Orbit Post Sitemap
A weekly decrease of $5.767 billion. As a quant newbie, what I most want to do is add a validation condition to the phrase "capital inflow." DefiLlama shows that the total amount of USD stablecoins across the network is also shrinking within the day, with USDT and USDC also decreasing on a weekly basis.
If I were to write it as a strategy: if stablecoins decrease net on a weekly basis, then do not check the explanation "new capital is driving the market." My judgment is that this data is more suitable for filtering narratives rather than directly predicting direction. The advantage is that it can constrain myself from assuming that off-exchange funds have arrived just because the price is lively 🤖
The flaw is also obvious: total circulation does not equal available funds on exchanges. I speculate that if existing funds accelerate turnover, then a shrinking total might also accompany localized activity, and this rule would miss that situation. So I will treat it as an observation tag, not a trading switch. When you write this condition, do you use a single week's net decrease, or require consecutive weeks and a certain decline threshold to trigger it? A trader's confession, posted just days ago, offers a sharper read on this market than any single price candle: a short $ETH opened at 2297, scaled up to 2343, and still held despite sitting underwater. That stubbornness is the tell. When leveraged traders add to losing shorts rather than capitulate, it usually signals conviction in a ceiling — or the quiet hope that a reversal will bail them out. The same post reveals the cost of that hope elsewhere. On $AKE, the trader admits being wrong, havi$BTC has returned to just above 75,000, ETH dropped to 2226, and SOL is holding the 90 mark. The voices of bottom-fishing in the background are intensifying again, but I still say: no rush.
Look at a more honest indicator than price, the funding rate. A true oversold rebound rally is often accompanied by the funding rate being pushed to deep negative values, with shorts extremely crowded and a short squeeze providing the fuel. But the current funding rate is still mildly positive, showing neither panic nor capitulation.
In other words, this looks more like a pause in a volume-shrinking downtrend, not the kind of pattern a bottom should have. Bottom-fishing is not about who acts fastest, but who can wait the longest. Without the fuel in place, I'd rather stay on the sidelines and watch.$ETH $BTC $SOL
From frenzy to freeze, the AI stock crash triggered over $1 billion in liquidations in the crypto market, with major coins collectively retreating to key defense lines.
BTC: Current price around $75,979. Bitcoin sharply dropped nearly 6% from above $80,000 and is consolidating weakly. The US spot ETF saw a single-day net outflow of $430 million, and traders view $77,000 as the critical line for whether the rebound can continue.
ETH: Current price around $2,246. Despite exchange ETH reserves dropping to the lowest since 2016 (about 14.5 million coins), the price is still dragged down by AI stock sell-offs. It is currently holding the $2,243 support, with RSI approaching oversold territory, and rebound momentum is building.
SOL: Current price around $90.31. As a high-beta asset, SOL was prioritized for liquidation during risk events, breaking below the $90 mark with a maximum 24-hour drop of nearly 7%. Shrinking open interest indicates leveraged funds are exiting.
Summary: The core market conflict has shifted from crypto's endogenous narratives to the spillover impact from US tech stocks. The sustainability of AI capital expenditure is being reassessed, and the chip stock crash has triggered cross-asset liquidations, making it difficult for the crypto market to remain unaffected. Before ETF funds return and macro risk appetite stabilizes, rebounds in major coins are more likely to be "breathers after selling pressure eases" rather than trend reversals.
#US October nonfarm payrolls exceeded expectations, bets on December rate hikes are heating up Currently, there is absolutely no fresh liquidity willing to enter the OTC market; both the US stock market and the crypto space are frantically deleveraging. Today, the three tokens on the altcoin hot list are all manipulated by pump-and-dump operators playing pig-killing games in a liquidity-drained pool. Anyone who impulsively touches them is a pure fool.
First, look at $AKE AKE, which surged more than twenty points, but the trend is extremely ugly. Take a close look at the 15-minute chart—it's full of erratic spikes up and down, the MACD shows a high-level death cross heading downward, and even with a slight increase in volume, the price stagnates. This is the market maker violently sweeping out high-leverage positions with minimal chips, causing both longs and shorts to be wiped out completely. Chasing the highs now is just handing your head to the market makers; if you want to play, you must use low leverage.
Next, look at $ONE ONE, which is purely a speculative token. It was forcibly pumped nearly twenty-four points today, but if you carefully observe, there is a severe volume-price divergence, the MACD's top red bars are shrinking, and the price is propped up by just one or two large trades. This old-fashioned token has no ecological support whatsoever; once the hype fades, its true colors will be exposed, and when it falls, it won’t even find a bottom. Don’t catch the falling knife.
Finally, look at $LAB LAB, which dropped over one point, a classic stagnant zombie token. The trading volume has shrunk to a pitiful level, and the 15-minute chart is just moving sideways like an ECG. The pump-and-dump operators have long cashed out and fled. This kind of worthless trash with no trading value isn’t even worth looking at; keeping it in your watchlist is an eyesore.
In summary, the current macro environment is high-interest water extraction, with Bitcoin hanging in midair, ready to test the bottom again at any time. Control your hands and don’t be cannon fodder; hold onto cash and endure this wave of consecutive shakeouts.$1INCH
Aggregator integrates tokenized stocks, who will benefit from the growth?
In the update on November 5, 1inch confirmed that Ondo stocks and ETFs on Solana have been integrated into its swap process, with transactions executed by the independent parser Tokka Labs.
The addition of new assets expands trading access, but how the aggregated flow is allocated among parsers, protocols, and tokens needs to be calculated separately. An increase in nominal trading volume does not necessarily bring a proportional increase in net revenue.
I will observe execution spreads, failure rates, and user reuse. If the new assets bring sustained trading and fee distribution is clear, the commercial value increases; if orders rely on subsidies or liquidity is concentrated among a few parsers, the quality of expansion still has discounts.There hasn't been much big news in the market these past two days, but there's a signal worth noting in the capital flow channels: the US spot Bitcoin ETF had a net outflow of $412 million yesterday, marking the second consecutive trading day of large net outflows.
Looking at the $412 million alone isn't shocking, but its consecutive occurrence changes the nature of the situation. ETF subscriptions and redemptions act like a one-way valve: subscriptions bring in real spot buying, while redemptions represent real selling pressure. Large outflows for two consecutive days indicate that marginal buying isn't just weakening—it's completely absent.
