Orbit Post Sitemap
#ModernaQ3 turned profitable, raising full-year revenue growth forecast
Moderna's Q3 report turned profitable and also raised its full-year revenue guidance. Many people on Orbit are discussing what impact this might have on the overall market.
Let's first look at the positive side. A pharmaceutical company turning profitable indicates that the profitability of real economy enterprises is gradually recovering, risk appetite is improving a bit, which can boost market sentiment overall. As a high-beta asset, Bitcoin will somewhat benefit from this.
But on the flip side, Moderna's turnaround mainly comes from the base effect of its COVID-19 vaccine products compared to the low base in the past two years, which doesn't necessarily mean the overall economy is truly improving. Also, pharmaceutical stocks generally have low correlation with Bitcoin, so this kind of earnings report impacts the crypto space more on the sentiment side rather than fundamentals.
My personal view is that such cross-sector news is good to keep an eye on, but the real direction is still determined by the Fed's stance and liquidity. Everyone can pay attention but shouldn't take it too seriously. What do you think? $BTC #Experimental monkeys rise to 260,000 each
First, experimental monkeys have a long breeding cycle, generally six to seven years.
Second, foreign sources are cheaper, but you can't just import them as you wish; import standards are very strict. Although Southeast Asia is much cheaper.
Third, you can't just raise experimental monkeys as you please; the breeding standards and various procedural requirements are very high, extremely high.
Fourth, substitutes. Currently, there are no reliable alternative solutions or materials.
Which stocks are related to experimental monkeys?
Zhaoyan New Drug: Market calls it "Monkey Mao," directly holding monkey group resources; the rise in monkey prices will drive biological asset revaluation.
Medicilon, Enois: Safety evaluation CROs; experimental monkeys are key raw materials, and monkey prices affect costs and pricing strategies.
WuXi AppTec, Pharmaron: Securing supply chains through acquiring monkey farms or breeding layouts, but monkey breeding is not a core business.
Zhongfu Technology: Cross-industry layout of experimental monkey breeding bases, still in the preparation stage, more thematic.[Quick Commentary] Trump Media Liquidates BTC: Cashing Out or Defusing a Bomb Early? (￣▽￣)~*
Trump Media suddenly sold off 4,259 BTC, worth $343.67 million, nearly a 99.99% liquidation; BTC dropped to around $75,700, ETH simultaneously fell to $2,232. The timing is too coincidental: the Democratic Party is planning to investigate financial ties between the crypto industry and the Trump family. 📉
Simply calling it cashing out might be inaccurate; saying it’s a full regulatory prediction is an overstatement. It looks more like dual management of "political risk + liquidity": locking in profits before the investigation gains momentum, reducing exposure to related assets, and avoiding on-chain holdings being exploited. 🤔
But the impact goes beyond price. If political funds deepen their ties with crypto assets, regulation will shift from "industry compliance" to "personal financial transparency," intensifying mid-term strategic battles. In the short term, watch for sentiment recovery; mid-term, watch investigation progress and selling pressure absorption. ⚖️
In one sentence: this cut is decisive, not like ordinary profit-taking, but more like defusing a bomb early. ( •̀ ω •́ )✧
$BTC
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 The buzz is one thing, but the rebound around 750,000 looks encouraging, yet the underlying structure hasn't actually caught up. Have you noticed that the more a position is called a "safe buy point," the easier it is for people to let their guard down? I'm watching this dip to around 750,000 closely. On the surface, the price is supported near the 120-day moving average, and market sentiment has warmed up a bit. But looking closely, this seems more like a test of a key level rather than a confirmed trend reversal. The original logic is: the 750,000 area is supported by the 120-day moving average and is unlikely to break; if it breaks, it signals a bigger bear market; if it holds, the market will start to recover from here, and after a bearish close next week, it will enter a phase of repeated bottoming and then launch the main upward wave. This framework makes sense, but it treats "support holding" as a default premise, while the real market battle before next week's close is about which side—bulls or bears—gives in first. The bullish path is clear: if near the 120-day moving average there are consecutive lower shadows on candles, volume shrinks then expands again, it means selling pressure is absorbed, BTC stabilizes and leads ETH and major altcoins to recover, risk appetite shifts from defense to probing, and altcoins dare to move along. But the risk signals are also straightforward—repeated testing of support itself is a drain; once the closing price effectively breaks down, the original "safe zone" instantly becomes a trap zone, leveraged longs are forced out, panic hits high-beta altcoins first, then backlashes on major coins. The original text advises against trading contracts, only spot trading, and suggests a larger position size, which is essentially trading time for space, assuming you can endure the repeated tug-of-war during the bottoming phase. What is truly overlooked is:The 4.8% drop doesn't match
The news says Canton dropped 4.8%, but I rechecked OKX spot, 0.09505 versus 0.1038 24 hours ago, actually an 8.43% drop.
Don't copy it yet.
The timing and source don't align, so I'll also set aside the support line mentioned in the news for now.
$CC
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 BlackRock didn't take the same side either
I broke down the accounts to look.
Yesterday, ETHA saw an outflow of $90.8 million, while ETHB had an inflow of $1.1 million; the two funds did not move in the same direction. Spot price is 2246.58, 24-hour low is 2210.17.
Small inflows are being accumulated first.
$ETH
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
The US non-farm payrolls in October exceeded expectations, and bets on a rate hike in December are heating up.
The Federal Reserve may raise rates in December, so why didn't BTC crash?
On Friday, non-farm payrolls were 165,000, while the expectation was only 65,000. The market's probability of a December rate hike suddenly surged to over 70%. In the past, such data would have caused a big stir in the crypto community.
As a result, $BTC dipped to 74,800 but was quickly bought back. Today it has been hovering around 76,000, fluctuating by only a few hundred dollars up or down.
The reason is simple: multi-billion dollar long positions were liquidated in the past two days; the leverage that needed to be smashed was already cleared in advance, so there wasn't much left to liquidate when the non-farm data came out. Now funding rates are almost zero, few are chasing longs, and few dare to heavily short; everyone is waiting.
