitely can't hold up. The funds rushing in these past two days will most likely pay the price for this misjudgment.
When Trump actually takes action, plus if tomorrow's non-farm payrolls exceed expectations and next Tuesday's CPI brings bad news, then we'll know what a pseudo-safe haven really means.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ Actually, how should I put it, I still can't wrap my head around it and need more practice. Initially, the US media said there would be a strike on Iran after the midterm elections, but now that the Democrats control Congress, the war expectations have cooled down, causing oil prices to plummet and the crypto market to surge. From a short-term perspective, it indeed hasn't turned around yet, but from a long-term view, Trump has always bypassed Congress to get things done, so the strike will eventually happen. Short-term events can't affect the long-term trend. I'm keeping my Bitcoin and Ethereum positions, taking a gamble. The liquidation is far away, I'm not afraid of intermediate fluctuations, and I won't add more positions. Technically, I'll cut losses once there's a real breakout, even if the stop loss is wrong, a fake breakout followed by a drop doesn't matter.#BTC enters JPMorgan's long-term forecast, institutional allocation remains cautious $BTC $ETH $ZEC
Crypto — The fuel for the V-shaped rebound is short covering, not new money
Bitcoin initially dropped below $76,000 after the election results were announced, then made a V-shaped recovery above $80,500, while Ethereum simultaneously reclaimed $2,400. On the surface, it looks like "bad news is fully priced in," but breaking down the capital structure, the quality of this rebound is questionable.
In the past 24 hours, about $950 million worth of forced liquidations occurred in the crypto market, of which $560 million were short positions. In other words, the main force driving the V-shaped reversal was shorts being forced to cover, rather than systematic entry of incremental buying. Although the Bitcoin spot ETF recorded a net inflow of $74.56 million on November 4, it had experienced net outflows of about $116 million over the previous three days, and the cumulative net inflow for ETFs in 2026 remains negative. Holding the level does not mean buying has returned.
In the near future, the crypto market is more likely to enter a state of "legislative vacuum + stock game": $82,000 above forms short-term resistance, while $78,000 and $76,000 below are key supports after short covering. The condition for the start of a trending market is that ETF funds move from "single-day positive" to sustained net inflows, rather than continuing to rely on liquidation to support prices. Until then, the sustainability of the rebound should be discounted.In the futures market, when hearing news about tightening risk control, I usually first look at whose responsibility has changed, rather than immediately assuming the entire market will be hurt. The same rule can be pressure for institutions that rely on fuzzy boundaries to do business, but for those with solid processes, it may not be a bad thing.
According to The Block, The Digital Chamber stated that Sherrod Brown's victory is the "most impactful adverse outcome" for the crypto sector and indicated that the Democrats will push the crypto policy debate towards stronger consumer protection and regulatory accountability. This is the organization's judgment on the election's impact and does not mean specific regulatory measures have already been implemented.
My view is that this news should be read by differentiating business models, not blindly counted as negative for the entire industry. In traditional futures, there is a relatively clear chain of responsibility for client funds, trade execution, and risk handling; crypto businesses operate across platforms and protocols, and after problems arise, figuring out who to hold accountable can sometimes be even harder than the risk itself. According to my speculation, if accountability requirements are truly detailed, then businesses with ambiguous responsibility boundaries will bear greater pressure, while institutions willing to clarify the rules may actually reduce trust costs.
With my old-school mindset, I still believe in "who bears the responsibility." Are there friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? According to the futures rules you are familiar with, should crypto businesses first improve client asset segregation, or the post-incident accountability chain?$ZEC
About 16 million USD worth of ZEC is still locked in the old privacy pool Sprout of Zcash. Once NU7 activates tomorrow morning, these coins must be moved out using the old wallet first; if delayed, they won't be accessible. The breaking news just came out at 13:56.
The market hasn't reacted at all. Current price is 1317, up 4.9% intraday, grinding between 1302-1329 since 10 o'clock. The recent three 1H candles have a high-low range of just about 10 to 20 dollars. Trading volumes are 51, 40, 45, 39, 41 million USD respectively, each candle more stable than the last, none of the five exploded.
16 million sounds intimidating. OKX perpetual contracts have a nominal daily volume of over 1.7 billion USD, so this amount accounts for less than one percent. Open interest is 138,000 coins, 182 million USD, over two thousand more than this morning, longs haven't fled.
The fee rate is 0.0062%, over 30% lower than the 0.01% benchmark, and perpetuals are still trading at a discount to spot. Those wanting to chase aren't even willing to pay a premium.