Ethereum confirms this trend simultaneously. The spot Ethereum ETF had a net outflow of $93.3 million yesterday, also marking two consecutive trading days of net outflows. Both assets moving in the same direction and rhythm basically rule out a single product's portfolio adjustment, and instead suggest the same group of funds is overall reducing their crypto asset exposure.
The implications for price should be viewed on two levels. First, ETF outflows don't mean the price will immediately drop; the market still has leveraged longs and over-the-counter support, so the common pattern is stagnation rather than a sudden crash. Second, if outflows continue into a third trading day, then it's not just portfolio adjustment—it's a trend. This window is more direct than any technical indicator.
My own approach these days is to neither chase longs nor rush to short; I'll first wait for tonight's subscription and redemption data. If outflows clearly narrow, it means selling pressure has mostly been released; if they continue to expand, then this round of positioning needs to be reassessed.
One question to leave you with: when ETFs are selling but prices haven't dropped much, who exactly is absorbing the supply? The answer to this usually determines the next direction.Local buzz VS overall market warming, I would place this list in the former category. On the CoinGecko trending list, $PEARL ranks first, up 11.6% in 24 hours, with a market cap ranking of 88; ZEC is up 2.7%, while BTC has dropped 0.3%.
I usually separate heat from market coverage: the fact that the 88th largest market cap tops the search list shows that attention is not distributed according to market cap, so it can't be used as a thermometer for the entire market; the list includes both gains and losses, and searches may also come from people asking "what happened," not necessarily all bullish. To me, this looks more like a local topic cluster rather than evidence of overall market warming.
My judgment is that this list is suitable for finding research clues, but not for directly confirming market direction. Do you stand with "local buzz" or "overall market warming"? Besides search volume, what other indicators would you use to verify?The cryptocurrency market has entered a tight consolidation phase following high volatility. To understand current price action, we must analyze the overlapping forces of U.S. political shifts, regulatory legislation, and Middle Eastern geopolitical developments. 📊 1. Current Market Action: Structural Consolidation Post-Liquidation Health: Following aggressive short squeezes and liquidation cascades, major assets like Bitcoin ($BTC) and Ethereum ($ETH) are ranging. The leverage flush has establQ: Berkshire holds a huge cash reserve. What should we focus on in this earnings report?
A: The core focus is on two things: changes in cash scale and the management's capital allocation strategy. Previously, a large amount of funds were placed in short-term Treasury bonds to earn interest. The market has been guessing whether Abel will make large acquisitions, increase buybacks, or continue holding cash and wait.
Q: Is having a lot of cash a good thing or a concern?
A: On one hand, a huge cash reserve is a safety cushion and can earn stable interest through Treasuries, providing strong risk resistance; but if no quality targets are found in the long term and funds remain idle, the market will worry about capital return efficiency.
Q: How will the earnings report trends affect market judgment?
A: If cash continues to stay high without large-scale spending, it means management remains cautious; once signals of large buybacks or acquisitions are released, the market will likely interpret it as a capital allocation push, becoming a key focus. Of course, insurance and profitability performance of various businesses should not be overlooked either.
#伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向 Hard to hold back, the market originally expected cooling in employment, but instead got a very strong report. The nonfarm payroll increase of 165,000 far exceeded the expected 65,000, with unemployment rate, additions, and revisions all strengthening comprehensively, directly causing the Fed's December rate hike probability to rise from about 70% to around 80%. I have to say this is the most contradictory aspect of the current macro environment: if the economy is too weak, the market worries about recession; if the economy is too strong, the market worries about continued rate hikes.
But I’m not buying into that superstition. Although the Fed focuses on inflation and employment, it also has to consider financial conditions. The sell-off in AI caused the stock market to drop this week, financing costs have risen, and the tightening effect is already happening. If they raise rates again, that would really be tightening on top of tightening. $BTC and growth stocks are going to have a hard time, I can’t even imagine 😭#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Brothers, the "doubling" shock of last night's nonfarm payrolls is not about the absolute figure of 165,000, but about the expectation anchor being set too low. The market had only bet on 65,000 before, and once the data came out, the expectation gap instantly widened, causing the dollar and US Treasury yields to jump simultaneously, and the pressure on risk assets immediately became apparent. Interest rate futures then pushed the probability of a December rate hike to about 80%. For the crypto market, this means the "higher for longer" tightening expectation has been re-anchored into the pricing framework.
$BTC's reaction was typical: a brief surge to 76,100 was quickly sold off, then it oscillated between 75,500 and 76,000, with the 75,000 area becoming the last psychological buffer for short-term bulls and bears. More notably, $ETH, after breaking below 2,300, showed weak rebound and consolidated near 2,230, with a decline clearly larger than BTC's, indicating that funds prioritized withdrawing from high beta assets under strong macro signals. The Fear and Greed Index dropped to 28 on the same day, plunging from "neutral" directly into "panic," with sentiment and price resonating. Currently, what the crypto market lacks is not the willingness for an oversold rebound, but a macro variable that can loosen the tightening narrative; until then, the defense quality at 75,000 and 2,230 is more worth watching than any intraday rebound.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 First, a bit of cold water: stablecoin shrinkage is a warning, not a verdict on price drops. I lean bearish on the funding environment, but I don't accept directly translating this data as "an imminent crash." I tend to look for risks first, but I also have to guard against interpreting all news as bearish.
DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $292.5 billion, down $1.387 billion daily and $5.767 billion weekly. Among them, $USDT is about $176.8 billion, down $3.091 billion weekly; USDC is about $70.6 billion, down $1.327 billion weekly. My judgment is that the funding side faces headwinds, but this is not conclusive proof of short-term direction. There are two reasons: both major stablecoins are shrinking in volume, so it can't be explained solely by switching between single coins; the potential contraction of purchasing power is worth watching. However, circulating supply is a stock figure, not a flow of sales, so it cannot alone determine the reasons for redemptions, nor confirm how much capital is preparing to sell risk assets.
Of course, those who are outright bearish might also be right. If stablecoin shrinkage continues and risk asset trading and prices weaken together, I will see this change as a stronger signal of capital withdrawal; if the shrinkage stops and the market remains stable, I will reduce bearish weighting. Don't rush to get excited, nor to panic. Regarding this shrinkage, are you bullish or bearish? Share your reasons: which data would you most want to check to verify your judgment? Woke up to all red: BTC breaks below 80,000, is non-farm payroll the last hope?