So this is not resistance to a drop, but simply that there is nothing left to liquidate for now. The rate hike has not been fully priced in yet. If next Tuesday's CPI also exceeds expectations, that will be the real test. If 74,800 is broken through then, it won't be just a simple dip.In the first week of November 2026, the results of the U.S. midterm elections triggered intense market volatility, with both Bitcoin and chip stocks rebounding after sell-offs.
Bitcoin's V-shaped rebound was mainly due to short covering
After the Democrats swept the midterm elections, Bitcoin briefly dipped to about $75,700 before bouncing back above $80,000 within hours. The direct catalyst for the rebound was a short squeeze: CoinGlass data showed approximately $914 million liquidated across the market within 24 hours, with BTC short liquidations accounting for about 75.9%. On the same day, spot ETFs recorded a net inflow of about $74.6 million, ending three consecutive days of outflows, but with structural divergence—Fidelity's FBTC saw inflows of about $237 million, while BlackRock's IBIT experienced outflows of about $201 million, indicating capital was shifting between issuers rather than a unified institutional buy-in. Analysts believe the election itself did not create structural buying pressure but removed short-term uncertainty constraints; the $75,000 support level and whether ETF inflows can continue to turn positive are key to judging the quality of the rebound.
Chip stocks led Wall Street gains, AI regulatory concerns eased temporarily
On November 6, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index surged 6.50%, marking its largest single-day gain recently: AMD rose 12.56%, SanDisk 12.77%, Micron Technology 9.78%, Nvidia 6.72%, and TSMC 7.55%. The next day, the index rose another 4.2%, with AMD up over 11% and Intel over 7%.
This rebound followed a sharp sell-off in AI stocks the previous trading day—Nasdaq index single-day#伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向
• Cash on hand: about $365 billion (end of Q2), Q3 earnings report will show if it drops to around $350 billion
• Where the money is placed: mostly in short-term U.S. Treasuries, earning over ten billion in interest annually
• Recent moves:
◦ Buying some stocks (Google, etc.)
◦ Repurchasing own shares (thinks own stock is cheap)
◦ Acquiring home construction companies
• Core signals:
◦ Cash is not being recklessly spent → market is not yet cheap enough for "blind buying"
◦ But no longer just sitting idle → new boss Abel is more willing to deploy capital than Buffett in his later years
• For ordinary people: this is the "reserve ammunition" to use for bottom-fishing when the stock market crashes Is 84% enough to treat ETH's decline as a done deal? Let me pour some cold water first. I usually lean bearish when watching the market, but this time I think the bearish weight of this news might be overestimated. The rest of the information in the material is briefly mentioned: this probability dropped by 8 percentage points in the past 24 hours, with a trading volume of about $107,041 during the same period. The market will settle around December 1, 2026, reflecting bettors' judgments, not a certain outcome.
I'm not in a hurry to accept this bearish signal for two reasons. First, the probability in the prediction market corresponds to a specific event. The question is "Will it fall to $2200 in November?" which cannot be directly translated to ETH continuously weakening, nor can it be used to predict the month-end closing price. Second, having transactions does not equal representativeness. Based on this trading volume alone, I can't tell the coverage of participants or the depth of the order book. If the quotes are mainly influenced by a few funds, then 84% might amplify local sentiment. This is my speculation, not a known fact.
Of course, the bears might be right. I won't assume the price is safe just because the probability has limitations. If the subsequent spot trend continues to weaken and this high probability can still be maintained in more sufficient trading, I will pay more attention to it. Don't rush to get excited, and don't rush to panic: regarding the possibility of falling to $2200 in November, are you bullish or bearish? State your reasons, especially why you believe or don't believe this 84%.The most talked-about in the market this afternoon is Harmony $ONE.
CoinGecko is trending high, with about $75.5 million traded across the network in 24 hours, a market cap of about $26.9 million, and volume exceeding market cap. OKX spot is around 0.001814, up about 58.6% from the 24h open of 0.001144, with a daily range of 0.001139–0.001983 (around 15:06 Beijing time).
News: The original L1 is shutting down, the token plans to migrate to Ethereum as an ERC-20, shifting towards an AI video Remix Economy. The browser will go offline on November 18, and the migration expectation has pulled funds back.
View: The migration narrative combined with low market cap volume creates strong short-term momentum, but product implementation is unverified. First, watch the ERC-20 contract and snapshot time.
$ONE October nonfarm payroll data far exceeded expectations, with an increase of 165,000 jobs and the unemployment rate dropping to 4.1%. Market hopes for a Fed rate cut in December have cooled again.
BTC surged to around $76,100 before pulling back, currently fluctuating between $75,500 and $76,000. The $75,000 level is a key short-term support; breaking below it could trigger a new round of corrections.
ETH performed weaker, falling below $2,300 and hovering near $2,230. The Fear & Greed Index dropped to 28, indicating a clear rise in market risk aversion.
Key focus ahead: Strong employment data puts pressure on rate cut expectations, and the dollar and interest rate outlook may continue to weigh on crypto assets. Whether BTC can hold $75,000 will be an important observation point for the weekend market.
Now is not the time to blindly bottom-fish; waiting for a clear direction is safer. $BTC $ETH
#NonfarmData #FederalReserve #CryptoMarket
#USJobsBeatExpectations 🔍 I came across this message, and my first reaction was to look for the "footprint": Is it new money entering the market, or is it asset price appreciation that has raised the book value? Don't rush to conclusions yet.
What can be confirmed is this clue: According to DefiLlama, the TVL of the lending protocol Aave V4 is about $807 million, increasing by approximately 20.7% over a week and 4.7% in one day. The material also clearly states that TVL changes may come from capital inflows and outflows or from token price fluctuations.
I don't yet consider this as evidence of a comprehensive strengthening in the lending sector. Price increases can inflate TVL but do not necessarily increase the amount of deposited coins; even if new deposits are added, it does not mean borrowing demand is simultaneously strengthening. This is my speculation: if net inflows increase and actual borrowing follows, then the weight of this growth is more substantial.