I don't think tomorrow morning's upgrade is a market event. The migration hassle is only real for old coin holders; for the market, it's just a piece of breaking news. If there is any movement, it depends on volume on the spot side, which is currently absent.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ The longer the sideways consolidation, the more dangerous it becomes? What I see is not accumulation, but hesitation before a waterfall
I’m staring at this segment of the K-line, and it feels very familiar: BTC and ETH have been moving sideways for a long time, seemingly unable to fall further, but in reality, they are exhausting the support. $BTC BTC is currently about 80,552 USDT, down 0.97% in the past 7 days; $ETH ETH is about 2,427 USDT, up 2.87% in the past 7 days, but down 10.43% over 30 days. Both have daily super trends in a downward state, and the moving averages have not formed a consistent bullish alignment.
What makes me more cautious is that BTC contract whales hold 66.02% long positions by open interest, ETH is 59.13% long; the next BTC funding rate is positive. When longs are crowded, once sideways consolidation breaks down, it can easily trigger a chain reaction of deleveraging. ETH’s RSI(6) has reached 72.28, indicating short-term overheating; although BTC has a MACD golden cross, its volume is only 0.24 times the 7-day average volume, so the sustainability of the rebound remains to be verified.
On the news front, the market is still affected by policy and fluctuations related to the US midterm elections, and the direction is not yet clear. My bearish perspective is not a declaration that a "waterfall is inevitable," but rather viewing this sideways consolidation as a risk accumulation: if volume continues to shrink and key support zones are lost, downside volatility may increase; conversely, if volume expands and the super trend reverses, the bearish logic needs to be reconsidered. Order Book Strength Ranking: Liquidity Divergence Among Three Coins
$HUMA: Larger Orders More Expensive, Smaller Orders Still Stable
The order book depth of HUMA is deteriorating. The cost of large sell orders is rising, but the impact on small sell orders is not obvious. Simulations show that the slippage for a 100,000-scale sell order increased from 0.92% to 1.04%, while a 10,000 sell order remains around 0.17%. The fact that the same order size is more expensive indicates weakening liquidity absorption for large orders.
$AKE: Selling Becomes Cheaper, Buying Becomes More Expensive
AKE shows improvement on one side and pressure on the other. The simulated buy/sell slippage for a 100,000-scale order changed from 0.88%/0.97% to 1.00%/0.87%, meaning buying costs increased while selling costs decreased. Operationally, adjustments should not be made based on total volume averages but should be separately adjusted for buy and sell sides.
$CAP: Both Sides Become More Expensive After Increasing Order Size
CAP is more favorable for small orders, with buy/sell slippage around 0.08% at the 10,000 scale; however, when scaled up to 100,000, buy/sell slippage rises to 0.58%/0.54%. Slippage at the ten-thousand level should not be linearly extrapolated to the hundred-thousand level. The corresponding tier should be read according to the actual planned order size to avoid underestimating impact costs.83% potential dilution, I prefer to see it as a valuation stress test for the AI narrative rather than a fee notification from the crypto circle.
Hayes estimates that Anthropic's IPO initial investors could face up to 83% dilution by June 2027; he also extrapolates that AI giants' stock price pressure might affect the crypto market's USD liquidity through credit contraction and slower bank balance sheet expansion. What concerns me most is the first figure: it lays out the gap between "good company prospects" and "investors getting good returns."
The dilution ratio cannot be directly equated to a stock price drop. If new financing can create enough business value, then having more shares does not necessarily mean a decline in per-share value. This is my judgment, but conversely, if growth cannot keep up with the new shares, the grand industry story will need to be recalculated. Reading this, I actually want to separate confidence in AI from tolerance for valuation first.
Regarding the crypto market, I speculate that the logic of valuation told by AI might face pressure earlier, rather than the USD supply for all assets. If the public market starts strictly accounting for AI companies' input-output, then the related narrative might lose its loose pricing reference. What I want to look at next is how much business growth the financing has brought, not how lively the financing news is.You think an ECG showing RSI 68 is a safe signal? Wrong. In cardiac surgery, we never say the heart is fine based on a single lead alone—short-term RSI 68 looks mild, but the price is already standing at 118% above the lower Bollinger Band, just -0.3% away from the upper band. This is a critical state where the valve hasn't fully prolapsed yet, but the chordae tendineae have already been stretched. A 1.96% amplitude within 24 hours seems stable, but combined with the 118% expansion of the short-term Bollinger Band, this is compensatory tachycardia before pericardial tamponade. It looks stable, but the blood pressure is quietly being crushed.