Before sleep, BTC was still steady above 80,000, but waking up to a screen full of red chills the heart. US tech stocks, especially AI-related ones, collectively plunged, dragging the crypto market down.
1. BTC quickly retraced
From above 80,000, it dropped all the way to around 75,000, hitting a low of 75,500, a decline of nearly 6%. The short-term key is whether 75,000 can hold.
2. ETH is weaker
Dropped from above 2,400 to above 2,200, down over 7%. More volatile assets fall faster during risk-off retreats.
3. Liquidations concentrated release
Nearly $1.1 billion liquidated across the network in just a few hours, over 200,000 positions wiped out, the vast majority long positions. Leverage-induced stampede amplified the decline.
4. Non-farm payroll as an emotional variable
If tomorrow's non-farm payroll is weak with moderate wages, it might give the market some confidence; if data is strong, rate hike expectations will rise, and risk assets will remain under pressure.
My view:
This wave is the external tech stock adjustment transmitting to the crypto circle, combined with concentrated liquidation of long leverage. Don't rush to bottom-fish before non-farm payroll, first see if BTC can hold 75,000 and ETH can stabilize at 2,200. Manage your position size and wait for the data to land before deciding the direction.Non-farm data update, no significant reaction in the crypto circle, despite employment data beating expectations, the market's anticipation of a rate hike has not diminished!
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温
It's the weekend again, so market volatility is even smaller!
Considering the previous statement about one rate hike this year, a rate hike in December is highly likely! $BTC $ETH $ZEC Weekend watch: Bitcoin is currently around $75,878, trading narrowly between $74,888 and $76,378 today. The $75,000 level is still holding, but the real line is at $75,600 — that's the low on election night and near the 50-week moving average. If it can't hold this, it will be the fifth consecutive week of decline, closing below the 200-day moving average. Interestingly, Strategy holds 849,000 BTC at an average cost of about $75,451, and the current price is only about 0.6% higher, meaning the whole market is watching the same line. After the non-farm payrolls, the probability of a December rate hike is nearly 80%, with the Fear & Greed Index at 25, indicating extreme fear. This weekend, the focus is on whether $75,600 can hold; only a recovery above $77,700 will signal a breather $BTC #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: if a large on-chain purchase occurs, it would be recorded as a demand observation sample, but it would not directly add points to a bullish signal. After learning quantitative analysis, the habit I most want to change is automatically translating large amounts into large information content. 🤖
According to on-chain analyst Ai Yi's monitoring, an address spent $19.62 million three hours ago to buy 8,773.52 ETH at a cost of $2,236.75 each. This $ETH purchase is very eye-catching, but my judgment is: it is suitable to enter the observation pool and is not enough to independently change the trend assessment.
The advantage of this rule is that it separates actual transactions from market interpretation. The purchase did happen, but the data does not disclose the address identity, other positions, or the use of funds; without seeing these, this transaction cannot be directly understood as a complete bet on the future market.
There are also loopholes: by the time verification conditions are met, the signal may already be delayed. But I am more afraid of double counting—if multiple addresses buy later but belong to the same funding entity, what appears to be dispersed demand may just be the same action. This is my speculation, not something this message has proven.
So I will separately record "how much was bought" and "whether the number of independent buyers increased." If you write this condition yourself, would you filter by holding duration or by the number of independent buyers? What specific conditions must be met to be considered valid? A fund with "Tokenized" in its name doesn't hold a single cent of digital assets. ARK's new ETF is pretty straightforward: exposure to $ETH and $SOL is indirectly obtained through swaps linked to ETPs, and it doesn't even buy those ETPs itself.
So what exactly is it buying? It's buying companies that help others issue tokens, store tokens, and collect fees from clearing. Sounds like selling shovels during a gold rush; even if coin prices drop, it might still make money.
So stop asking whether this is good news for coin prices—they never intended to touch the coins in the first place. When I see this kind of news, I first look at the risk-reward structure and don't rush to treat net inflows as a bullish signal. SoSoValue data shows that on November 6th Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from ZCSH, with a historical cumulative net inflow reaching $209 million.
My judgment is that this is somewhat positive for $ZEC's capital situation, but a single day's data is not enough to support a trend judgment. First, net inflow indicates there was a net subscription of funds that day, but it doesn't prove that demand will continue; second, the increment is concentrated in one product, and there is still no evidence of broader capital participation. It makes me slightly increase the weight of the scenario of sustained inflows, rather than directly boosting confidence in chasing the rally.
According to my speculation, if subsequent net inflows continue and the price hasn't already priced in expectations prematurely, this clue is worth further study; if it's just a one-day inflow that pushes up market expectations, the odds might actually worsen. I will focus on sustainability and won't use one day's data to bolster my confidence.These four negative factors are not independent of each other; they form a layered causal chain.
Many people treat “ETF sell-off, treasury liquidation, custody theft, quantum risk” as four parallel bad news items and calculate their impact separately. This is wrong.
Their true relationship is: each one is deeper than the last, and each layer amplifies the previous one.
First layer: Capital layer: passive redemption, tokens "must sell regardless of price"
The redemption mechanism of spot ETFs is a rigid sell: when investors redeem shares, the fund manager must sell the corresponding spot assets. It does not judge price levels or consider sentiment; every redemption triggers a sale.
A continuous net outflow at the $1.5 billion level means someone is persistently and mechanically selling Bitcoin, passively selling regardless of price.
This is the strongest evidence: it shows this is not a "sentiment-driven sell-off," but real capital withdrawing.
Second layer: Confidence layer: benchmark capital exits, buyer camp collectively defects
Trump media sold 99.99%, the damage is not in the amount but in the demonstration effect.
It was the most representative example of the narrative "policy-friendly + corporate treasury hoarding coins." Its near liquidation is equivalent to publicly admitting: at this position, holding heavy BTC as a reserve asset is no longer profitable.
The consequences are chain reactions:
- Other corporate treasuries lose the "buy-only" role model and start treating BTC as a liquidatable book asset;
- Retail investors see "the big players fled first," shifting from "waiting for institutions to bottom buy" to "selling along with institutions";
- The market's largest buyer group turns from a support force into a source of selling pressure.
This is the most fatal turning point of this round: the buyers disappeared, and those who disappeared were the most influential.