An interesting detail here: what needs to be monitored going forward is the source of growth, not just the magnitude. Do you lean more towards "new money entering" or "valuation uplift"? Let's watch net inflows and borrowing changes together to see whose speculation is closer.An Ethereum ($ETH) short position is continuously adding to losses, showing that the trader still believes in the resistance level and hopes for a market reversal to escape the predicament. The situation is opposite for AKE ($AKE); the trader has given back all previous gains, with an unrealized loss reaching 10,000, and plans to keep adding to the position to average down the cost. This approach can lower the breakeven point but also increases the risk of this already misjudged position. Even with buying interest entering, the price has not effectively risen. Meanwhile, the short on SNDK ($SNDK) has yielded good results, with this SNDK short position generating over 40,000 in unrealized profits, of which more than 10,000 has been realized. The trader believes that a large amount of capital crowding to buy the dip actually limits the price upside, and this clustered bottom-fishing has instead become an aid to the shorts. Putting these three positions together, it is clear that the current market is dominated more by position battles. If the price holds above the entry point, the trapped $ETH shorts could bring potential buybacks; the continuously bottom-grinding $AKE will make holders keep expecting a rebound and keep adding positions during the decline; the $SNDK case also shows that a unified bottom-fishing expectation can easily cap the upside. Next, it depends on which side’s position pressure breaks first. Once the market moves against a certain type of position, volatility may come quickly. $ETH $AKE $SNDK $AMD
Data center nearly doubles, why can AMD still not ignore business differentiation?
AMD's data center revenue in Q3 grew 97% year-over-year, but combined revenue from customers and gaming business declined 8% year-over-year. In the same financial report, AI expansion and consumer-side pressure coexist.
The increased proportion of data center can drive profits, but it also makes the company more dependent on large customer purchases, complete machine delivery, and supply chain support. High growth increases potential but also raises execution demands.
If subsequent data center increments continue to offset consumer-side pressure, and profit margins and payments keep pace, the growth quality will be better; if delivery is limited and customer acceptance is delayed, relying solely on annual demand narratives is insufficient to absorb expectations. On Saturday, the US stock market is closed, but stock tokens like SPCX and SNDK in Orbit are still fluctuating. Let's talk about their weekend pricing.
After the US market closes, without actual stock trades as an anchor, token prices basically rely on the last closing price stored by the oracle, plus the platform's own order book game — it's less about trading stocks and more about voting on the "Monday opening price."
Data also supports this: Foresight News reported this week that NVDAx was trading at a premium 58.6% of the time during US market hours (an average of 3.1 basis points), with price reversals common during off-hours; during last week's sell-off, it even fell below the previous Friday's stock closing price.
There are two easily overlooked points: first, ordinary users cannot redeem the actual stocks; minting and redemption are only available to whitelisted institutions, so arbitrage convergence is inherently weak; second, Monday openings often gap to correct, so weekend unrealized gains are often just rehearsals.
Don't take the weekend price changes on the charts too seriously; the vote will be recounted Monday morning.$SOXL Weekly Outlook
Several major pressures are hidden in the market: Microsoft is reducing its leasing of Oracle's outdated computing power, causing the market to reassess the upper limit of computing power demand, and AI capital expenditure expectations are beginning to loosen; strong non-farm payroll data combined with hawkish remarks from multiple Federal Reserve officials continue to push back the timing of rate cuts, with high interest rates persistently suppressing growth stock valuations; additionally, after the previous decline, CTA systematic selling has not been cleared, and if support weakens, a stampede could easily occur again.
The key factors that can change the short-term rhythm focus on Nvidia's support strength, TSMC order news, and changes in U.S. Treasury yields. Any anomaly in these will quickly shift the market trend.
The probability of a one-sided surge is low; next week is more likely to see repeated tug-of-war, with sharp rallies and drops being the norm. Even if an oversold rebound occurs, it is only a rebound, not a trend reversal. There are multiple layers of resistance above, and chasing highs can easily lead to being trapped. If further news of computing power reductions or continued Fed hawkishness emerges, new lows are possible.
In this volatile environment, grid trading is more suitable; heavy positions and stubborn holding are taboo, as sudden spikes can come at any time. With high leverage, the risks of stop-loss triggers and liquidation are significant. There are too many market uncertainties, so do not hold the idea of doubling your money in one hit. In highly volatile assets, preserving principal is the fundamental key to long-term survival. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $BTC $ETH were still being bought the day before yesterday, but yesterday they fled; the money in ETFs is even more anxious than retail investors!
On November 4th, Bitcoin ETF net inflow was 74.6 million, with Fidelity alone contributing 237 million. On November 5th, net outflow was 430 million. On November 6th, another 413 million flowed out. Over 74 million came in, but more than 800 million fled in two days. This is not investing, this is fleeing for survival.
Beichen has seen this scene many times. When ETFs first launched, everyone said "this is institutional long-term capital entering the market," but after two years, it turns out the fastest to flee are precisely the institutions. They fear losses more than retail investors because they have to report quarterly to their investors. So whenever the market shows any sign of trouble, ETF redemptions are always faster than on-chain movements. On-chain whales can play dead, but ETF managers cannot.
Back to the market. Now around 76,000, 840 million fled in two days, but the price only dropped 1%. This detail is very important—the money is fleeing, but the price hasn’t collapsed, which means other money is stepping in.
Who is stepping in? Either it’s spot buyers in Asia, or positions above 80,000 that didn’t flee are adding to their holdings. Either way, as long as 75,200 doesn’t break, this wave hasn’t reached its worst yet.
In terms of strategy, Beichen’s advice remains: wait for ETF net inflows for two consecutive days. Not just one day, but two. The weekend had little volatility, tomorrow is a rest day, wait for Monday to continue!
#BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 On Friday, the A-shares shrank by 460 billion, with the ChiNext Index dropping nearly 4 points, but "boring assets" like banks, power, and agriculture actually rose. The money hasn't left the market; it just moved from the computing hardware betting table to the safe.
In the U.S. stock market overnight, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index violently rebounded over 4 points, AMD surged 11%, and many optical communication stocks rose more than 10%. But the Dow Jones is still falling, as the nonfarm payrolls of 165,000 pushed the December rate hike probability directly above 70%. The chip sector caught a breather, but the interest rate knife hasn't moved away.
