Orbit Post Sitemap
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: 1Why does Musk mention Dogecoin less and less? It's not that he loves it less, but his identity has changed.
In 2021, a single word "Doge" from him could ignite the crypto community; at that time, his net worth was about $185 billion. By November 2026, his net worth was about $865 billion, peaking over a trillion. His wealth increased nearly fivefold, and most of it is not cash but equity in SpaceX and Tesla. A slight shake in stock prices can evaporate hundreds of billions of dollars of his net worth in a day.
He also spent at least $445 million supporting the Republican Party, but the midterm elections ended in a crushing defeat for the Republicans, with the Democrats taking control of Congress. Going forward, corporate contracts, government relations, and political activities may all be scrutinized more closely.
So now, Musk's business empire, publicly traded companies, government contracts, and political connections are all intertwined. The risks and costs of openly endorsing DOGE are completely different from back then.
Back then, a single word from him could make Dogecoin surge; now he no longer needs DOGE to prove his influence. Whether he will mention it frequently in the future depends solely on him. $DOGE #软银重金押注OpenAI，Q2财报能否交出亮眼成绩？ SoftBank Q2 Earnings Preview: Heavy Bet on OpenAI, Is This an Exam or a Gamble?
On November 10 at 15:30 (Japan Time), SoftBank will announce its financial results for April to September, with several key points:
1⃣ Profit ≈ Portfolio Valuation
Q1 net profit mainly came from investment gains (about ¥1.8 trillion, mainly from Intel and ByteDance), essentially a book valuation, highly volatile and hard to predict. The market consensus expects a slight loss per share this quarter.
2⃣ Leverage Increasing
Cumulative investment in OpenAI is about $64.6 billion (around 13% equity), and a record $11 billion junk bond was issued with a 9.75% coupon. The 5-year CDS once rose to 432 basis points, the highest since 2022.
3⃣ Weak Signals from OpenAI
The fundraising target dropped from $30 billion to about $20 billion, with a valuation target lowered to $1.25 trillion; SB Energy's IPO has also been delayed. But $1.25 trillion is still higher than the previous $852 billion valuation, so whether there is still a paper gain depends on SoftBank's valuation method.
📌 My View:
• Earnings positives: impressive book gains + clear financing arrangements
• Earnings negatives: valuation downgrade, additional commitments, rising debt ratio
The stock price has fallen significantly from its high, with negatives partly priced in, but volatility may be amplified. I tend to wait for the earnings report and management's comments on financing before making a judgment.
This is my personal analysis; what do you think? Evaluation of Babylon Babylon focuses on Bitcoin staking (BTC Staking). Overseas evaluations are clearly divided into bullish supporters and cautious skeptics: ✅ Positive evaluations (institutions, crypto-native communities) 1. High recognition for innovation in the sector Many overseas developers and crypto research institutions believe it solves the pain point that Bitcoin itself cannot be staked and cannot capture staking yields, turning BTC into an interest-bearing asset; relying on Bitcoin's security, it differs from ordinary public chain staking and is considered to have a stronger security foundation. 2. Capital endorsement adds value Multiple well-known overseas VCs have invested; on Twitter (X), DC, and crypto research platforms, many analysts regard it as a leading project in the BTCFi sector and are optimistic about the narrative of RWA and BTC liquidity ecosystems. 3. Synergy with the Cosmos ecosystem The Cosmos community generally supports it, believing Babylon can bring a large amount of BTC assets to the Cosmos ecosystem, enhancing the overall asset scale and liquidity of the ecosystem. ⚠️ Negative/Cautious evaluations (researchers, conservative miners, security advocates) 1. Security and trust risks are the biggest controversy Many Bitcoin maximalists oppose it: the core of Bitcoin itself is "trustless and no coin lock-up"; Babylon's staking contracts, custody/validation layers introduce new trust assumptions and smart contract risks, and if there is a contract vulnerability, BTC could be stolen. Many veteran BTC players are unwilling to put native B 💻 I'll break this down according to code review: The input is based on Ai Auntie's monitoring, showing that a certain address has accumulated about 740,000 LINK and 3,046.68 ETH over the past five days, with a total investment of approximately $15.15 million. My judgment: this set of data is more suitable for inclusion in address observation records and not appropriate for comparing which of the two assets is more favored.
There are two logical bugs: the quantities are not in a unified measurement unit, so you can't directly compare the allocation weight; the total investment also doesn't break down the individual costs, making it impossible to reconstruct the capital allocation. Moreover, with only one address, upgrading this to a sector judgment is like announcing a launch based on a single test case, and I can't sign off on that.
If it were me, I would first supplement the invested amounts for each asset, then observe subsequent position changes. Only if there is continuous accumulation would I further study the motivation. This is my reasoning. Please help me review: to determine whether this address leans more toward LINK or ETH, would you prioritize supplementing cost data or historical holdings? Where is the flaw in my logic?Non-farm payrolls hit 165,000, directly off the charts, yet the Dow Jones softened by 237 points, with all the money flowing into chips. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index surged 4.21%, AMD rose 11%, COHERENT jumped 13 points, and optical communication and chips went crazy.
The crypto circle doesn't even have the strength to catch a breath.
Nearly $300 million in liquidations across the entire network in 24 hours, with long positions accounting for 80%, all buried chasing the rebound.
$XRP dropped over 4 points; the positive news from the OCC license lasted only two days before fading, the old story no longer works.
$DOGE barely turned green, up less than 0.3%, no matter how much noise Musk makes, it can't drive this asset.
$BNB, on the other hand, is the toughest in the market, barely moving during this drop; having no story to tell has ironically become its advantage.
The A-shares market is similarly split: Zhongwei Company was swept by major players for 3.1 billion yuan in a week, rising nearly 19%, while Zhongji Xuchuang in optical modules was hammered for 3.4 billion yuan, falling nearly 19%.
The money hasn't disappeared; it just moved from one table to another. Wherever there's a breather, that side gets hit.$ONDO
USDY has started continuous pricing, so why can't this directly lead to a token price increase?
Ondo announced on November 3rd the launch of USDY continuous pricing, supporting intraday yield realization. This improves the product usage experience and may enhance capital turnover and integration convenience.