Third layer: Chip layer: cracks in custody security, low-cost chips become a ceiling
After Binance was hacked, the market learned two things:
1. Coins held on exchanges are not truly under your control: top platforms can be infiltrated by state-level social engineering and have signature permissions hijacked;
2. Stolen native coins cannot be frozen or recovered: stablecoins can be blacklisted by issuers, BTC cannot.
This creates a deadlock:
Hackers hold BTC at zero cost and have motivation to sell whenever there is a rebound, with no legal recovery channels.
This means every rebound naturally carries a "ceiling": prices pushed up by buyers are pressed back down by zero-cost chips.
Meanwhile, institutions and whales continue withdrawing coins, capital leaves the market, and liquidity thins. When liquidity thins, sell orders of the same size can cause double the price drop.
Fourth layer: Narrative layer: AI and anti-quantum reassessment lower the "valuation ceiling"
This layer does not directly generate sell orders but determines how high long-term capital is willing to value BTC.
The narrative of BTC as "digital gold" is built on "independence, invulnerability, and long-term security." Now:
- It can be stolen (custody layer);
- The underlying secp256k1 elliptic curve faces long-term quantum cracking risk, and community upgrades and governance are extremely slow;
- No cash flow, no sovereign credit backing.
As a result, hedge funds, family offices, and sovereign funds increase risk premiums and lower valuation ceilings when making long-term allocations.
This manifests as "unwillingness to buy," not "urgent selling"; but it is this "not buying" that leaves the sell orders generated by the first three layers without counterparties.
In one sentence: hard evidence determines direction, soft narrative determines the floor. On November 7, ARK's ETF trust filed with the SEC to launch the ARK Tokenized Market Infrastructure ETF. The name is long, but what's worth noting is what it invests in.
The focus is on asset tokenization and on-chain capital market infrastructure: tokenization platforms, stablecoin issuers, exchanges, brokerages, custodians, and settlement networks. This entire list consists of companies, not a single coin. It invests in businesses that build the roads and collect tolls, not the vehicles on the road.
How is exposure obtained? The fund mainly uses total return swaps and can also directly invest in equity of related companies. $ETH and $SOL exposure is obtained indirectly through swaps linked to US-listed crypto ETPs. The filing states: the fund does not directly hold digital assets nor these ETPs.
Why take this roundabout approach? Directly holding coins involves facing the three mountains of custody, compliance, and accounting. Using swaps, the assets remain on the counterparty's books, and the fund only receives the net return difference, keeping the financial statements clean. This is the standard approach for traditional asset managers entering the space.
I see this as a narrative fork. Previously, investing in crypto meant betting on coin prices; now it's about tokenized infrastructure, betting on who ultimately collects the tolls on the channels. ARK previously profited from trading-related assets and now applies the same logic within an ETF wrapper.
One thought to leave with: if the product succeeds, pricing power will increasingly reside in the invisible links like custody and settlement. Code and management fees have not been disclosed, and the filing is not yet effective. This round of declines in $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL is not just a simple leverage liquidation. Over 2,000 BTC have been withdrawn, Ethereum ($ETH) whales have seen a net outflow of 35,900 coins, and SOL ($SOL) has a net outflow close to 100,000 coins. Large wallets are continuously reducing positions, with retail bulls taking over the chips. This divergence in capital is worth noting; when institutions actively reduce risk and retail holders hold on to longs, the market can easily lose upward momentum. This sell-off is also compounded by a chain reaction from policy impacts. AI-related expectations have weakened, capital expenditure plans have been disrupted, and crypto assets are fluctuating along with overall risk assets, showing a clear correlation with chip and AI infrastructure sectors. The AI computing power demand narrative that originally supported the market is now being questioned simultaneously with deleveraging. With these two major positive logics loosening at the same time, the difficulty of recovery increases. The market focus next shifts to the non-farm payroll data. If the data falls short of expectations, in a pessimistic scenario, Bitcoin could test the 74,000–72,000 range. However, this area could also be where selling pressure exhausts. Before whales stop reducing holdings and start accumulating again, most rebounds are likely just windows for capital to exit, making it difficult to directly start a new upward trend. BSOL had the largest outflow, with a single-day net outflow of $14,442,400. To pour some cold water first: this is not good news for the bulls, but I also disagree with directly translating it as "institutions collectively bearish on $SOL." My judgment is that this data is bearish but not enough to define the trend. Other products also experienced outflows, and the total net outflow of the entire SOL spot ETF on that day does indicate a negative signal.
I'm stuck on two points: BSOL contributed more than half of the net outflow that day, so the pressure is concentrated on one product, which is different in meaning from a synchronized large-scale withdrawal across multiple products; net outflow only tells me that funds left the product, but not why they left. If it’s a portfolio rebalancing between products, then the directional indication is weak; if it’s an active reduction of SOL exposure, then the bearish logic is stronger. This is my scenario speculation, as the data does not provide redemption motives. I usually prefer to analyze fund behavior first, then discuss sentiment, to avoid mistaking a result for a complete explanation.
Of course, the bears might also be right. If subsequent outflows continue to spread to more products and the price comes under pressure, I will raise my alert for a weakening trend and won’t use "single-day noise" as an excuse for the bulls. This time, are you bullish or bearish? Do you focus more on the concentrated outflow from BSOL, or do you wait for multiple products to have consecutive withdrawals before making a judgment? Share your reasons.Saw Strive ASST's Q3 report during lunch 😮
Q3 net profit about $509 million
Looks scary
Revenue is actually only 2.7 million
Profit is almost entirely BTC unrealized gains of about 534 million
Bought another 15,124 coins in October
Holding a total of 43,124 coins
Only 877 coins behind the second place on the listed companies' coin holding leaderboard
But the average cost for the Q3 batch was about 78,885
Now BTC is around 75,800
The unrealized gains from this quarter might have to be partially given back next quarter
The financial reports of this kind of company
Basically just shadows of the coin price
I'll first see if they keep buying next month October payrolls rising 165K against a 65K forecast, alongside 4.1% unemployment, gives December rate expectations a firmer labor-market foundation. The dollar index surge shows markets are already repricing that risk. Still, with CPI due Nov. 10 and high prices a concern, the data argue for caution rather than certainty.
#USJobsBeatExpectations CORE: Not the second ETH, but a negative example of ETH
The market once hoped that CORE, relying on EVM compatibility + BTCFi narrative, would replicate Ethereum's rise, but reality has proven: it not only cannot become the second ETH, but has become a typical negative example in the public chain sector.