Crypto is even more straightforward: $BTC dropped from 78,279 to 75,511 in one hourly candle, with a total network liquidation of 560 million, 530 million of which were long positions. ETFs saw a net outflow of 1.1 billion over seven days, but the money hasn't gone far; $USDC attracted over 300 million against the trend, and there are also huge whales slowly accumulating $ETH below. Leverage has been cleared in one round, new money is watching at the door but hasn't entered yet. I look at the ETF fund flow table like watching a big dinner party: some people pay the bill and leave, some just added dishes, and the onlookers are already shouting "break up." You can't just listen to the chairs at this table 😂
According to SoSoValue data, on November 6th Eastern Time, the Bitcoin spot ETF had a net outflow of $412 million, with BlackRock's IBIT seeing a net outflow of $403 million; however, Fidelity's FBTC had a net inflow of $42.8235 million. I think this looks more like fund differentiation among products and is not enough to prove that institutions are collectively bearish on $BTC. The outflow is highly concentrated in IBIT, so you can't label all products the same; FBTC's reverse inflow also indicates there is still demand to absorb funds. The funding pressure caused by net outflows is real, but the fund flow table doesn't explain redemption motives, so don't make up psychological monologues for the big players.
Are you standing with "institutions collectively turning bearish" or "product fund differentiation"? I choose the latter. The waiter hasn't cleared the plates yet, so don't announce the end of the party just yet.First, consider the worst-case scenario: if stablecoins continue to contract and face concentrated sell-offs, trading support may weaken, and exit costs could rise. This is my stress scenario simulation, not a market prediction. According to DefiLlama data, the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $292.5 billion, decreasing by $5.767 billion in one week and $1.387 billion in a single day.
⚠️ I treat this more as a liquidity risk warning rather than a directional signal. USDT and USDC decreased by $3.091 billion and $1.327 billion respectively over the week; both are contracting, so we cannot explain this by focusing on just one coin. However, circulating supply does not equal available buy orders on exchanges, and this data alone cannot confirm fund flows or predict coin prices.
A habit from my previous risk control work is: first clearly define the acceptable loss for each trade, then factor in slippage, and don’t treat the stop-loss price as a guaranteed execution price. I will continue to monitor whether the contraction persists and won’t rush to label the market.When gunfire echoes, don't rush to call the bull (｡•́︿•̀｡) The Strait of Hormuz carries roughly 20% of global crude oil shipping. If that route is disrupted, oil reprices first, and the chain reaction runs through inflation, Fed expectations, and real yields before it ever reaches crypto. That chain is the part most traders skip. Higher crude makes inflation stickier, which suppresses rate-cut expectations and can revive the specter of hikes. US real yields then climb, and that is a direct headwThe more pessimistic the market is, the more attention should be paid to the subtle on-chain changes! Panda Bro's single word "break" really invigorates people!
The short-term holder cost (STH-RP) is about $75,854, and the long-term holder cost after excluding dormant chips (LTH-RP) is about $75,849. The two cost lines have finally crossed again, with only a $5 difference, but this signal deserves serious study!
Looking back at 2015, 2019, and 2023, similar golden crosses of cost lines appeared during the recovery phase after bear markets, accompanied by gradual improvement in market structure. I believe its deeper meaning is not just the simple crossing of two lines, but that the cost relationship among different holder groups is being readjusted.
Of course, a golden cross does not mean an immediate surge, nor does it mean market risk has disappeared. True confirmation requires sustained capital support and price performance. I have always maintained that $BTC has entered the early stage of a bull market, but the beginning of a bull market is destined to be full of volatility, doubt, and repeated turnover.
True firm long-term investment belief is not blind optimism ignoring risks, but the ability to remain rational and see the positive changes happening even in the toughest market times.
May this golden cross become an important starting point for the next round of market recovery! $XAU The recent movement of gold is worth pondering. Many people's first reaction is: the Middle East conflict continues, there were chain explosions in Kyiv last night, geopolitical risks persist, and safe-haven buying should push gold prices up. However, after the non-farm payrolls were released, gold instead experienced a sharp drop.
The logic behind this is not complicated: the non-farm data greatly exceeded expectations, Federal Reserve officials collectively issued hawkish signals, and the US dollar index surged 0.74% in a single day. Now the market no longer simply prices geopolitical conflicts as safe havens but interprets them as risks that drive inflation higher and force interest rate hikes. Gold itself does not generate interest, so once rate hike expectations heat up, it will be the first to bear selling pressure.
So don’t cling to the old mindset of "buy gold when war breaks out." The real core that determines gold price direction is the movement of US Treasury yields and the US dollar; this is its pricing anchor.Today's announcement completely shattered the sense of security around "social login wallets."
Keplr admitted that some accounts created via Google or Apple login experienced unauthorized transactions, tracing the root cause to a security issue with the underlying service provider Web3Auth.
The scope is clear: Web3Auth has suspended its embedded wallet service, stating that some third-party platforms were affected. Preliminary investigations show MetaMask users were not impacted; accounts created with Keplr using mnemonic phrases or hardware wallets are also unaffected. The same wallet, two different fates—the dividing line is simply who holds the private key.
The so-called social login wallet means Web3Auth shards and holds the private key, so logging in with Google is equivalent to completing a signature. The experience is close to Web2, but the cost is that signature authority passes through a third-party server. If that server is compromised, no matter how secure the on-chain contract is, it’s useless because the attacker obtains the "legitimate you."
MetaMask is fine this time, not because of stronger technology, but because it does not custody private keys at all. This is a structural difference, not luck.
$ATOM and $TIA, these Cosmos assets, are largely held in Keplr. Holders should rebalance: keep private keys for long-term positions, and treat social login wallets as just petty cash.I see this kind of rebound, and first calculate not how much it can rise, but what to bear if the judgment is wrong. A bigger drop does not equal better odds.
The daily report states that non-farm payrolls increased by 165,000 in October, and the 10-year US Treasury yield rose to 4.86%. I think the crypto market's rebound is not yet convincing: the interest rate pressure hasn't eased, so the opportunity cost of holding coins is high.
My speculation is that if yields fall back and ETF net outflows narrow, the rebound will have a better chance to continue. I will watch these two conditions and not treat the decline as a safety cushion.$BTC has fallen back above 75000, ETH dipped to 2226, and SOL is struggling to hold at the 90 level. There are calls to buy the dip everywhere in the background, but my view remains unchanged: don't rush into the market.