I've seen too many people die waiting "a little longer." The long-term RSI 45.8 is within the normal range, and the long-term trend isn't broken, just like a patient with decent baseline cardiac function. But the short-term RSI has already surged to 68, and the Bollinger Band position tells you the price is squeezing the upper band. This is not the time to enter; this is the last three seconds of verification before the anesthesia finishes and the sternum saw starts. The real lesion isn't how fast the heartbeat is, but the moment the blood pressure curve has flattened.
Combining these vital signs, my judgment is: now is not a buying point, but the time for precise debridement. Bears need to enter at a high position, not chase after already dilated vessels to force through. My operation plan is as follows:
📉 Short:
Entry: $0.38 (current price +3.2%)
Take Profit 1: $0.34 (-5.4%)
Take Profit 2: $0.35 (-3.0%)
Stop Loss: $0.42 (+15.2%)
Take Profit 2 is closer to entry and more conservative; my first target is to remove the main lesion. The stop loss at $0.42 is equivalent to leaving this patient a 15.2% margin for angiographic re-examination. If breached, it means my diagnosis was wrong, and the chest must be closed immediately and restarted.
The core of this trade is not gambling, but waiting for the price to reach a high level for a definitive suture. Chasing shorts now is like cutting before the cardioplegia is fully infused, with bleeding risks far outweighing the benefits.💻 When I see this kind of order, my first reaction is to look for bugs in risk control, not to guess how much it will rise. Even if the direction judgment is correct, it doesn't mean the execution logic can be launched.
This time the input is wallet Core Trader 19 going long on HYPE with 10x leverage, nominal position about $71,700, reference price $83.4585. This is opening a position; the result hasn't come out yet.
My judgment: this order expresses a bullish intention, but it's not enough to prove the timing of entry is reasonable. Nominal amount is not equal to margin; you can't just look at a "big order" and assume strong confidence; roughly calculated at 10x, if the price moves 1% against, the initial margin loss is about 10%, not counting fees, so the tolerance is not wide. The material also doesn't provide stop loss or account equity, so the risk budget is still blank.
If it were me, I would first clarify when the bullish logic fails, then decide the position size, rather than waiting for losses to report errors for me. Later, I want to observe his position reduction actions more, not use the opening amount as the basis for trading.Yesterday, the spot BTC ETF finally saw an inflow of about $74.61 million — is the market already shouting "the main force is back"?
The market thinks: a single day turning positive = institutions returning, 80,000 can be considered a bottom.
In reality: over the past five days, there has still been a cumulative outflow of about $1.07 billion, the largest hemorrhage since July; on that day, Fidelity's FBTC had an inflow of about $237 million, but BlackRock's IBIT was still seeing an outflow of about $201 million — not a synchronized entry, but a tug of war. The fear index also slid back from about 50 in the morning session to about 42, with the price still around 80,400, sentiment has already weakened somewhat.
My view: a single drop of inflow ≠ a flood. Before the Nonfarm Payrolls (Beijing time tomorrow 21:30), don't write the "one day turning positive" as a bull market script. Only continuous inflows for ≥2-3 days and holding steady around 82,000 can be considered a capital validation; if the data is strong enough to push up rate hike expectations and the price falls below about 79,000, this wave looks more like a bear squeeze fake-out.
Three takeaways:
1) Look at the five-day cumulative, not the single-day headline
2) When IBIT is still outflowing, don't shout institutional consensus
3) Key levels: about 82,000 for validation / about 79,000 for deleveraging
Do you think the $74.61 million is the start of a return flow, or a smokescreen before the Nonfarm?
$BTC $ETH
#NonfarmComingUp, can employment data strengthen December rate hike expectations? Upbit has launched three trading pairs for CARDS at once: KRW, BTC, and USDT. This message is brief, but it hides three different types of money.
First, look at the KRW pair. In Korean exchanges, the KRW pair is the only direct gateway for local funds to enter. Money doesn't need to be converted to USDT first, nor routed through other platforms; it comes directly from bank accounts. Whoever gets the KRW pair is essentially opening the door directly to the deposits of Korean retail investors.
Next, look at the $BTC pair. This line serves old users who only hold Bitcoin and are unwilling to sell it for fiat before buying again. Trading directly with crypto as the base reduces costs. The $USDT pair is prepared for cross-exchange traders and overseas funds, with stablecoins used for settlement both in and out.