Ethereum was able to grow into the leading public chain by overcoming the DAO crisis, with its core strengths being decentralization foundation, a large developer community, and a self-consistent value capture system. When facing crises, the community fully negotiated, and multiple participants reached consensus to overcome difficulties together. Later, the EIP-1559 burn mechanism further empowered ETH, creating a positive ecological cycle.
In contrast, CORE, although having an EVM-compatible shell, has deep-rooted fundamental flaws: only 21 validator nodes, inherently insufficient decentralization; after reward loopholes were exposed, a large amount of ghost tokens remained, causing long-term selling pressure; on-chain fee income is meager, the protocol lacks self-sustaining capability, compounded by exchanges delisting it one after another, liquidity continues to shrink.
Ethereum first grew a strong ecosystem before facing crisis tests; CORE, however, prioritized narrative first, with its ecosystem and economic model not fully developed before major flaws were exposed. Both faced major security incidents, but one was reborn from the fire, while the other continues to be under pressure. This is the most essential difference between the two. Grand narratives can never make up for fundamental shortcomings.$LINK
Cross-chain institutional asset expansion: Should Chainlink focus on the number of partnerships or paid demand?
Chainlink has released CCIP 2.0, aiming to expand institutional digital asset cross-chain usage. Cross-chain capability can reduce the friction of assets being isolated on a single network, but technical availability is only the starting point for commercialization.
What is worth tracking are repeated calls in production environments, payment scale, and security performance. A single test or announced partnership does not automatically translate into stable revenue.
If institutions incorporate cross-chain processes into daily operations, with continuous payments and controllable risks, the value foundation will strengthen. Conversely, if there are many pilots but little actual use, or security incidents increase adoption costs, expectations for the speed of realization should be lowered. October payrolls: +165K vs ~60K expected. Unemployment fell to 4.1%, wages rose 0.4% MoM (+3.1% YoY), and Aug–Sep were revised up by 84K. One caveat: the average jobless spell hit 27.1 weeks, a decade high. Why it matters: a strong labor market removes the Fed's reason to pause. CME FedWatch odds of a Dec 9 hike rose from ~67% to ~77–79%. Richmond Fed's Barkin has said inflation, not jobs, is the bigger risk, so more hikes stay on the table. Market read: $BTC dipped to $74.8K, its lowest since AThe South Korean stock market triggered a circuit breaker again on Friday.
On November 6, the KOSPI index fell more than 8% intraday, triggering a circuit breaker and a 20-minute trading halt. It dropped below 5000 points intraday (lowest at 4911.28) and closed down 6.02% at 5059.69 — marking the 11th circuit breaker this year. For comparison: since the circuit breaker mechanism was introduced in 2000 until 2025, it has only been triggered 6 times in 26 years.
The market had already fallen in a prior round on Thursday: KOSPI closed down 5.28% at 5383.65, hitting a new low since April 3. Both the main board and the KOSDAQ triggered sell-side circuit breakers, with SK Hynix down 9.45% and Samsung Electronics down 7.56%. The two-day cumulative drop was about 11%; from the historical high of 9385.59 in June, the maximum drawdown is about 46%.
Structural factors determine volatility: Samsung and SK Hynix account for about half the index weighting. At the end of May, a 2x leveraged ETF tracking these two stocks was launched, making the national index roughly equivalent to two stocks plus leverage. The night before, US storage stocks (SNDK, SOXL, MU) had already plunged, and some brothers in Orbit shared related leveraged liquidation orders.
One observation: circuit breakers in South Korea are turning from extreme events into monthly routine maintenance. While the stock market is closed on weekends, the crypto market operates 24/7, with BTC basically flat around $75,900. Stock circuit breakers force everyone to cool down for 20 minutes, but on-chain leverage has no such function.
Sources: Xinhua News Agency, Eastmoney, Jin10 Data, Caixin#伯克希爾巨額現金儲備，財報將揭露最新動向 $BTC
Berkshire Hathaway will release its Q3 earnings report on November 7, with market focus on the latest movements of its massive cash reserves.
As of the end of June, the company held about $365.5 billion in cash and short-term U.S. Treasuries. Visible Alpha expects this to decrease to about $358 billion by the end of Q3. This change mainly reflects capital allocation actions taken by new CEO Greg Abel: a net purchase of about $20 billion in stocks in Q2 and the completion of a $6.8 billion acquisition of homebuilder Taylor Morrison.
Another highlight of the earnings report is pressure on the insurance business. Analysts expect underwriting profits to decline significantly year-over-year, partially offsetting the solid performance of the railroad and energy segments.
Additionally, the company’s multibillion-dollar investment in Alphabet has incurred an unrealized loss of about $3 billion due to a drop in share price. The market is watching to see if Abel will continue to increase exposure to tech stocks. Investors will scrutinize this report to determine whether Berkshire will accelerate cash deployment or maintain a defensive stance in the post-Buffett era.$BTC Positive news: Spot ETF ends six consecutive days of outflows, single-day net inflow about 240 million
On Thursday, the US spot BTC ETF was still experiencing a net outflow of about 430 million USD
On November 6th Eastern Time, it turned into a net inflow of about 240 million USD, breaking the six-day consecutive outflow
BlackRock's IBIT led with a single-day increase of about 112 million
Fidelity's FBTC about +61.64 million, total assets under management about 135.4 billion USD, approximately 6.73% of BTC market cap (SoSoValue/PANews)
Current price about 75,905, 24h +0.13%, volume about 534 million
The low point at 74,888 has risen for a while, institutional side changed from withdrawing to replenishing.
#BTC现货ETF年内累计净流出约4.16亿美元 Just discussed the reopening of the strait, and the US military has launched another strike against Iran. For crude oil traders, the most annoying news is this: negotiations have not stopped, and the risks have not been withdrawn.
Now the words "reopening" are understood differently by different people. Some expect a return to normal navigation, some are concerned about how sanctions and blockades will be handled, and others debate who will arrange the shipping lanes and who will approve the passage conditions. As long as these issues are not agreed upon, a message of reopening is hard to directly equate with a supply recovery.
I especially dislike interpreting "both sides are still negotiating" as the situation being under control. Military actions continuing during negotiations indicate that all parties are still trying to change each other's choices, and whether subsequent commitments can be fulfilled needs to be reassessed.
