Oli.
Oli.
🍓Web3投研 🍑人工智能 🚀《干翻狗庄》系列工具作者
5Following
278followers
Feed
Livestream
Feed
This time when Vitalik talks about ETH as a store of value, I think the most worth discussing is whether fee burning can provide a reliable valuation floor.
His point is very specific: if on-chain activity and ETH price rise and fall together, then when the market weakens, activity and burning may also decrease simultaneously. Using the fees from prosperous times to estimate a long-term floor is not as solid as it seems.
He still supports retaining EIP-1559 and does not advocate canceling burning; the key is that there is no need to push the network toward higher fees and more active intervention just to increase burning in the long term.
I can understand this part. From a user perspective, cheaper transactions are usually an improvement; it shouldn't be considered bad news just because holders want a bit more burning and low fees.
But the positioning of value storage also needs more concrete support. Network security, censorship resistance, and how much financial activity ETH can facilitate all affect whether people are willing to hold long term. Simply changing the narrative name won't automatically support the price.
I am willing to shift focus from how much ETH is burned daily to what long-term demand the network actually accumulates. At the same time, issuance and burning are still worth tracking, but a single metric shouldn't bear the entire valuation burden. This discussion finally touches on harder and more important issues.
#Vitalik重提ETH价值存储定位，手续费销毁还是核心吗？
The 401(k)-related rules have entered the final review stage. What I am more curious about is whether ordinary participants will be able to understand what they have actually bought in the future.
The previous proposal emphasized the process by which managers evaluate investment options, involving factors such as liquidity, valuation, and complexity. The final text is still under review, and specific arrangements are yet to be announced. Even if the rules move forward, retirement products need to clearly explain these issues.
Underlying crypto assets can be traded around the clock, but once packaged into retirement products, participants may face a different set of valuation and subscription/redemption arrangements. When the net asset value is calculated and how transactions are handled during severe market fluctuations are all related to the actual experience.
I have expectations for this direction, but also some concerns. The inflow of long-term funds can promote industry improvements and services; however, if product structures become increasingly complex and users only see the phrase "gain crypto exposure," they may easily overlook what risks they are actually taking on.
With the CLARITY Act stalled and market structure rules still not fully determined, it is even more necessary for products to clearly explain responsibilities and operational boundaries.
What would truly make me feel progress is if a retirement saver without any crypto experience can also understand where the returns come from, where losses might occur, and how to exit. The industry has earned the opportunity to be considered, and going forward, it will depend on clear disclosures and stable services to make participants willing to stay.
#美国加密监管：《CLARITY法案》推进受阻，401(k)规则进入最终审查
In the discussion about Anthropic's valuation, I want to look at one more question: if customers use more, can revenue grow proportionally?
The prospectus reveals that as of the end of September, more than 11,900 customers contributed over $100,000 in revenue in the past 12 months, showing that enterprise adoption is indeed rapid. But the document also mentions that price cuts on the new model and contract discounts offset about $600 million of quarter-over-quarter revenue growth in Q3.
This detail is very important. Increased usage proves product demand, but price changes affect how much of that demand actually turns into revenue. Even if customers rely more on the product, the company may not be able to keep all the efficiency gains for itself.
I think this is closer to what IPO investors really want to calculate than just looking at user numbers: how much future growth comes from new customers, how much from existing customers expanding usage, and how much price concession is needed to achieve that.
Price cuts may also attract more usage and cannot be simply judged as a bad thing. The key is whether the service cost per task can decrease simultaneously, and whether the economic returns left to the company ultimately improve.
I acknowledge Claude's progress in commercial adoption and understand why investors still want to press down the valuation. There is a gap between a good product and what the stock is worth, bridged by costs, competition, and returns. Calculating these clearly before discussing how much one is willing to pay is more meaningful than arguing over a trillion-dollar figure.
#Anthropic仍计划11月IPO，投资者下调估值预期
NVIDIA's current risk is now difficult to judge solely based on how many chips it sells next quarter.
The board has announced the launch of an independent investigation, overseen by a committee of independent directors with assistance from external independent lawyers, focusing on reports that Jensen Huang has become a target of foreign intelligence activities. The investigation is not yet complete, and the allegations in the reports should not be taken as established facts.