There still needs to be a clear connection between product asset growth and the governance token's value through explicit fee, rights, and value distribution mechanisms. Directly converting product benefits into token profit expectations risks skipping the most critical step.
If new integrations bring sustainable net subscriptions and a clear token value capture mechanism emerges, I would raise my evaluation; if the scale increase mainly comes from subsidies or the yield remains confined to the product level, token premium should be approached more cautiously.Leverage gets the blame, but the arithmetic that actually drains a futures account is quieter and far more mechanical. A 100x position on $BTC does not survive a 1% move against it; once maintenance margin of roughly 0.4%–0.5% and trading fees are counted, liquidation arrives near a 0.5% decline. At 20x, the real buffer is closer to 4.5%, not the 5% the multiple implies. The tolerance is always thinner than the headline number. Then there is turnover. Size a position so that 10x leverage on 10% The Middle East card, the political wind has been quietly shifting these past two days. The U.S. Secretary of State's first trip abroad after the midterm election loss was to discuss diplomacy, Senator Sanders publicly called on the new Congress to cut funding for the war against Iran, and even the Republican Party's blow in this election is attributed by many to the war driving up oil prices.
Many people instinctively think "war = safe haven = bullish for gold and $BTC," but in the past two years, it has often been the opposite: war pushes up oil prices, oil prices feed inflation, inflation forces the Fed to continue tightening, and in the end, gold and Bitcoin both get hit. So what really matters is not where the missiles land, but where oil prices and U.S. Treasury yields are headed.
Of course, Kyiv experienced another round of explosions last night; the de-escalation is just a trend for now, far from settled. This situation is still a tug of war, so don't rush to bet on either side. Nonfarm Payroll Night Review: The data exploded, but the market didn't? (๑•́ ₃ •̀๑)
Last night, nonfarm payroll was 16.5 million, far exceeding expectations, and the probability of a rate hike in December jumped by 10%. My first reaction: BTC should go to 74000, ETH should go to 2100, there should be a sharp plunge at least, right? But the market stayed calm as if nothing happened (￣▽￣)*
BTC dropped to a low of 74800, exactly the previous correction low. This level is interesting; it might not break in the short term. So I plan to close short positions around 75000 and then lightly try a short-term long. Not stubborn, just respecting the market: if it should fall, it won't fall yet, so don't chase shorts (๑•̀ㅂ•́)و✧
Of course, the market always surprises those who don't understand. Plans are plans, stop losses are still necessary. This is just a personal review, not advice~ (｡•̀ᴗ-)✧
$BTC $ETH
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 What should be remembered most this week is not which candlestick, but the non-farm payroll report. October added over 160,000 jobs, roughly three times the expectation, unemployment rate continued to decline, and hourly wages rose — this is a solid report that slaps the "rate cut bull" narrative in the face.
Once the data was released, the market's bet on a December rate hike jumped directly from over 60% to around 80%, gold prices dropped more than thirty dollars in response, and the 10-year US Treasury yield pushed back up. Yet on the same day, the US stock market rebounded from oversold levels, showing signs of "bad news already priced in."
This kind of "rising against strong data" market behavior is historically rented time nine times out of ten. Don't fight the fundamentals, and especially don't go against the Federal Reserve. With hard data pressing down, the shelf life of this rebound won't be very long. Someone asked again in the background: $BTC dropped from eighty thousand to just over seventy-five thousand, is it the bottom to buy now? I don't look at sentiment, I look at structure.
Hold on to two data points tightly. First, the perpetual funding rate is still mildly positive, nowhere near the level of extreme short squeeze or deeply negative rates — the real bottom often comes when shorts are squeezed out and funding rates turn deeply negative, which is far from now. Second, the main liquidations these days are longs, not shorts, indicating the deleveraging meat grinder hasn't stopped yet.
A low-volume rebound means anyone rushing in can easily get stuck halfway up the mountain. Oversold doesn't mean bottomed; oversold just means it dropped a bit too fast earlier. If you want to bottom-fish, first ask yourself what you will use to withstand a second dip. Once the non-farm payrolls were released, the market's previous hopes for a rate cut were immediately dashed. Employment data significantly exceeded expectations, wages did not stabilize, and the labor market showed strong resilience. Funds quickly raised bets on a December rate hike, U.S. Treasury yields surged, and the dollar strengthened.
The reasoning is simple: with a hot job market, the Federal Reserve has no pressure to ease monetary policy hastily; instead, it has the confidence to continue controlling inflation, which will prolong the duration of high interest rates. For U.S. tech growth stocks, valuation pressure has returned, which explains the sharp drop earlier and why the subsequent rebound was merely short covering, not a trend reversal.
This macroeconomic trend directly impacts Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a high-risk asset; with rising interest rate expectations and higher leverage funding costs, capital is more inclined to hold risk-free assets like U.S. Treasuries, making the market prone to pressure. Recently, BTC spot ETFs have continued to see outflows, institutional funds are inherently cautious, and combined with rate hike expectations, it is difficult for the market to sustain a strong rally.
Going forward, the focus should be on CPI inflation data, as this is the ultimate basis for the Federal Reserve's decisions. Currently, it is just an expectation game, and volatility will increase. Do not chase rebounds with heavy positions; manage your exposure and wait for the macroeconomic dust to settle before taking action. The waterfall was not just a leverage event. Behind the cascade in $BTC, $ETH and $SOL sits a quieter story: large holders are leaving while retail bulls hold the line, and the policy backdrop is doing as much damage as forced liquidations. Start with flows. More than 2,000 BTC were withdrawn on a net basis. Large $ETH investors pulled back, with net outflows of 35,900 coins. $SOL saw close to 100,000 tokens leave on a net basis, leaving heavy selling pressure. These are not random rotations. Th"The market can only close positions after liquidation"—this detail is quite striking, but let me pour some cold water first: I don't think there's enough evidence to directly be bearish on the entire Solana perpetuals sector because of this. Percolator disclosed two fixes in v2.2, one of which involves liquidity providers being unable to initiate exits after the vault is paused. What concerns me more is whether the market will amplify a problem from one platform into an issue for the entire sector.