The significance of launching all three pairs simultaneously is not in the quantity but in the exchange's willingness to provide multiple entry points for the same asset. Liquidity is not funneled through a single channel but through three channels converging into one pool.
In terms of judgment, the short-term focus should not be on price but on the trading volume of the KRW pair. If the KRW pair sees volume growth, it indicates that local retail investors are truly entering; if only the USDT pair is active, it means outsiders are arbitraging, and the heat cannot be sustained.
One point worth considering: the KRW pair exists only on Upbit and nowhere else. Once this structure creates a price difference, whose money is arbitraged? Ultimately, whether it is local buyers or outsiders depends on whose hands are faster.*🔥 $BTC pulled from 75,600 to 81,100, is the whole network shouting a bull comeback? Don't be fooled!*
24h up over 4%, market cap back to 2.7 trillion, headlines all say "rebound" "warming up"
But the capital flow tells a different story:
*1. Shorts buried 533 million*
24h total liquidations 936 million, shorts account for 533 million, $BTC single-asset shorts liquidated 370 million
*2. Positions are decreasing, not increasing*
Price up 4%, open interest contracts actually down 4.36% to 347.7 billion
Volume surged 44%, but positions shrank
This is not building positions, this is clearing the field! Old shorts closing out and leaving, new longs haven't come at all!
*3. ETFs are running, outflow of 1.157 billion in three days*
October 30 outflow 643 million, November 2 outflow 399 million, November 3 outflow 115.6 million
BlackRock iShares alone withdrew 734 million, accounting for 63.4%
The three days of price rise are exactly the three days institutions fled the hardest!
In short, Bitfinex says: this rebound is leverage-driven, not spot buying
Short covering = one-time buying, once burned out, it's gone
ETFs are still pulling out funds, no one is adding
*Key levels:*
Resistance above at 81,300, below 75,839 is the short-term holder cost line
Break below 75,839, next stop 70,000-75,000
Current price stuck in the middle, neither bulls nor bears have room for error!
If you chase longs at 81,000, you're not buying the trend, you're buying the remnants of short stop losses In the morning session, it was said that only a volume break below 285.83 would be bearish; at 13:00 it broke but closed at 286.15 — so it doesn't count as confirmed.
At 09:00, a large sell of 91 contracts pushed it down to 285.73; from 10:00 to 12:00, three sells of 81 contracts each lifted it back to 288.33. At 13:00, a huge sell of 110 contracts (the largest in Asia) hit 285.43, piercing below 285.83 by 0.4 but then recovering to close at 286.15: breaking but failing to hold means it’s not a true break. The volume for this move hasn't picked up yet.
The MA20 at 288.665 is pressing down about 2.5 points overhead; the 24h low of 278.33 was caused by a large sell of 258 contracts at 20:00 last night, with total daily volume at 1342.8 U.
Current price 286.14 / -2.00%
If it breaks 285.43 (≥150 contracts) and rebounds to 286.2~286.8, short at 286.5 with stop loss at 288.2 and target at 283.0; risk-reward ratio 2.1
If it closes above 288.33 (≥150 contracts) and pulls back to 287.6~288.0, go long at 287.8 with stop loss at 286.2 and target at 292.09; risk-reward ratio 2.7
Range 285.4~288.3 is stable; US stock market opens at 22:30.
$SNOW
(Not investment advice, trade at your own risk) Conclusion first: Last night Texas changed, and what the crypto circle should watch is not $BTC, but the miners' AI transformation accounts. The same batch of miners, $RIOT rose against the trend by 12.8%, Hut 8 down 22%, IREN down 11%.
Reason: The newly elected governor of Texas is a public critic of "data center madness," and the market immediately traded on the expectation that "data center approvals may tighten." Bernstein promptly lowered the target prices of 7 miners, Cipher down 17%, CleanSpark down 11%.
$RIOT is the exception: Q3 revenue exceeded expectations, and it signed a 15-year, 910-megawatt, nearly $28 billion AI lease in Corsicana, Texas, with the tenant being Anthropic. After 9 PM last night, OKX had a 1H trade of $997,000, with the price surging from 13.74 to a high of 17.26.
But to pour cold water: $RIOT perpetual 24-hour trading volume is only $2.58 million, open interest is only $86,000, funding rate has been 0 for 8 consecutive periods, indicating a thin market with no leveraged funds, easy to follow but the order book may only have tens of thousands of dollars when exiting. Another signal: RIOT sold 79% of its Bitcoin last quarter.