Compared to price action, funding rates often better reflect true sentiment. A strong oversold rebound usually requires funding rates to turn deeply negative, with shorts crowded together, creating a short squeeze momentum. Currently, funding rates are only mildly positive, and the market has not shown real panic capitulation.
This looks more like a brief pause during a volume-shrinking downtrend rather than a bottom signal. Bottom fishing is never about speed but patience. Before sufficient rebound momentum appears, staying on the sidelines is a safer choice. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 In Moderna's financial report, there's a figure that's easier to misinterpret than "turning a profit": the year-end cash and investment balance forecast has been significantly raised.
The company expects this balance to reach $8.1 billion to $8.3 billion, significantly higher than the previous $4.7 billion to $5.2 billion. However, this includes support from $3 billion in convertible bond financing. More cash certainly helps ease R&D and operational pressures, but analysis must distinguish how much comes from business improvement and how much from financing.
The business side has indeed made progress: Q3 revenue was about $1.3 billion, a 29% year-over-year increase; quarterly net profit was $162 million, compared to a $200 million loss in the same period last year. The full-year revenue growth forecast has been raised to 15% to 25%, and cost control is also improving. These achievements are worth acknowledging.
My attitude is cautiously optimistic, but it's not yet time to confidently extrapolate. Vaccine sales are seasonal, and the delivery pace of international orders will affect quarterly performance; subsequent R&D and commercialization investments will also continue to require spending.
When looking at companies like this, my biggest concern is confusing ample cash on hand with sustained operational profitability. Having funds to continue advancing projects is very good news; whether they can steadily expand revenue and control expenses next will need to be proven by future financial reports. This time there are finally signs of improvement, worth following, but don't rush to calculate the full year's profit yet.
#ModernaQ3扭亏为盈，上调全年营收增长预期 🔷 CryptoX-ray #35: $KAITO - cap $50M, FDV $210M
24.1% circulating out of 1 billion, -37.6% in 30 days, -93% from peak.
Red flag: unlock on November 20, but estimates vary: ~17.6M (7.29% circulating) or ~27.18M (11.26%).
Staking exists, APR shown as 0% in the interface, no revenue shares.
Verdict: platform is alive, token has no flow. Ready for -30%.
Will the unlock crush the price? 👇When guiding newcomers, I often remind them: you cannot directly subtract percentage changes. This daily report serves as a perfect example: The Nasdaq fell 5.52% on Thursday, rebounded 1.09% on Friday, but still dropped 3.37% for the whole week, marking four consecutive weeks of decline. I tend to view this rebound as a partial recovery, not enough to confirm a trend reversal.
📌 The rise after a fall is calculated based on the reduced principal. Using this example, Friday's 1.09% gain is calculated from the level after Thursday's big drop and does not make up for the previous loss. Another pressure point is the 165,000 new jobs added in the non-farm payroll, nearly three times the expectation, and the pricing in of a December rate hike is heating up, so concerns about funding costs have not eased.
The biggest pitfall for newcomers is mistaking a "rebound" for "risk relief" and then amplifying their judgment with leverage; even if the direction turns out correct later, the volatility in between may be unbearable. Do you think this rebound indicates a risk easing? If you don't understand the base for percentage changes or leverage tolerance, feel free to leave a comment, and I'll break it down.After reading, I noted three things, and what stopped me the most was: the YES probability for the past 24 hours dropped by 8 percentage points.
1. On Polymarket, the YES probability for $ETH falling to $2200 in November is currently 84%, reflecting the collective judgment of bettors, not a certain outcome. I first separate "probability level" and "direction of change" to avoid getting carried away by just the big number.
2. I think this information is more useful for signaling sentiment changes than for predicting prices. The same 84% conveys different sentiment directions when it falls from a higher point versus when it rises steadily; this time at least it indicates that expectations betting on this scenario are cooling down.
3. If the probability continues to decline while the spot market remains weak, I would interpret it as a divergence in two types of market judgments rather than directly as a rebound signal. My checklist first notes expectation changes and does not use odds to conclude on price.This week's #Bitcoin ETF and crypto market capital flow data statistics — BTC main buyers retreat, regulatory uncertainty brought by the Democratic Party causes a significant confidence decline among institutional users! First, let's look at the ETF data: this week, capital outflow was 1.2817 billion, about six times the net outflow of 200 million last week. Among them, IBIT, as the main capital channel, had a net outflow of 1.2095 billion this week, becoming the main net outflow channel! #BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 The ETF data signals are not optimistic, especially since IBIT, once the mainstream buyer among institutional users, continued to have net outflows this week, with daily outflows not less than about 100 million. Pay special attention to the data on Wednesday, November 4: although the ETF overall had a small net inflow, IBIT still experienced an outflow of about 200 million, indicating that institutional users who were once confident showed obvious selling behavior this week. Looking at crypto data: compared to November 1 data, after a week, besides a noticeable drop in market value of #BTC, #ETH, and others, market share also slightly changed. Compared to the whole week, ETH and altcoins in the current data actually performed slightly better than last weekend. Trading volume is slightly lower than last Sunday's level; after rapid ups and downs this week, the market clearly entered a trading fatigue phase over the weekend. The key is capital flow: compared to last week's total stablecoin amount of 299.8 billion, currently only 294.1 billion remains, a net outflow of 5.7 billion in one week, among which USDT had a net outflow of 3.14 billion Funding rates are the "last straw" in the BTC and ETH stalemate
BTC is repeatedly tugging between $75,000 and $78,000, while ETH is consolidating narrowly between $2,200 and $2,300. In October, both fell by 7.3% and 16% respectively, with a clear contraction in market breadth. On the surface, prices are stuck, but the essence is a hardened capital structure: spot ETFs both saw net outflows, ETH lost $1.6 billion in a single month, and institutional demand shifted toward tactical contraction; open interest across the market dropped to a 12-month low, leverage has basically cleared out, yet perpetual funding rates remain positive, indicating longs are still paying to "stay bullish."