I have two reasons. When the market state after liquidation has issues, the questions should be about the trigger conditions and the scope of impact; the information provided doesn't explain these, so we shouldn't assume that all liquidations will get stuck. Secondly, problems with a platform's specific mechanism cannot be directly attributed to the underlying chain. My guess is, if the discussion boils down to "another problem on Solana," then sentiment might be overriding technical judgment. But conversely, disclosing fixes doesn't automatically prove the platform is reliable.
I also admit that the bearish view might be correct. If subsequent evidence shows that this kind of state transition problem recurs repeatedly or appears in similar mechanisms across multiple platforms, I would shift to a more cautious stance. I tend to look for risks first but don't want to use missing information to fabricate bearish arguments. Regarding this fix, are you bullish or bearish? Is your reasoning based on trusting the platform's error correction, or are you worried there are still mechanism gaps? Tell me what you most want to verify.Non-farm payrolls blew past expectations, the Dow dropped 237 points, but chip stocks surged wildly, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumping 4.2% and AMD rising over 11%. The money hasn't left the market; it just scrambled out of rate-sensitive sectors and dove headfirst into chips and optical communications.
The crypto world paints a completely different picture.
$BTC is barely holding around 77,000, seemingly stable, but in reality, spot ETFs have seen a net outflow of $1.1 billion over the past seven days, led by BlackRock redemptions, with no new inflows returning.
$SOL is even worse off; the Lujiazui advertisement was directly halted by the central bank, and offline events were cut off before they even started. The regulatory stance is crystal clear.
Interestingly, in the A-share market, semiconductor equipment company Zhongwei was bought up by major players for 3.1 billion yuan in one week, rising nearly 19%, while in the same week, optical module company Zhongji Xuchuang was sold off for 3.4 billion yuan, dropping nearly 19%. The same market, the same week—some are lifted to the sky, others are pressed to the ground.
Money is jumping back and forth between these pools; wherever it catches a breath, that side gets hit.To be honest, this news reminds me of the time when the whole screen was shouting "demand has no limit." I used to easily mistake industry shortages for promising positions, but later I realized there are several accounting layers in between.
Tom Lee, Chairman of Bitmine, said in an interview with CNBC that the AI investment boom is far from over, and increased Token usage may tighten computing power again, driving up related prices. He also mentioned that U.S. states and local communities will advance investments according to their own conditions and strengthen AI safety regulations.
I think this is more like a reminder of cost pressures, not a free pass for the entire AI sector. In my understanding, if computing power prices rise, application-side profits may be squeezed first; if local conditions limit construction, new supply may not keep up in time. Hot demand does not mean everyone benefits.
Right now, I stick to two rules: don’t use industry narratives to calculate specific targets, and don’t temporarily leverage based on a single interview. Have you ever fallen into the trap of "industry good news equals good positions"? Would you be willing to share a rule to avoid chasing hype?This time, the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission is not targeting cryptocurrencies, but the names.
A consultation summary has been issued, proposing amendments to the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance. Unauthorized entities will no longer be allowed to use terms like crypto, digital asset, token, virtual asset, and even exchange, market, trading platform have been explicitly mentioned.
In the virtual asset industry, names have never been just names. When a platform calls itself a crypto exchange, users' first reaction is that it is regulated by some authority. In reality, it might be registered in the Cayman Islands or Seychelles; there is regulation, but it has nothing to do with the Hong Kong SFC. The name borrows the legitimacy of a license, but the risk remains with the users.
Essentially, this move brings identity representation under regulation: who can claim to be regulated will be determined by licensing, not by the wording on the official website.
The draft will be submitted to the Legislative Council, and the regulations will only take effect six months after enactment. This half-year period serves as both a buffer and a filter. Changing the name is cheap, obtaining a license is expensive, so those who remain in the end are mostly the ones who can comply.
In the short term, there is almost no impact on holdings; $BTC will not fall because of this, $ETH will not rise because of this, and market depth is not under the SFC's control. But the terminology will spill over and be noticed elsewhere. In the future, when opening an unfamiliar platform, if it dares not call itself an exchange, that in itself is information.My take on $RKLB ahead of Q3 (Nov 9): revenue likely lands in the $250–265M guide, but GAAP EPS looks tight around -$0.07 to -$0.08.
The real story: Neutron (pushed to 2027) and the Iridium deal. The stock will likely move on guidance, not the print.
Not financial advice.#Pratinjau Laporan Keuangan RocketLab: Bagaimana Kemajuan Roket Neutron? In the last 4 quarters, even though Nvidia's earnings reports and EPS exceeded expectations, the stock price closed lower on the first trading day after the earnings release, forming a very typical phenomenon of "buying on expectations and selling on facts".Everyone is waiting for institutions to take over.
This year, institutions are net sellers.
The US batch of crypto-buying funds brought in $25.6 billion this year but took out $26.1 billion.
For the first time in three years, the full-year account is negative.
I originally thought it was whales running away.
But it’s not.
Clients are withdrawing money; the funds are just selling accordingly. When someone leaves, they have to sell coins, no choice at all.
Why are clients withdrawing?
The math doesn’t add up.
First, there’s interest outside.
The US 10-year Treasury yields 4.86%, money just sits and earns interest, Bitcoin earns nothing.
Second, there are losses inside.
This group’s average cost is 81,000, now at 76,000.
Third, it’s year-end.
Institutions have to report results. Cut losses to make reports look better. Take profits to give clients an explanation.
Half of the redemptions in these two months are for closing accounts, not watching the market.
If it were you, would you stay?
It’s not that anyone changed their mind, the math just doesn’t work.
So stop fixating on 75,000.
This group only watches one line: 81,000.
If it stands above that, the money will come back on its own.
If it doesn’t, no matter how good the story, no one will take over.Strong non-farm payrolls landed, but the crypto market didn't follow the negative news to crash; Bitcoin held the 75,000 support and is consolidating sideways.
The preemptive drop plus long liquidations released pressure, allowing the negative news to be priced in. However, the funding situation is not optimistic, with continuous ETF outflows. For now, this can only be defined as a consolidation recovery, not yet a reversal.
Altcoins are each following their own themes, with very low risk appetite. In this kind of market, is everyone preparing to buy the dip or continuing to wait for clearer direction?