Are miners turning around with AI leases, or are they taking on the next bubble? $RIOT The most counterintuitive point: what’s being bet on now is not a rate cut, but a rate hike — the probability of a 25 basis point hike in December is 81.5%, no chance of a cut.
Why? Employment hasn’t collapsed (October ADP 86,000 beats expectations, November 6 nonfarm forecast 65,000), inflation is still hot (September CPI 3.7%, core PCE 3.1%), the Fed just hiked once in September, and officials are still calling for more hikes.
The CPI data on November 10 will cover October’s high oil prices, which likely won’t cool down.
The key timing gap: oil prices plunged 8% in early November, but this won’t show up until the December 10 CPI, which is after the December 9 meeting, so the committee won’t see it.
My judgment: about a 70% chance of a hike, about 30% chance of no change, and roughly 0% chance of a cut. For easing, look to 2027.
Right now, the dollar and US Treasury yields are easy to rise but hard to fall, so don’t rush to bottom-fish gold and long bonds. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ #美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 $BTC $ETH $ZEC With the new Congress officially taking office in January 2027, investigations into the Trump family's crypto business are expected to begin as early as February 2027. Before that, the market will preemptively trade on this "political negative," and WLFI and Trump-related tokens (such as $TRUMP) will face significant emotional selling pressure.
Long-term uncertainty: Although Trump can still use veto power to oppose Democratic legislation, ongoing congressional hearings, document subpoenas, and media exposure are enough to cause irreversible damage to the credibility of his business empire. #美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 Short positions have liquidated more than long positions.
A total of 992 million was liquidated across the entire network, with shorts accounting for 577 million and longs 415 million.
Usually, longs take the hit, but today it’s the opposite.
Last night, a cluster of short positions above 80,000 was wiped out in one wave, with 320 million liquidated in 30 minutes.
But this is not a reversal at all.
Open interest across the market has dropped to a 12-month low; most of the leverage that needed to be cleared has been cleared.
Strangely, the funding rate remains positive, meaning longs are still paying shorts.
The chips have been cleared out, but those remaining have not admitted defeat.
This is the most critical point.
The whales are also splitting.
The “top 100% win rate whales” couldn’t hold on; the remaining longs were liquidated two hours ago, taking a loss of 39.37 million USD.
Another whale holds nearly 400 million USD in positions and was only 30 USD away from liquidation last night; emergency margin of 9.21 million was added at midnight to keep the position alive.
Some are bottom-fishing, spending 133 million USDC over two days to buy nearly 38,000 ETH.
Those cutting losses cut losses, those adding margin add margin, and those taking over take over.
The ETF side is also conflicted: Bitcoin overall saw a net inflow of 74.6 million, but BlackRock’s IBIT saw an outflow of 201 million, supported only by other products.
Ethereum ETFs ended a seven-day outflow streak, barely turning positive.
Retail longs remain crowded, with the long-short ratio still biased toward longs.
Until the funding rate turns negative, the bottom is not considered reached.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？
$BTC $ETH Moderna's GAAP figures are easily dragged down by three "non-operating items":
• Amortization of acquired intangible assets: In 2025, this alone created a gap of about $2.13 per share between Non-GAAP and GAAP
• Restructuring and impairment expenses: The company's full-year 2026 guidance explicitly includes restructuring costs
• Intangible asset impairments: In Q2 2026, there was a $666 million impairment recorded, directly pushing that quarter's GAAP to −4.41
In other words, this question isn't about sales, but whether there is another large impairment provision this quarter. If there is another impairment, the −1.28 threshold will suddenly become dangerous.
Normally, it will exceed expectations~ Some say prediction markets are more accurate than polls, and I think there's some basis for that. In surveys, casually picking an answer costs nothing, but when you actually have to put money down to express a judgment, you tend to think twice. For example, whether Bitcoin can meet a certain condition by an agreed time—what's traded is a clear outcome, which is different from just watching price ups and downs to make trades. Odds can be taken as a probability reference given by on-exchange funds, but they don't represent everyone's opinion. Especially when few people participate, I start to wonder: do these odds really reflect general consensus, or is it just a big whale with lots of money drowning out other voices?📊 The big Friday Nonfarm Payrolls are about to be released! Is this good or bad news for BTC this time?
This Friday, the U.S. October Nonfarm Employment Report will be published, which could be one of the most important data points for the financial markets this week.
Currently, the market expects new jobs to increase by about 59,000 to 65,000, the unemployment rate is expected to remain at 4.2%, and the average hourly wage monthly increase is expected to be about 0.3%.