The board also stated that there is currently no reason to believe that national security or company secrets have been compromised, and clearly expressed confidence in Jensen Huang and the management team. These pieces of information need to be considered together and not just cherry-picked for the most sensational sentence.
What concerns me more is how much NVIDIA depends on key individuals. Jensen Huang has long been involved in product direction, customer relations, and global strategy, so the market naturally prices his leadership; now that an investigation has emerged, investors will also reassess this uncertainty.
On November 9, while other tech stocks rebounded sharply, NVIDIA fell 4.27%, at least indicating that funds are treating the company's risk separately.
At this stage, it is easy to fill in the story with rumors, but truly useful information will have to wait. Whether the scope of the investigation changes or whether the board provides further explanations is more worth watching than guessing whether someone will resign. Corporate governance issues need facts to clarify; emotional speculation won't solve them.
#英伟达启动独立调查，管理层稳定性受关注
Oil prices have already reflected hopes for negotiations, but the diplomatic process has not yet reached a reassuring stage.
On November 9, the U.S. side stated that regional countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia tend to avoid new strikes. For these countries, energy transportation and regional security are both affected, providing very practical motives to push for de-escalation.
However, the desire to reduce conflict does not mean that all parties have accepted the same plan. Iran's proposed arrangements involve ending the port blockade, easing some sanctions, and stopping bombings, while hoping to discuss nuclear issues and other topics later. Which steps are implemented first still affects whether the agreement can move forward.
This is also why I am currently cautious about crude oil: the market can quickly price in negotiation progress, but actual implementation requires confirmation of actions by all parties. After prices fall, if execution does not keep pace, the previously deducted risk premium may reappear.
On the other hand, falling oil prices will affect inflation expectations, further impacting U.S. Treasury bonds, tech stocks, and BTC. Geopolitical news has already influenced a chain of assets, making it difficult to treat this as merely an internal matter of the oil market.
I look forward to results from the negotiations and hope that subsequent reports will gradually reveal clear implementation steps. At present, all parties are still striving for conditions more favorable to themselves. Directly interpreting diplomatic easing as the disappearance of supply risks is still too much of a leap.
#美伊外交斡旋持续，霍尔木兹通航分歧待解
BTC and ETH spot ETFs saw outflows exceeding $1.6 billion in one week, which is indeed significant pressure. But when analyzing, we need to separate fund redemptions from asset price declines.
From November 2 to 6, the two types of products had a combined net outflow of about $1.647 billion, reflecting changes in funds due to subscriptions and redemptions. The decrease in fund asset size is also affected by coin prices, so we cannot treat all shrinkage in size as withdrawals.
For example: a portfolio with $10 billion in assets, even without any redemptions, would see its size decrease by about $1 billion if the underlying assets drop 10%. Conversely, price increases can mask fund outflows, making the total size look less bad.
I think these two factors need to be considered together to understand what is really happening with demand. If there is only a price rebound without sustained net subscriptions, it means new allocation demand still needs verification; if funds start to flow back but prices fail to hold gains, other selling pressures need to be observed.
What makes people anxious now is that every day there is data supporting either a bullish or bearish view, but it’s hard to piece them together.
I will first align the statistical periods, then see if subscriptions/redemptions and prices improve together. Weekly outflows are worth watching, but they don’t explain the entire market. Describing every asset shrinkage as institutional withdrawal tends to amplify emotions and misses the real changes that need attention.
#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
In this ASTS earnings report, one term is more important than "nationwide coverage": intermittent.
The company still expects to initiate initial intermittent coverage in the US and other key markets by the end of the year. How far the coverage extends and how long users can use it continuously are two different metrics. Mixing these two concepts easily leads to overestimating the initial service experience.
There is also positive progress. The company disclosed that it has verified beam switching between ground and satellite cellular broadband networks with AT&T and plans to reach a production rate of six ASIC satellites per month by December. Both technical validation and manufacturing expansion are advancing toward service deployment.
However, there is a time gap between production, launch into orbit, completion of commissioning, and actual user availability. The monthly production target ultimately needs to correspond with in-orbit service capacity.
I am optimistic about the direction of ordinary phones connecting directly to satellites; when you go out and have no signal, the demand is very specific. But from the perspective of paying users, whether the connection is stable, how long the wait is, and what tasks can be completed will all affect their willingness to continue purchasing.