$BTC The flatter the market, the more I want to give newcomers a lesson: holding a position also has a cost. At 10 AM Beijing time, Hyperliquid perpetual contract public market shows BTC at $76,055, down 0.07% in 24 hours, funding rate at 0.0013% per hour; the Fear & Greed Index is 25, indicating extreme fear.
📌 I think, at this moment, understanding the funding rate is more important than guessing the direction. A positive funding rate means longs pay shorts; the fee is calculated based on the notional value of the position, not the margin. If the rate stays the same, my rough calculation for holding 24 hours results in a cumulative rate of 0.0312%. The higher the leverage, the larger the fee proportion relative to the margin; a sideways price movement does not mean no cost to holding a position.
Newcomers often misunderstand "low rate" as "can hold indefinitely" and treat the Fear & Greed Index as a rebound signal. One is a cost, the other is sentiment; neither can replace directional judgment. I first calculate the holding cost before discussing how long one can wait. #BerkshireQ3CashOutlook #伯克希尔巨额现金储备，财报将披露最新动向
Regarding Berkshire's earnings report, what I most want to see is not "how much cash is hoarded," but rather: why hasn't this money been invested yet?
Having a lot of cash doesn't necessarily mean a bearish outlook; but if operations are still generating cash, yet buybacks and new investments are not active, it raises the question: is it because there are no good businesses, or are good businesses priced too high?
I will focus on three things: the quality of operating profits, insurance underwriting performance, and net stock purchases and buybacks. Investment income is affected by market price fluctuations and cannot be directly regarded as a change in operating capability.
For me, the greatest reference value of this earnings report is not guessing what Buffett will buy next, but observing how Berkshire balances price, returns, and the cost of waiting.
The market has quotes every day, but not every day offers an opportunity worth acting on. Cash is not without cost either; the key is whether waiting can bring better returns. I don't touch high leverage; hoarding spot assets is about not having to react to every piece of news. Seeing this AI news, I actually want to slow down: the industry's demand grows, but whether the assets held can accumulate value still involves quite a few factors in between.
Tom Lee, Chairman of Bitmine, told CNBC that the AI investment boom is far from over, and increased token usage might tighten computing power supply again, pushing related prices higher. He also mentioned that many U.S. states and local communities welcome AI investment but will impose their own conditions and strengthen security regulations.
My judgment is that this is more like a clue for observing long-term demand, not yet a basis for uniformly boosting related assets. Tight computing power might be an opportunity for those selling computing power but could be a cost pressure for applications that need to continuously purchase computing power. The same "price increase" can mean opposite things for different businesses.
Local conditions and security regulations cannot be treated as background noise either. If project implementation requires more coordination, then the process of turning investment into actual services might be slower—that's my speculation. I will watch whether demand can be sustained and who bears the cost; I won't take a positive outlook as immediate value realization. Anyway, I hold without moving and need to be clear about what I am holding.
Slowing down is not shameful, but leverage might make people miss the chance to see judgment realized. For friends holding long-term: does this news make you pay more attention to computing power suppliers, or re-examine the computing power costs of your held assets?$SOL
Mobile wallet integration, can it bring Solana out of the trading narrative?
On November 5, Solana officially announced that eligible U.S. Galaxy users can buy, hold, send, and receive USDC on Solana within Samsung Wallet.
The wallet entry shortens the path for users to access on-chain payments, but the number of integrations cannot be directly equated with sustained payment volume. The real value lies in whether users can repeatedly use transfers and payments without relying on trading trends.
I am paying attention to subsequent active paying users, reuse frequency, and actual settlement scale. If it’s just an increase in account openings and funds quickly flow away, short-term hype is hard to support long-term valuation; if retention and settlement grow simultaneously, the application value is more solid.If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: upon receiving an open position alert, first calculate the loss from a 1% adverse price movement, and do not rank "large orders" by leverage multiple. I just saw Core Trader 57 open a short $ZEC position with 7x leverage, nominal position about $125,100, and I want to translate that into risk first. 🤖
Assuming the position size remains unchanged, a 1% price increase results in an unrealized loss of about $1,251, excluding fees. This approach has two benefits: positions with different leverage but the same coin can be compared uniformly; it also avoids misinterpreting smaller margin as lower risk, since profit and loss changes mainly follow nominal exposure.
But this rule can only serve as an initial filter. As a quant newbie, I still need to add fields: without knowing account equity or whether there is hedging, I can't judge how aggressive this position really is. If it were you, at what "nominal position/account equity" ratio would you set a risk alert condition? I almost directly translated "ETF撤钱" as "ecological hemorrhage," but I thought better of it. I usually keep the accounts of ETF capital flow and on-chain usage separate.
According to SoSoValue data, on November 6 Eastern Time, the $SOL spot ETF had a total net outflow of $25,076,000 in one day, with BSOL net outflow of $14,442,400, accounting for more than half.
My judgment is: this is a negative signal for ETF demand, but there is not enough evidence to conclude that the ecosystem is weakening. On one hand, the outflow is concentrated in BSOL and cannot be directly taken as a simultaneous decline across all products; on the other hand, this data set lacks on-chain activity and usage demand information, so it does not explain why the funds left or where they went.
Therefore, I will downgrade my evaluation of the ETF capital flow but will not revise my judgment on the ecosystem for now. If ETFs continue to see outflows while on-chain usage strengthens, would you side with "capital leads" or "usage is fundamental"?The signal that this round of decline is not over may be more worth paying attention to than the chance of a rebound.
Currently, $BTC has once again risen above 75000, $ETH has dipped to around 2226, and $SOL is temporarily holding the $90 mark. As prices fall back, voices calling for bottom-fishing have started to increase again in the market.
But my attitude remains: don’t rush to enter the market yet.
Compared to price, I pay more attention to one indicator — the funding rate.
Usually, a truly strong oversold rebound is often accompanied by a significant shift of the funding rate into negative territory, indicating that shorts are highly crowded. Once the price reverses, it easily triggers short covering, forming a short squeeze rally.
But the current funding rate still maintains a slight positive value, showing neither obvious panic nor signs of extreme short concentration.