Combined with Wednesday's ADP small nonfarm report showing 86,000 new jobs, higher than market expectations, it indicates the job market has not yet shown obvious signs of slowing down.
I have pre-analyzed three possible scenarios:
🟢 If Nonfarm Payrolls are significantly below expectations:
Employment cools down, the market may raise rate cut expectations again, if the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields fall, BTC and ETH may get support.
🔴 If Nonfarm Payrolls are significantly above expectations:
Employment resilience strengthens, rate cut expectations may cool down, if the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields rise, the crypto market may come under pressure.
🟡 If the data basically meets expectations:
The market may not only look at the number of new jobs; the unemployment rate and wage growth may determine the short-term direction.
My preliminary judgment: currently, it’s not simple to bet on either good or bad news. What really needs to be watched are the employment numbers, unemployment rate, wage growth, and the reaction of the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields after the data release.
One more thing to note: too strong employment may suppress rate cut expectations, while too weak employment may trigger recession concerns. So, worse Nonfarm Payrolls do not necessarily mean Bitcoin will definitely rise.
#USNonfarm #BigNonfarm #FederalReserve #BTC #ETH #BitcoinOn Wednesday, the US stock market posted its largest single-day gain of the year. The Dow rose 1,569 points, up 3.03%, closing at 53,356, returning above 53,000 for the first time since September 8; the S&P 500 rose 1.58%, and the Nasdaq $QQQ rose 1.44%.
Tech stocks split into two groups. During the session, Amazon rose 8%, Apple $AAPL nearly 7%, Google $GOOGL over 6%, Microsoft 4%; CoreWeave fell 10%, Nvidia dropped 3%. The reason is in the ballots: on Tuesday, 41 local votes nationwide related to data centers, 40 of which voters opposed; Democratic governors who called for pausing data centers in Texas, Georgia, and Ohio all won. Laura Martin from Needham said that higher regulatory thresholds protect the incumbents, and the mega cloud providers are the incumbents in AI.
After hours, Qualcomm fell 7%. Last quarter, mobile chip revenue dropped 26% to $5.14 billion; rising memory prices forced phone manufacturers to raise prices, suppressing demand. Data center revenue was only $650 million; CEO Amnon said they aim for $5 billion in fiscal 2027 and added, "It's not a demand issue, it's a supply issue."
Policy risks weigh on those still building data centers; companies with cash flow and ready power supply have become safe havens. This divergence is more important than how much the index rises. Nvidia's 3% drop is also a signal: if large companies' expansion is blocked in several states, the shovel sellers will suffer first. Before Qualcomm's $5 billion target is realized, the stock price must first see when mobile chips stop falling. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ $BTC What's the next step, where is the road ahead?
Last night $BTC stalled near 81199.9, $ETH once surged to 2451, spot gold rose above 4100; meanwhile, SanDisk $SNDK plummeted nearly 8%. Where is the money flowing? In short: political uncertainty is cooling down, funds first go to crypto and gold to "catch a breath"; but data center regulation expectations are heating up, storage chips took the first hit.
The Democrats swept Congress, risk assets collectively loosened; but the new Texas governor advocates pausing new data center construction, and Texas accounts for 27% of the US planned capacity. SanDisk sells data center flash memory, once expectations tighten, the logic is broken. Simply put, it's not that flash memory suddenly lost appeal, but "whether data centers will still be built" has become a new question.
Don't get carried away later, watch these levels:
BTC: resistance 80450—81500, only a stable break above counts as a true breakout; support 79800, break below leads to consolidation.
ETH: dividing line 2390, only above it is there a chance to see 2450—2485; break below looks at 2360—2330.
Gold: resistance 4080—4100, support 4045—4020, chasing highs after a big rise is risky.
Don't be fooled by a single bullish candle, nor scared to death by a single bearish candle.
#索尼财报前瞻：游戏与音乐业务表现如何？ Bitcoin remains steady above 80,000, Ethereum rose 8% in one day, and after the congressional reshuffle, there was actually a sigh of relief. CLARITY is likely to fade, with money flowing into coins that have their own stories; LINK, DASH, and ENA each have their own narratives.
$LINK around 11.57, Asian stock prices on-chain
Up 7.5% in 24 hours. On Tuesday, Chainlink expanded Asia-Pacific stock data streams from Japan and South Korea to include six exchanges in Shanghai, Shenzhen, Taiwan, and Hong Kong, covering a market cap of over 40 trillion USD. Resistance at 12.62 above, support at 10.25 below.