Therefore, this time I want to focus more on service metrics rather than just the number of satellites. Initial experience can have limitations, as long as the company clearly explains the available coverage and can continuously deliver improvements afterward, commercialization will gradually solidify. If expectations are raised too high at once, real progress is more likely to be overshadowed by disappointment.
#ASTS推进手机直连卫星服务，商业化进展待披露
Rocket Lab's financial report has been released, and the most critical update on Neutron is clear: the maiden flight target is no earlier than 2027.
Meanwhile, the company secured over $515 million in Neutron launch contracts in Q3, with a backlog of 16 missions before the maiden flight, and the base launch price for some missions has increased to $70 million. Customers are willing to sign contracts in advance, indicating that the demand for medium-lift capacity is indeed significant.
But the more orders there are, the more important delivery time becomes. The rocket has not yet completed its maiden flight; subsequent missions need to gradually turn into revenue, which still requires testing, launching, and operational validation. Signing contracts proves customer intent, but fulfilling them tests engineering capability.
This financial report leaves me somewhat conflicted: quarterly revenue reached $268 million, a 73% year-over-year increase, showing expansion in existing business; yet the wait for Neutron still requires investors to bear the burden.
I am willing to acknowledge the achievements already delivered and will allow engineering leeway for the new rocket. But how much Neutron contribution has been factored into the valuation ahead of time needs to be re-examined against the timeline.
What I most want to hear next is which specific tests remain before the maiden flight and the completion status of each hardware component. For a company like this, the clearer the progress disclosure, the better investors can judge what delays mean. Simply saying orders are strong is not enough to replace this information.
#RocketLab财报前瞻：Neutron火箭进展如何？
There is a change in this rebound worth paying close attention to: Nvidia fell, but other tech stocks did not fall along with it.
On November 9, the Nasdaq rose 2.74%, the S&P 500 rose about 2.35%, and the Dow also rose about 2.15%; Nvidia, however, dropped 4.27%. Compared to simply seeing the indexes turn positive, this divergence concerns me more.
Previously, market worries about AI investment, financing, and valuations easily dragged related companies down together. Now at least one sign has appeared: funds are beginning to distinguish between industry-wide risks and individual company issues, willing to continue buying other targets even when the leader is under pressure.
This is an improvement, but it cannot yet be directly interpreted as the entire correction being over. The drop in oil prices has helped ease inflation concerns, and tonight's CPI will test how long this optimism can last.
My attitude toward this rebound is a bit more positive than last Friday. The three major indexes rising simultaneously indicates the scope of repair has expanded; at the same time, it does not mean all previous concerns are erased just because of a big one-day rally.
What needs the most restraint is losing confidence due to the decline and then immediately increasing positions because of the rise. The market can change sentiment twice in two days; accounts don’t need to follow every turn. If bad news can still be partially digested and other stocks can maintain support, this round of repair will be more convincing.
#美股暴跌后科技股反弹，纳指周线仍跌约3.4%
The easiest place to be misled by tonight's CPI is to directly interpret "in line with expectations" as "positive news."
Data will be released at 21:30 Beijing time. The market expects the overall CPI to rise 0.3% month-over-month, with the core up 0.2%. These expectations are already on the table, and prices will reflect them in advance. What truly affects trading is how much the actual results differ from expectations and which subcomponents change.
A core month-over-month increase of 0.2% versus 0.3% looks like a small difference. Assuming this monthly pace continues for a year, the compound annualized rates would be approximately 2.4% and 3.7%, respectively. This is certainly not a full-year inflation forecast, but it explains why the market is so sensitive to changes in the decimal place.
I especially want to see if the cooling extends to more items. If the overall improvement mainly relies on a few volatile commodities pulling prices down, the sustainability of the improvement still needs to be observed; if service prices also gradually ease, the pressure on the Federal Reserve to continue tightening will have a better chance to lessen.
After a strong nonfarm payroll report, tonight's data indeed carries more weight. But since the U.S. stock market just experienced a significant rebound, we cannot assume that a result in line with expectations will bring the same strong rally.
I prefer to wait for the subcomponent details and the interest rate market's reaction before judging whether the trading logic has changed. The first move after the data release usually does not provide such a complete answer.
#美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？