This makes oil prices very awkward: peace expectations emerge, risk premiums can quickly fall; new strikes occur, and the market has to add back tail risks. If the directional judgment is a bit slow, it is easy to be pulled back and forth by both sides.
Rather than guessing the tone of the next statement, I want to see sustained actual navigation and clear responses from all parties to the same set of arrangements. Currently, we are still in a phase of negotiating while fighting, and treating any drop as the end of risk may cause positions to bear too much uncertainty.
#美军再度打击伊朗，霍尔木兹海峡重开仍存分歧 DGB, ZIL, and RVN all have a cap of 21 billion, but the potential of these three veteran public chains varies greatly.
DGB uses multi-algorithm PoW, focusing on transfer security, and has operated steadily for years; ZIL experienced a security incident, abandoned its independent layer one, and transitioned to an Ethereum institutional layer two; RVN is a pure PoW chain, specifically designed for issuing on-chain assets, with tokens burned upon asset issuance.
DGB's advantages are multi-hash algorithm defense and long-term stability; ZIL's advantage is shifting to a compliant institutional narrative, though the architecture control remains with the team; RVN's advantage is a fair launch with no pre-mining, and asset minting inherently causes deflation.
Having the same total supply is just superficial; whether the rules can be changed and if the track has real demand are the core factors that create the gap.The sentiment index dropped by 3 points compared to yesterday. I want to clarify this: the sentiment scale is not the same as the price decline. When the index falls to 25, BTC's 24-hour price change is -0.07%; the two cannot be directly equated.
📌 Newcomers often mistake "extreme fear" for low risk, but I disagree. Liquidation depends on margin and price changes, not sentiment labels. If leverage is too high, even short-term fluctuations can trigger liquidation. I treat sentiment as background and calculate position risk separately.Seeing this, what comes to my mind is: single-point recognition VS sector resonance. According to SoSoValue data, on November 6 Eastern Time, the ZEC spot ETF had a net inflow of $1.7718 million, all from the Zcash ETF (ZCSH); as of the time of writing, the historical cumulative net inflow is $209 million, with a total net asset value of $772 million.
I tend to see this as a positive at the product level, not yet enough to add points to the entire privacy sector. Money has indeed come in, which carries more weight than just verbally expressing optimism; but only ZCSH recorded a net inflow, indicating that this new capital is concentrated, and the attractiveness of a single product cannot be directly equated with sector consensus.
Putting the two numbers together: $1.7718 million is the new inflow on that day, $772 million is the net asset value, and the former does not equal the increase in the latter. My understanding is that this news can answer "Is there a net subscription?" but cannot answer "Has privacy demand expanded?" If capital recognition does not correspond to usage demand, then I guess its support for the sector narrative will be discounted.
I also tend to get excited when I see "net inflow," but this time I prefer to separate product recognition from sector recognition. Which side do you choose: is the real money obtained by a single ETF enough to add points to the privacy sector, or do you need to see evidence of actual usage demand first? Everyone sees hoarding coins and often calls it bullish news. According to Ai Auntie's monitoring, a certain address has accumulated about 740,000 LINK and 3,046.68 ETH in the past five days, investing approximately 15.15 million USD.
On the other hand, I am more cautious about the crowding effect brought by such news: an increase in holdings by a single address does not represent overall demand; if onlookers follow the trend, past buying pressure could turn into current emotional fuel. This is my speculation. Do you think this hoarding is enough to prove a strengthening demand? Opposing views are welcome to debate.$BTC Bullish Top CountdownPosition Notes: Hedging can buffer but not immunize (￣▽￣)"
Brother Maji's perpetual portfolio has a total position of $61,156,700, with three cross-asset hedges, each with independent profit and loss. BTC is a 40x full-position short, holding 249.9 coins, opened at 78,104.1, with an unrealized profit of 519,300, also receiving positive funding fees, with a high liquidation price and a thick safety cushion. ETH is a 25x full-position long, holding 9,823.81 coins, opened at 2,427.28, with an unrealized loss of 1,876,200, continuously paying funding fees. HYPE is a 5x full-position short, holding 259,600 coins, with an unrealized loss of 1,286,100, but receiving large funding fees.
The strategy is clear: use the profits from the BTC short to offset the losses from the other two positions, constituting a hedging layout. Currently, the BTC short is profitable, while ETH and HYPE are still dragging down overall returns. All positions are still some distance from liquidation points, so there is no immediate risk of forced liquidation; however, if the market rallies unilaterally, this hedged portfolio will face greater pressure.
Conclusion: Hedging can buffer but does not mean immunity. When looking at profit and loss divergence, one must also consider funding fees and unilateral risk. $BTC $ETH #美中期选举后AI监管分歧引发行情波动 Whale Fully Short Positions｜Why Stay Calm and Unmoved?
The core reasons are clear at a glance:
First, leverage is kept very low, uniformly using only 5x, with liquidation points extremely far from the current market price. Even if there is a strong rebound, it is difficult to hit the liquidation line directly;
Second, all three short positions are currently in floating profit, while continuously collecting high funding fees, which is equivalent to taking floating profits on one side and passively receiving subsidies on the other, continuously thickening the safety cushion;
📊 Position Details
✅ BTC｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -2027.95 BTC, position value 150 million U
Entry price: 77987.9, margin: 30.7636 million U
Unrealized profit: +4.3376 million U, funding fee income +3.2512 million U, liquidation price 127839.04
✅ ETH｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -33,600 ETH, position value 75.3911 million U
Entry price: 2375.08, margin: 15.0782 million U
Unrealized profit: +4.4751 million U, funding fee income +3.4762 million U, liquidation price 5361.55
✅ SOL｜Short, 5X Full Position
Position: -242,200 SOL, position value 21.7759 million U
Entry price: 91.4221, margin: 4.3552 million U To pour some cold water first, I don't take ZEC leading the gains as a sign of privacy sector recovery. As of 11:00 Beijing time, among Hyperliquid's open perpetual contracts with a 24-hour trading volume exceeding $20 million, ZEC leads with a 2.63% increase, while XMR fell by 1.77%. I am more cautious about interpreting this ranking as a sector-wide positive.
There are two reasons: assets under the same privacy narrative are moving in opposite directions, so at least this data does not support the idea of collective capital chasing; the volume threshold filters for trading activity, not new buying demand, so the buzz cannot be directly taken as the driving force behind the price rise.