$DASH around 49.6, riding the privacy sector wave 🔥
Up 11.2% in 24 hours. ZEC's NU7 is expected to activate early tomorrow morning; funds are rotating early into privacy coins. Kraken has large orders sweeping the thin order book; DASH itself has no new news. In September, it surged to 78.68 before falling back to 54.
$ENA around 0.1835, climbing out of the hacker pit
Up 8.5% in 24 hours. On October 30, hackers who stole 217.5 million ENA from Binance crashed the price to 0.1658 at one point. This time it is rebounding with Ethereum; resistance lies between 0.20 and 0.22.
LINK is the strongest, with real expansion; only a break above 12.62 counts as a true breakout. DASH is the most precarious, relying entirely on ZEC to set the pace; if NU7 activation is fully priced in, the follow-up selling could outpace ZEC. ENA is stuck at 0.20; if the hacker wallets move again, the rebound will have to be given back. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ Emerging market sovereign and corporate bonds are the risk-return foundation I first consider when looking at this news. Schroders' first tokenized investment strategy has launched on Solana, with the token symbol SISF. I tend to view this as a positive for on-chain asset supply rather than a direct positive for public chain valuation.
My judgment is that this makes the scenario of traditional asset management continuing to try on-chain issuance more credible, but changing the carrier of bonds does not eliminate credit risk. Whether the odds are worthwhile still depends on whether the returns can cover the underlying risks and usage costs; you can't replace judgment with the institution's name.
According to my speculation, if going on-chain can reduce operational friction and improve information transparency, this kind of attempt is worthwhile; if it is just an additional layer of token packaging, costs may increase and expectations may not improve. I want to see the product terms and actual usage next, and will not give extra credit just for the words "on-chain".After the U.S. midterm elections, has AI really entered a bubble? I don't think so.
Many people attribute the sharp drop in $SNDK and the semiconductor sector to the "AI bubble bursting" after the midterms.
Long position on $SNDK opened at 1499.5, current price 997.7, floating loss -334%. On the surface, this looks like a brutal sell-off, but the real logic behind it is that market sentiment is exaggerating the issue, not that AI fundamentals have collapsed.
After the elections, with the Democrats taking key states, the market fears restrictions on data center approvals and obstacles to computing power expansion. Coupled with large funds using this opportunity to shake out positions, $SNDK was smashed from a high level down to triple digits. But this does not mean AI is doomed. The giants are still spending tens of billions of dollars in capital expenditures, the rigid demand for storage chips remains, and the industry’s prosperity is just shifting from "blind frenzy" to a "calculation cycle."
Looking back at my position, the forced liquidation price is at 735.4, which is already very close to the current price of 997.7. This is the real cost of high leverage during intense shakeouts: even if you are confident in the long-term logic that "it may not be a bubble," you can easily be completely liquidated by short-term political games and emotional panic.
The bubble may not have burst; valuations are just returning to rationality. But the most fatal issue now is not the market itself, but this precarious margin. No matter how solid the logic, it can't withstand the scythe of forced liquidation. If you need to reduce leverage, you must do so.
#美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 Breaking down Circle's Q3 financial report, there's not much to say about the revenue growth. The main focus for Ajian is on the following two points:
First, USDC's on-chain transaction volume increased by 49% year-over-year to $13.9 trillion, marking a shift where stablecoins are moving beyond their traditional role as dollar substitutes and beginning to possess broader financial infrastructure attributes. Competition among stablecoins is increasingly leaning towards payment networks, circulation scenarios, and cooperation with financial institutions. This is evidenced multiple times in the report, such as the reiterated plan to acquire Singapore's cross-border B2B payment platform Tazapay, aimed at solving real commercial cash flow issues.
Second, while USDC usage and on-chain transaction volume are growing, Circle's profits do not come entirely from on-chain transactions; it still heavily relies on the yield from reserve assets. Therefore, if interest rates decline in the future, the stablecoin circulation must continue to expand, and payment and service revenues must increase; otherwise, relying solely on reserve yields will make it difficult to maintain high profits.
In summary, everyone's judgment of Circle should be more specific than before. If you can understand the efforts Circle is making in developing payments, custody, enterprise settlement, network infrastructure, and other services, you should be as firmly optimistic about $CRCL as Ajian is. #CircleQ3营收超预期，USDC链上交易量增长49% Calculating roughly based on the minimum holding and reported valuation, each token is worth about $84. I usually separate accounts first: no matter how large the asset valuation is, it cannot be directly recorded as the achievement of new business.