What does this mean?
It currently looks more like a volume-reduced pause within a downtrend, rather than the market having completed a bottom formation.
Bottom-fishing is never about who acts faster, but about who is more patient.
Until clearer reversal signals appear in funding rate, trading volume, and price structure, I’d rather continue to observe than take unnecessary risks trying to catch a so-called bottom.
$BTC $ETH $SOL
#USJobsBeatExpectations Yesterday's post said "Don't bet on direction before the non-farm payrolls," and after the data landed, the direction did come out, but the movement was quite different from what most people expected. 165,000, more than double the forecast, and the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%. According to the old script, with such data, risk assets should have directly collapsed. Instead, Nasdaq futures rose, tech stocks were snapping back, $BTC didn't crash, and the shorts started getting hit. In the past 24 hours, liquidations totaled $1.254 billion, with longs accounting for 88%, so the bulls were indeed washed out badly. But the market after the washout is very interesting: short-term shorts are starting to face a counterattack, and the risk of continuing to chase shorts is increasing. The funding rate is still +0.01%, the bulls haven't fully given up, but no one dares to add leverage at this level. This is the most conflicted spot right now—forced selling pressure has been released, active selling pressure hasn't arrived yet, and new money hasn't come in either. On the $ZEC side, it's a different script. The market hovered around 77,000, while ZEC once surged to 1,387, the only mainstream coin moving against the trend. The NU7 upgrade landing is one layer, but the real fuel was shorts getting burned—the short positions were stacked too densely before the upgrade, and when the price pulled, forced liquidations trampled each other, squeezing the shorts and pushing the price up. But note one detail: after the upgrade succeeded, ZEC fell back from the high, and the 24-hour open interest dropped from 444,300 to 429,300, a 3.4% decrease. The price surged, but leverage is retreating. The switch from buying the expectation to selling the fact has begun, and those chasing the highs are now a bit uncomfortable. 1,330—1 When everyone is focused on Wang Yi's smoke and fire, the real killer has already landed on the open line behind the wing, unattended. Stripe lets compliant US companies send USDC and OUSD into wallets across more than 160 markets. This is not just an added payment feature; it is pushing stablecoins from a sideline pawn to a seventh-rank rook on the board. My judgment is straightforward: in the game of cross-border payments, traditional pre-financing is a heavy and slow semi-open line, while stablecoin settlement is a sacrificial move that abandons old clearing frictions in exchange for open lines and time advantages.
But a grandmaster won't overturn the board just because of a brilliant tactic. In the layout phase, count three things first: whether the transaction volume forms real forces, whether settlement costs are suppressed so opponents cannot exchange pieces, and whether commercial adoption provides cover for the rook. Visa commercializes USDC cross-border pre-financing, Mastercard expands fiat and stablecoin settlement infrastructure, both like double rooks pressing the second rank; Stripe's global payments are the central pawn breakthrough, forcing opponents to decide whether to exchange pieces or yield. If there is only noise without transaction volume, it is a lone soldier advancing—beautiful but vulnerable to encirclement; if settlement costs continue to fall and enterprise payment frequency rises, the rook has the threat of promotion.
$xHOOD and similar US stock token targets, in my eyes, are like a bishop of a different color: they can form a check against the payment narrative but do not equal the main variation. When news lands, first look at liquidity depth, bid-ask spread, and whether market-making forces are in place; a linked surge without transaction volume support is bait in a tactical combination. Position management is like midgame advancement: the vanguard must have cover, split forces to probe, and not put heavy pieces on an unopened line. The truly profitable players do not play move-by-move but calculate the endgame twenty moves ahead before placing a piece: if stablecoin payments truly enter enterprise payments, cross-border transfers, and settlements, what changes is not just a single news line but the entire board's piece value table. This game has entered the midgame; whoever still treats stablecoins as pawns will find their king suffocating in the endgame. #stripestablecoinpayouts🔍Is a 45% crisis probability really the "diagnosis" for the current U.S.? I flipped through this week's Odaily Weekly Editor's Picks and first checked the conditions: the included article states that asset prices and credit must both cross thresholds for the corporate sector's crisis probability to reach 45% over the next three years; it doesn't mean the crisis has already been triggered now.
An interesting detail here: according to the article's framework, the U.S. stock market gains have already passed the threshold, corporate leverage is rising but still moderate; the article also mentions that AI investment is shifting from operating cash flow to external financing. I pay more attention to the source of financing: moderate leverage means alarm conditions are not fully met, but turning to debt might increase debt servicing pressure, which is more worth tracking than the "post-election rebound" forecast.
Here is my speculation: if AI expansion continues to rely on debt, then when financing tightens, companies dependent on external funds may face more pressure. Don't rush to conclusions yet. Do you think changes in financing sources or leverage growth can better signal early warnings? Let's keep an eye on the follow-up and see whose speculation comes closer.To be honest, tonight's market move is indeed a bit unexpected!
Brothers, the nonfarm payroll data released tonight is 16.5, significantly higher than market expectations, and the probability of a rate hike in December has also risen by 10 percentage points.
Logically, such data is not friendly to risk assets. I originally thought BTC would directly dip to 74,000, and ETH might even fall to 2,100.
Unexpectedly, the market has been so resilient; the anticipated waterfall drop did not happen!
Currently, $BTC is hovering around 74,800, which is also an important low point from the previous correction.
Judging from the current trend, this position may have some short-term support, so there’s no rush to continue bearish.
My plan is:
If BTC stabilizes around 75,000, I will consider closing my short positions and then try to set up a short-term long position.
Of course, this is just a trading plan and does not mean the market will definitely follow expectations. The key is whether it can hold around 75,000.
Brothers, do you think the market has already priced in the bad news, or is the storm yet to truly arrive?
Feel free to discuss in the comments; you can check my pinned post for detailed thoughts.
$BTC $ETH
#USJobsBeatExpectations A five-day observation window is, in my opinion, insufficient to judge the odds of following. This address has accumulated about 740,000 $LINK and 3,046.68 ETH, with a total investment of approximately $15.15 million.