Chips are lighter, but conviction remains firm. Thus, rebounds easily become mere corrections, rarely turning into reversals. 10x Research believes BTC could still reach $90,000 by year-end, but the path involves first dropping to $77,000–$79,000 for a final shakeout; ETH is likely weaker than BTC because value continues flowing to Layer 2, providing insufficient returns to holders.
The real reversal key is not a long bullish candle, but funding rates turning negative: longs taking losses, which solidifies the bottom structure. Before that, the market may first dip further and then diverge.
$BTC $ETH
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 The lowest point of this BTC wave might be around 73K.
No sophisticated technical analysis, purely a case of marking the boat to seek the sword.
In the last round, it also surged up first, then retraced to the MA200 before forming a temporary low. The trend this round looks exactly like a copy-paste.The US stock market has rebounded, but BTC is still taking hits.😵💫
Today's market is really a bit fragmented.
🇺🇸 The Nasdaq rose 1.1% on Friday, but still fell 3.4% for the week.
📉 The S&P 500 dropped 2.7% for the week, with AI tech stocks experiencing a clear sell-off.
💰 BTC fell to around $75,000, with ETFs seeing outflows of about $842 million for two consecutive days.
⚠️ US employment data performed strongly, and US Treasury yields remain firm.
What concerns me most is not how much BTC has fallen.
It's that while the US stock market has tried to rebound, institutional funds are still flowing out of BTC.
If ETFs continue to see outflows next week, even if BTC rebounds, I won't be too optimistic.
The US stock market is starting to recover; when will the crypto market get its turn?😮💨👀#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $BTC #美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4% #After the US stock market crash, tech stocks rebound, but the Nasdaq weekly chart still falls about 3.4% The US stock market experienced intense volatility this week. After a rapid sell-off during the session, the tech sector saw a recovery rebound, but the short-term rise did not reverse the overall weekly downtrend, with the Nasdaq index closing the week down approximately 3.4%.
The core driver of this decline is the market's repricing of the Federal Reserve's rate cut pace. Strong employment and inflation data have led to a continuous downward adjustment in rate cut expectations, pushing US Treasury yields higher. High-valuation tech growth stocks are under significant pressure, with the previously sharply rising AI leaders experiencing particularly volatile swings. The intraday rebound is more of a capital replenishment after overselling rather than a signal of trend reversal, with no significant increase in trading volume and weak buying confidence.
Market differentiation is very pronounced: large-cap AI leaders have a decent rebound strength, while small and mid-cap tech stocks show weak recovery. Capital preference is concentrated on more liquid leading stocks. The current market focus is on upcoming CPI data and Federal Reserve officials' speeches; any hawkish signals are likely to trigger selling pressure again.
From a trading perspective, it is necessary to distinguish: the intraday rebound is an emotional repair, but the weekly level has weakened, and the trend has shifted from a one-sided rise to a consolidation adjustment phase. Do not mistake the oversold rebound as the start of a new upward wave. High-level tech stock valuations remain elevated, with significantly increased volatility risk. Going forward, the key focus is whether US Treasury yields can stabilize and whether the leading companies' earnings guidance meets expectations. 💻 When I saw this message, the first thing that popped into my mind was a code review comment: Don't directly write two simultaneously occurring records as a cause-and-effect relationship. This bug is quite common in market analysis.
Input: According to SoSoValue, yesterday (November 6, Eastern US time), the Ethereum spot ETF had a net outflow of $93,188,700, with BlackRock's ETHA seeing a net outflow of $90,761,300; on the same day, BlackRock's Staked ETH ETF ETHB had a net inflow of $1,148,400.
My judgment: Short-term capital demand is weak, but there is insufficient evidence to explain this as a "shift of funds toward staking products." ETHA contributed the vast majority of the net outflow and cannot represent a simultaneous withdrawal from all products; although ETHB had inflows, the scale is far too small to absorb it, and changes in the two accounts do not prove the funds came from the same group of people.
If I were to revise the analysis logic, I would separately verify the source of funds and product preferences. Please help review: What other types of evidence are needed to confirm that funds are shifting toward staking products? Here's something I discovered: the BTC chip distribution chart has changed from two big clusters to three.
Before, you could tell at a glance at which price everyone bought, but now there's an extra cluster. The two densest peaks are around $78,006 and $75,960, and the whole mass is shifting downward.
The turnover in three days is fierce; the original holders' cost basis has been scattered, and the lineup has been reshuffled.
At first, I thought the downward move was good news because it got cheaper. But on second thought, it's not right: the cost basis going down means those at the top sold and moved to lower positions, not new money coming in. It's lively, but no new funds.
$75,960 is now a barrier; if it breaks, the sentiment on the other side will look very bad. I didn't dare to add; just watching for now. #RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？ RocketLab (RKLB) is about to release its earnings report. The market's core focus is not on short-term revenue but on the development pace of the medium-sized reusable rocket Neutron. It is the company's key growth lever as it transitions from a small launch service provider to competing with top industry players.
Previously, the market expected Neutron to be delivered to the launch pad in Q4 2026, but in October the company announced the first flight delay to 2027, causing the stock price to come under pressure. The delay mainly stems from the first-stage carbon fiber tank: initially, a rupture occurred during the hydrostatic test at the beginning of the year; later, during mass production, internal void defects in the material were found, requiring the tank to be remanufactured and retested for cryogenic and pressure validation, slowing down the overall rocket assembly schedule. On the positive side, the Archimedes main engine has completed hundreds of hot-fire tests, and the engine suite for the first flight rocket is already in production; Neutron's order book is full, including large contracts from the U.S. Space Force, and many commercial customers have locked in launch windows in advance, so demand has not disappeared. This earnings call will focus on three key funding issues: first, the timeline for validating the new tank manufacturing process and whether management can provide clear, actionable testing milestones; second, the scale of increased R&D investment, as the delay will continue to burn cash and further widen losses; third, whether the Electron small rocket and satellite businesses can maintain revenue and orders to offset valuation pressure caused by the Neutron delay. The risks are very clear: repeated structural defects,The BTC chip structure has quietly changed shape over the past few days.
It used to be a double peak, now it has become a triple peak. The two most concentrated cost layers are around $78,006 and $75,960 respectively. From two to three peaks, it looks like just an extra spike, but it actually indicates that chips have been repeatedly exchanged over these three days, the old cost lines have been broken up, and new cost lines are growing back.