① Reports say Hyperliquid's core contributors hold at least 238 million $HYPE tokens. The holding scale reflects vested interests but does not represent actual demand for the stock product. ② These holdings are valued at about $20 billion. This is not platform revenue, nor funds that can be directly used to support the new market. ③ Co-founder Jeff Yan went to London to meet policymakers and hinted at possibly offering stock tokens in the future, but no launch time or transaction data has been provided. The liquidity he mentioned may exceed that of traditional stock markets, but it remains a vision for now.
My judgment is that this is a directional signal, not yet business validation. Third-party product supply is very important, meaning platform willingness does not equal implementation capability; I will next watch who provides the product and how exactly the trading will be conducted. 💻 I treat this information as a code review: degentrading mentioned that H100 rental prices rose 26% year-over-year, GB200 rose 50%, which is contrary to the "hashrate depreciation" expectation.
My judgment is that this is still insufficient to prove chip demand expansion. Logical bug: supply constraints can also push up rental prices; price increases do not equal shipment growth. If it were me, I would additionally check new data center deliveries to verify whether expansion can be realized.
Help me review: Using data center deliveries as a verification metric, what variables might be missed?#CircleQ3USDCVolumeUp49% USDC's on-chain transaction volume grew 49% to $13.9T in Q3. That's a strong signal of growing stablecoin activity.
But there's another side: Circle's reserve income fell 8% to $658M as reserve yields declined.
The real story isn't just growth in usage; it's how sustainably that activity translates into revenue.Currently, the market's expectation for a December rate hike is close to 80%, which is already quite high.
Tomorrow's non-farm payrolls are expected to increase by 65,000, while the previous figure was only 29,000.
I think there's an interesting point this time: the market's tolerance for employment data might already be very limited.
If the data is strong, it will further reinforce rate hike expectations, and risk assets will continue to be under pressure.
If the data is weak, it might actually cool down this round of rate hike expectations.
But one thing: don't just focus on the number of new jobs added; the unemployment rate and wage growth are equally important.
I actually hope this non-farm payrolls report can give the market a clear direction. With the recent Bitcoin trend jumping up and down every day, there's really no good trading experience.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ There is a change that many people have not yet realized: the attack rhythm in the crypto industry has shifted from "periodic events" to "daily events."
CZ said that attacks used to happen about once a week or month, but now there can be several in a single day. The reason is simple—AI has fully automated reconnaissance, phishing, and vulnerability discovery. It used to take weeks of human effort to find a single vulnerability; now machines can scan thousands of targets simultaneously. Attack costs are decreasing, but defense costs are not.
On October 29, Binance suffered an attack amounting to $6.3 billion. The significance of this number is not whether Binance can afford the loss, but that it has exceeded the capacity of a single exchange to bear. The FBI attributed this attack to North Korean hackers, and CZ said the impact involves global finance and national security.
Therefore, he proposed a set of alliance mechanisms: sharing audit findings, exchanging attack experiences, and coordinating asset freezes. These three may sound plain, but each hits a pain point. Audit findings are the most reluctant information to be shared by each party, attack experience is intelligence, and freezing assets requires instant cooperation across platforms and jurisdictions.
The judgment is: the industry itself admits insufficient security investment. Holders of $BTC and $ETH are all on this chain—your asset security does not depend on how strong the exchange you choose is, but on how weak the weakest one is.
Something worth thinking about: if the alliance is truly established, exchanges will have to reveal their bottom cards to each other. The day this happens will indicate the maturity of the industry more than the next market cycle.Bitcoin $BTC is currently priced at about $80,675, up 5.23% in the past 24 hours, while Ethereum $ETH is even stronger, priced at about $2,430, up 7.73%.
Looking at the price range over the past 7 days, Bitcoin is positioned at about 79.2% from low to high, while Ethereum has climbed to a high of 92.8%. The strength of Ethereum's rebound clearly surpasses that of Bitcoin.
The volatility is also greater than in previous days. Bitcoin's 24-hour volatility is 7.09%, more than twice the 7-day average level. This amplification often corresponds to leveraged trading and a heating up of short-term sentiment.
In the market structure, it can also be seen that the open interest in the entire contract market increased by 4.01% within 24 hours, with liquidation amounts surging to $976 million, more than three times that of the previous day. Although the funding rate is positive, it is not yet extreme. The long-short ratio is almost evenly split, indicating that longs and shorts are still competing. The price was pushed up by a rapid short squeeze and covering.
$ZEC #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？