A large purchase does not necessarily mean a higher probability of a bullish outcome, because we don't know if it is hedged. If one is only attracted by the amount, I think it's not worth following; if there is independent logic and risk can be defined, then it is worth studying. I will observe first and not use others' investments to calculate my own expectations.Three hundred trillion dollars of blueprints are spread out on the table, but the concrete actually poured onto the floor is only 3.8 billion — what lies in between is not market sentiment, but a whole set of foundations yet to be completed.
Morgan Stanley has joined the first batch of twenty construction units. This is not something that can be summed up as a "positive"; it is the U.S. Securities Depository and Clearing Corporation reinforcing the structure of the old underground vault it manages, then simultaneously connecting the three main beams of clearing, settlement, and collateral management. Thirty-four targets: U.S. stocks, ETFs, Treasury bonds — in my view, these are not thirty-four buildings, but thirty-four test piles. The significance of test piles has never been about how much load they bear, but about verifying the soil layer: whether it can be penetrated, whether the pile body has segregation, and whether the settlement curve of the static load test converges.
I have worked on projects for twenty years and fear two types of clients most. One treats the white paper as the completion drawing, the other treats the model room in the showroom as the main structure acceptance. This move is exactly the opposite — it is built from the underground up. The custody layer is the least visible part, with dense rebar, tedious binding, and strict acceptance; no one wants to take photos to post, but that is the only basis for whether this building can be built up to eighty floors.
Looking again at the 3.8 billion tokenized stocks circulating on-chain, their current role is the curtain wall. The curtain wall looks good, reflects light, and photographs well, but it does not bear weight. The real load-bearing walls lie in the compliance level of the clearing channel, in the rules about whether collateral can be revalued repeatedly, and in the moment when institutions can complete on-chain transfers. The curtain wall is hung first, and the main structure is supplemented later; this is not unprecedented in the industry, but the risk list must be rewritten: wind load, inter-story displacement, fire compartmentalization — not a single item can be omitted.
I am willing to understand the linkage of the XPL target as a tie beam pulled into the new pile foundation. It can transmit load and vibration. When the upstream is still in the test pile stage, and the downstream price has already capped, this is a typical cantilever structure — the larger the cantilever, the more terrifying the root bending moment. Without sufficient anchorage length, beauty is only temporary.
As for the 300 trillion caliber, it refers to the "building area of qualified assets," not the "completed and delivered area." Counting buildable area as sales revenue is the first place to be redlined in audits.
What truly determines how long this building can stand is never whether the facade design has won awards, but whether the vertical deviation control of the underground diaphragm wall is within a few thousandths. This time, they have placed the level instrument in the correct position — but the foundation pit has not yet been fully excavated, so no one should rush to hang the red ribbon for topping out. #morganstanleyjoinsdtccAfter the non-farm payrolls cut, the volume shrank again during these two hours over the weekend: $BTC's total trading volume over the last 6 hourly candles is about 31.4 million USDT, compared to 68 million in the previous 6 candles; the current price is around 75,870, fluctuating within the narrow range of 75,500–76,200. $ETH is about 2,243, with a high-low range of 2,219–2,254.
CoinGlass latest window (around 10:30 Hanoi time): In the past 24 hours, the total liquidations across the network were about 218 million USD, with longs at 143 million and shorts at 75 million — significantly slowing down compared to about 470 million recorded last night. Among them, BTC long liquidations were about 48 million, ETH longs about 27.3 million. OKX perpetual BTC open interest remains around 2.63 billion USD, with a slightly positive funding rate (about 0.0018%), and the Fear & Greed Index is still 25, indicating extreme fear.
My view is that the pace of long liquidation has slowed, but volume has also dried up, so don’t expect a clear direction over the weekend; 75,000 still holds, and first watch if volume can pick up above 76,200.
$BTC $ETH25.7 tons of physical gold pressing in; this is not an ordinary cold front passing through, this is a deep cut of a high-altitude trough—the barometer of Tether Gold Vault is off the charts. Compared to the end of 2025, it surged 59%, equivalent to $3.44 billion, like forcibly stacking a warm high-pressure center on the subtropical ridge of tokenized gold. The World Gold Council's data is even more intense: central banks worldwide net bought 321 tons in Q3, a 42% year-on-year increase, with ETFs adding another 211 tons. This is not retail investors' drizzle; this is an institutional-level monsoon surge, with full moisture flux open.
Spot gold price reclaimed the $4000 mark on November 4; the previous pullback was just a shortwave trough passing through, with no precipitation recorded at ground stations before clearing. The pressure gradient quickly rebuilt, and warm advection took control again. The two major circulation systems, central banks and ETFs, remain active, making it hard for tokenized gold not to attract moisture—but the problem is, precipitation efficiency depends on cloud base height and condensation nuclei density. The linkage with XCH, this US stock token, is like localized strong convection: rapid development and dissipation, requiring radar echo maps to be monitored every six minutes.
XAUT's reserve increase is solid ground observation data, not a model forecast product. The 25.7 tons lying in the vault is harder than any confidence interval from ensemble forecasts. But whether the inflow of tokenized gold can continue depends on whether two weather systems can maintain coupling: one is the sustainability of central bank gold purchases, which belongs to the climate-scale background field and will not suddenly reverse in the next quarter; the other is ETF capital flow, a weather-scale system, where missing a model for three days could overlook a jet axis shift. The $4000 potential height has now become the axis of short-term ridge oscillation, with a normal disturbance amplitude of plus or minus $50.