I also admit that the bulls might be right. If similar assets strengthen simultaneously and the momentum continues, I will change my view. For now, I am focusing on correlation and not assigning a big story to a single daily ranking.Key data at a glance: Nonfarm payrolls +165,000, unemployment rate down to 4.1%, average hourly earnings +0.4% month-over-month, +3.1% year-over-year, with the previous two months revised up by a total of 84,000. The average monthly increase over the past three months is about 137,000, significantly better than the market's prior expectations of a "soft landing or even weakening" in employment. Professional and business services, healthcare, transportation and warehousing, and manufacturing all contributed, indicating an improvement in employment breadth.
After the data release, traders quickly adjusted pricing. According to multiple reports and CME-related tools, the probability of a 25bp rate hike in December jumped from about 67%-75% before the data to 77% or even higher (at times approaching 80%-85%). The 2-year US Treasury yield rose noticeably, the 10-year yield also increased, the US dollar gained support, while gold retreated. This aligns with the current interest rate range still at 3.75%-4.00% and inflation not yet fully back to target—the stronger the employment resilience, the more reason the Fed has to keep the "precautionary" rate hike for December.
Implications for trading:
US Dollar and US Treasuries: The logic favoring short-term rate-sensitive assets to be long USD and short bonds is reinforced; watch whether the US Dollar Index holds key levels.
Risk Assets: US stocks and cryptocurrencies face short-term pressure from tightening liquidity expectations, especially high-valuation sectors are more sensitive. If rate hike expectations extend further into Q1 2027, risk appetite may continue to be suppressed.
Gold and Commodities: Rising real interest rate expectations are usually unfavorable for gold; watch for deeper pullbacks. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 The most twisted part of this wave is on-chain: $XRP dropped to 1.1512 this morning, an 11-week low. I checked 100 daily candles, and it hasn't been this low since August 21.
Let's lay out the timeline first: On November 4, it surged to 1.3421 (at that time, the call was "hold above 1.28 to unlock upside"), then 1.30 and 1.20 were lost step by step, a 14.2% drop from the high. Analyst Ali Martinez said it was a false breakout — that wave was a pump-and-dump.
But on-chain data is moving in the opposite direction. He mentioned that over 13 million XRP were withdrawn from exchanges within a week, and whale holdings increased by 60 million XRP in a week; regarding ETFs, according to SoSoValue data, there was zero net inflow from Tuesday to Thursday this week. Money is exiting, and buyers are not stepping in.
Three numbers I verified myself: perpetual 24-hour volume is $291 million, 4.2 times the spot volume of $69.31 million; funding rate dropped from a long-term 0.01%/8h (longs paying) to only 0.0004% this morning; perpetual open interest fell 6.95% over 36 hours. Sellers account for 51.8% of active trades.
This isn't new short selling pressure; it's longs withdrawing themselves, plus no one stepping in. As long as the ETF doesn't move for a day, the exit is blocked.
Do you think 1.15 is the bottom for this round, or will we have to look at 1.10 if the ETF stays cold for two more weeks? According to data released by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics on November 6, nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000 in October, far exceeding the market expectation of about 65,000 (some surveys at 59,000), and significantly higher than the average monthly level of 48,000 over the past 12 months. The unemployment rate fell from 4.2% to 4.1%, and the labor force participation rate slightly rose to 61.9%. Average hourly earnings rose 0.4% month-over-month to $38, with a year-over-year growth rate of 3.1%, indicating a similarly strong wage growth.
More importantly, the revised data: August and September were revised upward by a total of 84,000 (August revised up to 186,000, September revised up to 60,000), raising the average monthly job gains over the past three months to about 137,000, clearly above the previously feared weak levels in the market. The industry distribution was also relatively balanced, with professional and business services adding 70,000 jobs (far above the industry's average monthly 15,000 over the past 12 months), healthcare adding about 42,000, transportation and warehousing about 25,000, and manufacturing also recording a positive growth of 19,000, no longer heavily reliant on a single industry.
After the data release, the CME FedWatch tool showed that the market's probability of a 25 basis point rate hike at the Federal Reserve's December meeting quickly rose to about 77%-85% (previously mostly around 67%-75%). The current federal funds target rate range remains at 3.75%-4.00%, with the October meeting having chosen to hold steady. #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 $**Nonfarm payrolls blew past expectations (October added 165,000 jobs, expected about 65,000; unemployment rate 4.1%) → December rate hike bets rose from ~75% to ~80% → High-valuation storage/AI hardware first cut valuations, SNDK on 11/5 dropped -22.26% to 806.43, rebounded on 11/6 closing at 835.06, after-hours 841.4, but the intraday 816–912 spike is a typical “oversold rebound + short covering,” not a trend reversal.**
Breaking down several key points:
- **$700 is not a random shout**: SNDK fell from ~1909 in September and 2354 in June highs; two years ago (end of 2025) it was only $237. This round is an “AI+NAND supercycle” pricing commodity stocks like Nvidia. Nonfarm + rate hikes + AI regulation (ASI ban bill) + 11/19 1-for-8 split are all bubble-squeezing catalysts. Morgan Stanley’s bearish scenario is 350, independent DCF model 372, indicating that around $700 is actually a neutral-to-bullish target still within cyclical stock valuation, not an exaggerated bearish view.
- **The spike baiting logic holds**: On 11/6 pre-market rose over 10%, intraday hit 912, but closed below 900, volume 17.7M shares (turnover 12.48%). Such a long upper wick = trapped holders escaping + short-term funds chasing rebound; moving averages (5-day/10-day) are all overhead, bearish alignment intact.
- **Stock split is not a positive**: After 1-for-8 split, price becomes ~104 (based on 835), lowering retail threshold and increasing volatility, but **does not change market cap, rate hike pricing, or NAND cycle**. Many mistake the split as positive, which is exactly the environment shorts like.
- **How to wait for real signals**:
1. Daily close stabilizes above 900–920 with volume continuation (not just a wick);
2. December FOMC expectations retreat (nonfarm revisions down / inflation weakens / rate hike probability drops below 50%);
3. NAND spot prices, data center SSD orders, Micron/WDC/SK Hynix not breaking down synchronously;
4. Post-split (after 11/19) no new lows, then talk of “bubble fully squeezed.”
**Don’t bottom fish, test with small positions, set stop losses.** If it really goes near 700, first watch 803.97 (11/5 low) for a second test, then 650–700 as the “reasonable cyclical anchor”; before signals, every rebound is just reducing trapped positions. $SNDK $BTC Philadelphia Semiconductor rebounded 4.2% on Friday, while BTC was almost flat in the same period: −0.03%.