More importantly, the direction: the dense trading area is moving downward overall, and the trading focus is no longer pressed at the high level. This means the holdings of the group above have been transferred to lower prices, and the market's average cost is moving down. The cost moving down itself is not a bad thing; the starting point of selling pressure also shifts downward; but conversely, the current buyers are buying cheaper than the previous holders, indicating that most of the previous group exited at a loss.
Therefore, $75,960 is worth remembering separately. It is currently the second most concentrated cost layer and a key support zone recently. The significance of a dense chip area is never "unbreakable," but once broken, a large amount of chips turn from profit to loss, changing sentiment and releasing selling pressure.
The problem is the triple peak is not yet stable. The third peak has just formed, turnover is still ongoing, and it is unclear who is buying and who is selling. At such times, the biggest taboo is to use "support not broken" as a reason to add positions—the structure is not complete, so the support is temporary.
What is worth considering: if the dense area continues to move down, where will the next cost layer fall? That position will be the true bottom of this round of turnover.Today, the leverage on the crypto side was liquidated again, with nearly $300 million blown up in the past 24 hours, long positions accounting for 80%. $BTC is hanging around 75,600, $ETH dropped to 2229, ETFs are still seeing net outflows, and institutions are not rushing to buy. But retail in Russia has officially been opened up, which is a slow variable and not something to count on in the short term.
The A-shares market split sharply this week. The North American computing power chain was smashed beyond recognition, with Zhongji Xuchuang down nearly 19% for the week, but domestic semiconductor equipment was actually supported by capital inflows. Zhongwei Company had a net inflow of over 3.1 billion in a single week, and the STAR 50 index rose nearly 8% in a week. In the same tech sector, the pricing anchors are completely different: one depends on the capital expenditure mood of cloud vendors, the other rides the rhythm of domestic substitution.
The Nasdaq rebounded a bit overnight in the US stock market, up a little over one point, with optical communications and semiconductors recovering from oversold conditions, but the Dow is still falling. The nonfarm payrolls blew past expectations again, pushing back rate cut expectations. Now it’s not about who has more stories, but whose story hasn’t been debunked yet.An unreleased non-farm payroll report is keeping the market pinned underwater. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index just recorded its largest single-day drop since March 2020, risk assets are collectively weakening, and what truly has everyone holding their breath is that the data hasn't even been released yet tonight. This trader's position screenshot perfectly reflects the current sentiment. $BTC average price 78596.8 long, current price 75630, unrealized loss 205.89U, ROI down to -377.47%. The 100x leverage buy order is still holding strong, maintaining a margin rate of 1520.38%, temporarily safe on paper. But 100x leverage meeting non-farm payrolls means the volatility is beyond "big"—it's like placing the position directly on the data fuse. $SOL is also suffering, average price 95.79, current price 89.31, unrealized loss 92.85U, ROI -135.29%, estimated liquidation price at 54.49, still some distance from the danger zone, but the price refuses to give a chance to break even. $SNDK average price 896.7, current price 858, unrealized loss 27.42U, ROI -43.13%, the shallowest wound among the three positions, with relatively ample margin. Notably, the operational choice is: no adding positions, no cutting positions, no action. This is not numbness, but a discipline forced by the data. The market continues to weaken before the non-farm payrolls, long pressure pushed to the limit, and any proactive move now is like betting in an information vacuum. He chooses to hand over the decision to tonight's data and will discuss the next steps after the results come out. The truly underestimated signal is here: whenI see this as a favorable news following the trend. According to DefiLlama data, Aave V4 has about $807 million locked, with a 20.7% increase over the week and a 4.7% increase in one day.
I follow three rules for trends: look at the direction—double weekly growth on Sunday can boost lending sentiment; look at the quality—the coin price rising can also raise TVL; look at sustainability—weekly growth alone is not enough to confirm a trend and cannot be directly equated with capital inflow.
Trends are the best friends; I'll observe first. How do you judge this trend wave, by TVL growth rate or by net inflow after excluding the coin price impact?BTCFi is not dead, but CORE might be soon
After a major reshuffle in the BTCFi sector, it has not disappeared. Projects like Babylon and Merlin continue to attract funds, and Bitcoin staking and BTC derivatives remain long-term favored narratives in the market. The logic of sector clearing is not that the entire segment goes to zero, but that inferior projects are eliminated while quality protocols capture liquidity. CORE is currently on the verge of being cleared out.
CORE was once a star project in the BTCFi narrative, attracting significant capital with its Satoshi Plus consensus and story of binding Bitcoin miners. But now multiple crises have erupted simultaneously: a massive amount of ghost tokens left by reward loopholes remain unresolved, creating persistent sell pressure risks; exchanges have successively delisted it, causing liquidity to continuously shrink; on-chain fee income is minimal, severely limiting the protocol's self-sustaining ability, and having only 21 validator nodes raises serious decentralization concerns.
Meanwhile, competitors in the BTCFi sector continue to iterate their products and accumulate real users, while CORE remains shackled by legacy issues, with fundamentals failing to materialize. The sector's dividends still exist, but they no longer belong to it.
This is also the harsh truth of the crypto market: narratives can build a project, but cannot save one whose fundamentals are continuously deteriorating. Even if BTCFi experiences a new market rally, it will be extremely difficult for CORE to achieve an independent turnaround.$BTC $ETH $SNDK market wants to warm up, pay attention to several signals
1. The 10-year US Treasury yield continues to decline, no longer repeatedly surging, and rate hike expectations cool down;
2. AI giants' earnings reports + capital expenditure guidance have not been further revised down, even raising procurement plans (NVIDIA, Microsoft, Amazon, etc.);
3. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index no longer hits new lows, volume increases and stabilizes at a key position, and the fear index VIX continues to decline;
4. Storage spot/contract prices remain firm, no rapid weakening (HBM, DRAM are indicators);
5. Funds: foreign capital no longer continuously fleeing Japan and South Korea, the wave of forced deleveraging ends. Why is it that for the same type of trading, going long requires following the major trend and waiting for confirmation, while going short requires catching exhaustion and seizing the initiative?