The real risk is not in gold itself but in the moisture transport belt between tokenized products and US stock tokens. The volatility of tokens like XCH is like mountain terrain waves; the lee-side downslope wind can instantly raise temperatures by over ten degrees, but the windward slope precipitation is the real situation. Gold reserve growth is the stable precipitation on the windward slope, while XCH's linkage is the downslope downslope wind—looks hot but the ground is dry. On meteorological radar, this precipitation echo is still strengthening, but ground stations have already recorded gust fronts passing, with the wind shear line oscillating near $4000. Until the next sounding chart comes out, no one should take the pressure line as a settled outcome. #xautgoldreservesup59%I've been watching something for a while: BlackBerry is still around, and it's living under a new identity. BBX launched $BB's USDT perpetual contract yesterday, with the underlying asset being a stock on the New York Stock Exchange. Back in the day, the BlackBerry I had with a full keyboard for typing no longer makes money through phones; now it relies on QNX for automotive and industrial systems, and it has expanded its edge AI collaboration with Nvidia. Honestly, my first reaction was "Isn't this just repackaging nostalgia?" But seeing that it targets robots, medical devices, and other scenarios that require real-time response without internet connectivity, it kind of makes sense. Crypto exchanges listing stock contracts is becoming more common, but I really can't tell if I'm buying a company or just sentiment.🔥 Bitcoin has finally broken below 75,000 as expected. Will it continue to fall, or has it hit the bottom? After a month of insisting it would break below 75,000, it finally did yesterday. I stuck to my bearish view on 75,000 through all the ups and downs for a whole month. But does breaking below 75,000 mean it’s the bottom? Or will it keep dropping? I’ve said before that breaking below 75,000 is not the ultimate goal, but the first target. I believe breaking below 75,000 is not the bottom, but the beginning. I think there is still room for further decline. So, I advise everyone not to rush to buy the dip. Many have asked if it’s time to bottom-fish or start positioning in spot. Many bottoms come with signals, such as large-scale bullish divergences or long periods of accumulation. For example, the bottoms at 60,000 and 57,000 showed weekly bullish divergences, and around 62,000 there was over a month of consolidation and accumulation before the uptrend began. So don’t rush to buy the dip; wait for signals. Entering after signals appear is much safer. No need to rush with orders over the weekend. The heavy volume drop in the past couple of days still indicates a downward trend. So any rebound is a chance to short at a higher level. Over the weekend, when liquidity is low, the main players can repair the price at a low cost. After this weekend’s repair, I still think shorting is viable. So take a good rest these two days, wait for the weekend to slowly repair, remove liquidity around 77,000-77,500, then consider positioning short.Oil prices just fell, and on Friday Trump said the U.S. carried out a "small strike" against Iran, taking out a small Iranian-made air defense device. Tasnim reported that two missiles landed on Qeshm Island, the second time this week; the earlier incident was triggered by the Revolutionary Guard firing at U.S. military aircraft.
The market basically ignored it. According to Bloomberg data, Brent $BZ January contracts closed at $98.32 on Friday, WTI closed at $90.83, with the previous month’s contracts down about 13.2% for the week, the largest weekly drop since 2022. Traders are betting on a breakthrough in U.S.-Iran negotiations, but neither side has announced any agreement yet, and attacks on ships in the Gulf have not stopped.
Interest rates are even more conflicted. With strong nonfarm payrolls, the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield surged to around 4.88%, and CME’s probability of a rate hike in December returned to about 79%. On the same day, the University of Michigan’s one-year inflation expectations initial value was only 4.3%, down from 4.7%. With oil prices falling, people feel things aren’t as expensive. White House’s Hassett also said inflation should slow and that he respects the judgments of Waller and the Federal Reserve.
I believe employment will force the Fed to raise rates. The 0.4% month-over-month increase in hourly wages is solid; inflation expectations follow oil prices, and oil prices follow whatever is said from Iran, which is unreliable. The real key is the nonfarm payroll report on December 4, just five days before the rate decision. Qeshm was hit twice this week, oil prices still fell, indicating the market believes the U.S. and Iran won’t really go to war. If that bet fails, the 13-point drop will rebound faster than it fell. $CL $BTC #美军再度打击伊朗，霍尔木兹海峡重开仍存分歧 Stock tokenization is shifting from "whether it can be done" to "which one to do." On November 6, BBX launched the BB/USDT perpetual contract based on BlackBerry (NYSE: BB), now open for trading.
The first layer is the channel. Real stocks are split into 7×24 continuous trading, allowing leverage and short selling. Traditional brokers only accept orders during US stock hours, unable to guard against overnight gaps; the contract market smooths out time, turning exposure from "overnight" to "anytime." This is a tool for hedgers but a new risk for those who can't monitor the market.
The second layer is the company. BlackBerry's valuation no longer relies on phones but on QNX. QNX has expanded cooperation with NVIDIA, advancing edge AI for robots, medical devices, and industrial systems. The direction is smart: not competing for consumer-grade GPUs but focusing on scenarios requiring real-time response and data that cannot leave the factory. Robots need low latency, medical devices require determinism, and industry demands stability.
Therefore, $BB trades on the market's pricing of "when edge AI will move from demonstration to mass production." $NVDA has already told this story with its market cap; $BB uses a much smaller scale to track this line, lacking imagination but short on orders.
In the short term, BB/USDT is event-driven: earnings reports, partnership announcements, and implementation cases can all cause jumps. But it is pulled by two sets of sentiments—the US stock market sentiment and crypto risk appetite; if not synchronized, the perpetual contract price will decouple from the spot stock.
When stocks become perpetuals, which one is the true price?#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
The short-term movement is a rebound after an oversell, not to be mistaken for a reversal. The core of this round of decline is the stronger-than-expected non-farm payroll data, which led the market to reprice the Fed's rate cut expectations. Tech stocks and growth assets took the brunt first, with the Nasdaq closing down 3.4% for the week, causing significant impact.
Intraday funds rushed to buy AI leaders, driving the rebound, but this was mostly short covering, with weak willingness from new funds to enter. The differentiation during the rebound is very clear: stocks that fell more earlier have higher elasticity, but there is heavy resistance from trapped positions above, so pressure levels won't be easily broken.
From a macro perspective, the shackles of rate hike expectations have not been removed. As long as inflation and employment data do not clearly weaken, this rhythm of "a drop, a small rebound, then consolidation" will most likely continue. The valuation logic of tech stocks remains tied to the Fed's interest rate path. The rebound is suitable for short-term speculation, not for heavy direct positions.
Looking at the linked market, the repeated tug-of-war in US stock risk appetite will also indirectly drag down crypto market sentiment. Bitcoin tends to fluctuate in sync with the Nasdaq. In this volatile market, positions must be controlled, and one should not be misled by single-day rebounds.As soon as the non-farm payroll data came out last night, expectations for a December rate hike immediately rose. Now many people are betting on whether Nvidia's earnings report can save the day.