Looking at the week, the picture is stranger:
· Philadelphia Semiconductor −12% (worst week since April 2025)
· Nasdaq 100 −4.9%
· BTC −1.3%
· Gold +4.6%
Two observations:
1) BTC didn’t follow the tech stocks down, nor did it follow them up. It dropped from 81,200 to 74,888 during the week, a volatility of about 8%, but the weekly line only shows −1.3% — the weekly figure hides the process.
2) It also didn’t act as a safe haven asset. This week, the safe-haven money went to gold, not “digital gold.”
The next key event is the US October CPI on November 10 Beijing time: Nonfarm payrolls have already pushed up the bets for a December rate hike, and if CPI heats up again, the week’s low of 74,888 will be the first test.
No drop with the drop, no rise with the rise — this isn’t an independent market, it means no one is in a hurry to buy.
Not investment advice | Data: OKX market (from last Friday’s US stock close to this Friday’s close), US stock index data from TheStreet/Nasdaq #Tech stocks rebound after US stock plunge, Nasdaq weekly still down about 3.4% $LINK
This morning I saw "15.15 million spent in five days to stockpile 740,000 LINK," and my first reaction was that someone was secretly building a position. Breaking it down at the current price: 740,000 LINK is about 7.99 million, 3,046 ETH is about 6.83 million, totaling 14.82 million, the accounts add up, averaging less than 3 million per day.
But LINK moved from 10.787 to 10.795 in the past 24 hours, up 0.07%, never touching the high point of 11.04; another address withdrew 57,000 coins from Binance in 18 hours, which is only about 610,000.
Perpetual positions are 23.28 million, with a discount of 6.5 basis points, ±1% order book shows 160,000 buy and 170,000 sell, so thin you can see the bottom. The money is real, but the volume is not; I categorize it as a slow variable.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $SOL
I don't think SOL consolidating around 90 is a buildup. In 24 hours, it opened at 89.53 and reached 90, with a high of 91.6 and a low of 88.96, a fluctuation of less than three points; 1H volume dropped from 320,000 contracts at midnight to 96,000 now, and only 70,000 contracts left at 9 AM.
The order book ±1% shows 3.51 million buy orders and 3 million sell orders, with buy orders significantly thicker, but perpetual contracts still discount spot by 7.8 basis points, and the fee rate at 0.01% is exactly the benchmark, with no premium at all.
Open interest is 3.5 million contracts, 315 million, with no increase in a day. Orders are holding, but no money is coming in. For the 90 level, I look at volume, not price; if volume doesn't return to 200,000 contracts, don't rush to chase.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 Looking at this data feels like watching a hotpot gathering: the dishes haven't all arrived yet, but the meal tickets on the table have already decreased by a stack. The coldest joke in the crypto world is sometimes a minus sign following “ammunition is sufficient.” 😂
DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $292.5 billion, down $1.387 billion from one day ago and down $5.767 billion from one week ago. I'm cautious: this is somewhat bearish for expectations of incremental funds, but it's not a verdict on the market yet. Stablecoins represent potential buying power within the market; when supply contracts, the imagination space for capital absorption must be discounted; however, circulating supply does not equal buy or sell orders. Based on this number alone, we can't tell where the funds have gone, nor can we directly infer a price drop.
What I care about next is whether the volume contraction will continue, rather than shouting direction based on a single week's data. Which side are you on: is this an alarm of capital retreat, or should we watch a few more periods of volatility? Keep eating hotpot, or count the meal tickets first? CORE is a small-cap altcoin without an industry-standard whale threshold (unlike BTC which is fixed at ≥1000 BTC, or ETH commonly at ≥10000 ETH). Generally, within the community, there are two commonly used thresholds for tracking CORE whales (Nansen / Lookonchain): 1. CORE Mega Whales (capable of impacting the market): ≥1,000,000 CORE 2. Large holders/Shark tier: 100,000 to 1,000,000 CORE Core characteristics (the biggest difference from BTC and ETH) 1. Extremely high concentration of holdings The top wallets include: Core DAO treasury, team/investor lockup contracts, staking contracts, and exchange cold wallets. The top 10 addresses hold a very high proportion of the circulating supply, which is the fundamental reason why CORE’s volatility is much greater than BTC/ETH. 2. No fixed official number - The ≥1,000,000 CORE tier: the real-time number of addresses is usually in the dozens (dynamic, changing with unlocking, staking, and transfers) - The ≥100,000 CORE (large holders): a few hundred addresses Many addresses are staking contracts, foundation treasury, or exchange reserves, not individual large holders. The number of independent mega whales who can freely sell and actively trade is much smaller than the number of addresses. 3. Data pain points: CORE’s on-chain statistics are not as mature as BTC or ETH. Santiment and Glassnode do not provide stable whale-specific statistics like they do for Bitcoin and Ethereum; data can only be found on Core ScanMainstream on-chain analysis (Santiment) defines addresses holding ≥1,000 BTC as BTC whales - latest statistics: 2,044 addresses ≥ 1,000 BTC, holding about 7.17 million BTC in total, accounting for nearly 36% of circulating supply. However! Addresses ≠ Genuine and independent individuals/institutions, which is the easiest pitfall: Includes cold exchange wallets, ETF custody addresses, platform reserve wallets, not all large individual users. For example, an exchange may have several such whale addresses, which actually belong to the same institution. More detailed layering (another sub-caliber) - Sharks: 1,000–5,000 BTC - Whales: 5,000–10,000 BTC (narrow sense) ≈ over 100 addresses - Humpback whales (super whales): > 10,000 BTC, fewer than 100 addresses. This includes MicroStrategy, the US government, early tycoons, and large custodians. Two key misconceptions: 1. It's impossible to know the real "number of whales": one person can control dozens of wallets; A single wallet could also be the money of many users (exchanges), and on-chain you can only count addresses, making it hard to distinguish the entities behind them. 2. Different platforms have different entry barriers: Some media outlets are a bit more lenient, calling ≥100 BTC 'big holder,' and the number of addresses increases to nearly 20,000, so they shouldn't be confused. In short, summarize by the most commonly used in the circle: 1