Because bulls push the price up slowly at first and then quickly, while bears slam the price down quickly at first and then slowly; the rhythms are completely opposite. If you use the same mindset for both long and short positions, you are fighting against two completely opposite market mechanics.
Going long profits from space, going short profits from time. If you don't understand these two sentences, you won't hold long positions well during bull markets, and you'll chase bottoms and become cannon fodder during bear markets. Many people don't understand why it takes months for asset prices to rise but only a few hours to crash. This is because the price floor of any asset is zero, but its theoretical ceiling is infinite. In a bull market, an asset can rise fivefold or tenfold, driven by monetary expansion, inflation, and the compounding effect of assets. Bullish advances require capital to form a combined force, relying on a long compounding snowball effect. As long as the major trend is intact, time is the bulls' most loyal friend; this is why going long profits from space.
As for the rapid crash, it is because the spread of fear in human genes is always ten times faster than greed. In a leveraged market, the volume of bulls far exceeds that of bears, but once high-level support is broken, it instantly triggers a chain reaction: bull stop-loss selling, forced liquidations by exchanges, and panic selling by retail investors stampeding to exit. These three forces slam the market simultaneously, instantly draining liquidity below, causing the price to free-fall vertically like a cliff dive.
Understanding the above principles allows you to see the main force's control rhythm: crashes are collapsed out, while rallies are ground out. Large capital must build positions extremely covertly; any quick moves push up costs, so the bottom is always formed through a long process of tug-of-war, oscillation, and shakeout. Once floating chips are highly locked and retail sentiment is fully ignited, the bulls enter a rapid sprint Another round of limited strikes on Iranian air defenses makes the Hormuz talks harder to read, not easier. Qatar's mediation points to a possible interim route for shipping, yet Iran's preconditions and Washington's unresolved choice between further action and diplomacy leave the central outcome unconfirmed.
For markets, the uncertainty is the story: passage may be discussed, but no reopening is established.
#HormuzReopeningDispute HYPE now feels more like a phase of washing out positions rather than a phase of chasing gains. With the US midterm elections approaching, is the regulatory risk for HYPE really that distant? My most obvious observation from watching the market these past two weeks is that BTC and ETH have maintained a relatively steady rhythm, while altcoins have started to diverge individually. HYPE is caught in a particularly delicate position, supported on one side by narratives around perpetual contracts and US stock perpetuals, and on the other side by the looming regulatory shadow brought by the US midterm elections. The original text mentions a key point: if the Democratic Party takes control of Congress, HYPE is very likely to become a key target for investigation. Note, this is not an outright ban, but rather a legislative regulatory approach that will put high-leverage perpetuals, US stock perpetual contracts, US user access, and HYPE token buybacks on the table for individual scrutiny. This means the market is not currently trading on "whether it will be banned," but rather "whether compliance costs will suddenly become more expensive." What is even more noteworthy is Jeff's Bloomberg interview. Donning a suit to engage with Wall Street and cooperate with ICE is essentially a preemptive hedge, using compliance channels to segment the business and reduce the risk of heavy-handed US regulatory action. The cost is a significant increase in compliance expenses, and the profit structure and expansion pace may be repriced. Therefore, the current amplified volatility of HYPE is not simply emotional noise, but the market pricing in regulatory risk in advance. On the bullish side, if the compliance path succeeds, HYPE could actually gain stronger institutional trust; on the bearish side, once legislative review is implemented, high-leverage products and US user channels will come under pressure, altcoinsWhen I saw this news, my first reaction was not "which coin is affected," but rather a reminder of an easily overlooked distinction: the products seen on the trading interface and the capital flows seen by regulators may not be the same thing.
PANews reported that the Bangalore division of the Indian Enforcement Directorate conducted searches at three locations related to CoinDCX and Delta Exchange from November 4 to 5, based on the Foreign Exchange Management Act. The Enforcement Directorate accused the two platforms of allegedly conducting large-scale unauthorized cross-border financial transactions involving crypto token derivatives and RWA token trading, with the scale of related cross-border transactions reaching hundreds of billions of rupees. It is important to distinguish here: what we currently see are allegations, not final determinations.
In my view, this news serves as a more important reminder about "how cross-border business operates compliantly" than about short-term sentiment in any particular sector. Product side VS capital side: derivatives and RWA appear to be two types of business, but as long as cross-border flows are involved, platforms must address questions about transaction authorization and capital pathways. If these aspects are unclear, no matter how rich the product offerings are, it will be difficult to alleviate users' concerns about business continuity.
The pressure on platforms VS ordinary users is also different: platforms face investigations, while users care more about whether the services they use will be affected. But a search does not equal business restrictions; I would not equate the two. Regarding this matter, are you more worried about the risks of the product itself or the underlying cross-border capital flows?🚨 Public chain upgrades are not about who runs faster! The real test for ETH, SOL, and AVAX is here
During market downturns, the most worth tracking is not slogans, but whether the technology can bring sustained usage and revenue.
ETH: On November 6, the Ethereum Foundation disclosed that the Glamsterdam test found some applications might be affected by Gas fee adjustments, so the Hoodi fork is postponed. Proactively defusing risks is more important than launching with issues, but the delay also increases uncertainty. Next, focus on fixes, audits, and testnet restarts rather than blindly guessing the mainnet launch date.
SOL: The Solana Foundation's November 6 monthly report stated that the target block interval in October dropped to 200 milliseconds, Alpenglow has been activated, and the RWA scale reached $5 billion. Both performance and institutional assets are advancing, but asset scale does not equal on-chain revenue. Watch stablecoin transfer activity, fees, and application retention, and be wary of lively data without value capture.
AVAX: Avalanche official information confirms that the Helicon upgrade took effect on the mainnet on September 22, bringing continuous execution, dynamic minimum Gas price, and other changes. This is not a new benefit this week but an old checkpoint to test upgrade effectiveness. Focus on real transactions on the C-Chain, validator economics, and fees; technical optimizations without demand support may not benefit the token price.
My judgment: The next round of public chain differentiation will compete on stable operation, real settlement, and sustainable fees. Which route will you bet on?
#ETH #SOL #AVAX
Not investment advice