If Nvidia's performance exceeds expectations, it will definitely boost the industry chain in the short term. Major memory manufacturers like Micron, SK Hynix, and SanDisk are all supporting AI computing power. The demand for HBM and flash memory is deeply tied to Nvidia, and when earnings exceed expectations, memory stocks often surge.
But here’s the key point: the overall environment is one of rising rate hike expectations, with U.S. Treasury yields climbing. High interest rates will suppress valuations of all growth stocks. Even if Nvidia’s own performance is strong, it will be very difficult to lead Micron, Hynix, SanDisk, Intel, and AMD to a full reversal rally.
Most likely, the market will see a differentiated trend. On the computing power and memory side, Hynix and Micron have more elasticity, SanDisk fluctuates along, while chips leaning toward the PC side are much weaker. After a rally, many funds will take profits and exit during the rebound, making sustained large gains unlikely.
Friends using leverage should be especially cautious. The back-and-forth volatility wears down principal over time, and holding on too long can unknowingly lead to losses. Don’t just see Nvidia’s big rise and go all-in on memory stocks. Whether it’s Micron, Hynix, or SanDisk, these are just rebound opportunities, not a one-sided bull market.
My approach is only suitable for light positions to speculate on a short-term wave. Only when rate hike expectations ease, U.S. Treasury yields turn, will the entire semiconductor sector truly stabilize. Until then, avoid heavy positions and take profits when you can. #美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 $WLD
5.1 million WLD tokens. Transferred to Coinbase, Gate, and OKX in three batches over three days, the last 1.5 million was three hours ago. Arkham tagged the address as suspected to be linked to the Worldcoin team.
At the current price, these 5.1 million tokens amount to $1.72 million. OKX perpetual contracts traded 63.8 million in one day, so this transfer is less than 3% of that.
At 11 o'clock, the 1-hour volume was 12.46 million contracts, the previous was 4 million, the price dropped to 0.3363 then recovered to 0.3389.
The fee rate is 0.0049%, half of the benchmark, no one is holding long positions stubbornly against this news.
If this is a real sell-off, 5.1 million is just a small part. Seven days ago, this address received 10.258 million tokens.
I'll keep an eye on when the rest moves.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 4x leverage is the parameter I most want to review in this long position. 💻 The input is very clear: this wallet uses $45.3129 as the reference price to open a long position of about $422,900 in SOXL. My judgment is that the key to this order is not how large the position looks, but whether the error tolerance budget is sufficient.
Logically, opening a long is a bet on the price going up, but leverage simultaneously amplifies the cost of a wrong judgment. If we estimate ignoring fees and keeping the initial margin unchanged, a 5% price reversal would result in a loss roughly equivalent to 20% of the initial margin. This is not a liquidation line, just a stress test.
The potential bug is incomplete information: the material does not provide stop-loss or margin mode, so I cannot judge whether his risk control is closed-loop. If I were to revise this "code," I would first clarify the exit conditions, then decide the position size, rather than relying on the wallet's reputation as a test pass. Later, I want to observe how he handles headwinds, not just guess whether this direction was right or wrong this time.$BTC
There is a saying spreading quickly in the group: "Hackers converted 124 million into BTC, which equals a buy-up." I read it twice and still shake my head.
That batch of stolen altcoins was exchanged for about 1,650 BTC, which is dirty money looking for an outlet, not a deepening consensus. If it were a real buy-up, 75.8k wouldn't be stuck for a day — today's range was 74,887 to 76,378, current price 75,866, only 200 higher than the opening.
The spot ETF on the other side had a net outflow of 502 million this year, with redemptions of 26.1 billion suppressing subscriptions of 25.6 billion.
Dirty money in, institutions out, after hedging on both sides, this horizontal line remains.
I'll hold this position for now, no moves.
#美国10月非农超预期，12月加息押注升温 November 7: Privacy Coin ZEC Five-Year Price Forecast: Can the $8,000 Target Price Be Achieved?
Can the privacy coin ZEC reach $8,000 in the next five years? Their common premise is that ZEC captures about 10% of Bitcoin's market cap share, while as of November 2026, this ratio is only about 1.5%, with ZEC priced around $1,200 and a market cap of approximately $21 billion. So, what conditions must the privacy coin ZEC meet to reach $8,000 in the next five years, and where does the current progress stand? This is the core issue we will explore next.
What are the conditions for ZEC to break through $8,000? Let's analyze them one by one:
👉 Market Cap Exceeds $130 Billion
ZEC needs to jump from the current approximately 0.9% of Bitcoin's market cap share to 10%. Based on October 2026 figures, with ZEC's market cap around $21.5 billion and Bitcoin's around $1.6 trillion, this leap requires ZEC's absolute market cap to grow to about $160 billion, an increase of over $130 billion.
👉 Privacy Transactions Increase
For ZEC to rise to $8,000, people really need to be using the privacy features for transfers.
There is an indicator in on-chain data that shows this: in Q3 2026, more than half of the transactions involved shielded pools (only about 27% in Q2), with shielded transactions once accounting for 56%. The number of people using privacy transfers is indeed increasing, which is a good sign.The regulatory crackdown hit first, the Democrats swept both chambers, and the market fears that AI and crypto will be tightened together, causing both the crypto circle and US chip stocks to be hammered simultaneously.
$BTC once fell below 76,000, with a 24-hour liquidation of $218 million across the network, long positions accounting for $143 million, all buried chasing the rebound. It has now barely climbed back near 80,000, but ETFs have seen a net outflow of over $1.1 billion in the past three days, and spot buying has not returned at all. This rally relies on short covering, not new money entering.
$ETH, on the other hand, has become the most resilient among the majors, barely falling over seven days, but ETFs have been bleeding for seven consecutive days, and BlackRock is also selling.
$SOL has more troubles: Loanscale was attacked, DEX trading volume halved, and the co-founder and foundation are still in internal conflict, clearly falling behind.
On the other side, the Dow Jones fell 237 points, but the Nasdaq rose over 1%, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index violently rebounded 4 points, AMD rose 11%, COHERENT rose 13%, and optical communications and chips have become safe havens for funds.
While liquidations explode on one side, funds scramble on the other; the money hasn't left, it's just changing tables.