Orbit Post Sitemap
What was bought for 8 billion is not a company but a toll gate
Last night, a letter addressed to investors circulated fiercely in the community. The letter was written by the three leaders of Stripe, and the most eye-catching sentence was that they consider January 1 this year as the beginning of a singularity.
What they meant was not that AI has surpassed humans, but that they saw several long-term curves bending at the same point in time. The most obvious one is the sudden uptick in the speed of new company formations. A company that helps the whole world collect payments sees this change before anyone else because every new company opening needs to first set up a payment channel.
The numbers are indeed impressive. Net income in the first half of this year increased by 41% year-over-year, and free cash flow rose by 43%. 88% of the companies on the Forbes AI 50 list use Stripe, including OpenAI and Anthropic, while the remaining 12% mostly have not yet commercialized. What deserves our attention even more is another sentence: the revenue contribution from AI companies and crypto companies has more than doubled compared to a year ago.
The real pivot is yet to come. Stripe says that the two most important digital flows for enterprises in the future are capital and intelligence. In the past, it helped companies manage money; next, it wants to manage AI calls—deciding whether a task is worth running, which model to dispatch, and ultimately who pays the bill. To fill this gap, it acquired OpenRouter, calling it its largest acquisition ever. Axios reported the price exceeded 8 billion USD, mainly paid in stock. OpenRouter's token consumption has grown about 9% weekly on a compound basis this year, a visibly thickening pipeline.
The most unusual point is that despite such impressive financials, it insists that continuing to stay private is an advantage. The reason is that AI makes the future harder to predict, and it does not want to sacrifice long-term decisions for short-term market pressure. Over the years of expansion and acquisitions, its total shares outstanding are actually fewer than three years ago. Since the Series D round ten years ago, the private equity per-share price has increased at an annualized rate of about 31%.
Looking at this letter from our side, the feeling is a bit complex. Bitcoin just forced a short squeeze from deep waters, wiping out billions in shorts overnight, with many people watching liquidation prices and funding rates day by day. Meanwhile, those collecting toll fees are quietly thickening their revenue structure. The amount crypto companies pay Stripe has doubled, indicating that the transaction fees paid by exchanges, wallets, and stablecoin businesses we are familiar with are increasing.
Circle’s self-developed public chain Arc is launching its mainnet in September, shifting from tenant to landlord; Stripe is spending its largest sum ever to buy an AI routing gateway. The underlying logic of these two events is the same: whoever controls the scheduling power has the pricing power. Price fluctuations are volatility; routing rights determine revenue sharing.
Every day we calculate whether our positions can withstand the next spike, but they calculate who will collect toll fees ten years from now. In this round, who do you think will really pocket the money—the people holding the coins, or the ones standing at the toll gate?The White House crypto summit just ended, but Coinbase moved its headquarters to the Middle East
Just two days ago, Trump invited a group of crypto bigwigs to the White House for a meeting, saying that the U.S. wants to be the world’s crypto capital and bring projects and funds back home. Coinbase’s CEO Armstrong even boldly declared that once the CLARITY Act passes in mid-September, a new market rally should come.
But before those words cooled down, Coinbase itself took a key step by setting its international tokenization hub in Abu Dhabi.
According to Fortune, Coinbase chose Abu Dhabi, UAE, as its international tokenization center, planning to put more traditional financial assets on-chain. Simply put, it means turning real-world assets like stocks and bonds into on-chain tokens, and the core operations of this business are not placed in New York or San Francisco, but in the Middle East. Whoever sets up the platform for traditional finance on-chain first will earn the fees and liquidity first.
Here’s the interesting part. On one side, Washington just shouted "welcome home," while on the other, the exchange quietly placed the most future-oriented part of its business overseas. Abu Dhabi has been improving its digital asset regulatory framework in recent years, with friendly policies and clear processes, making it as attractive as the U.S. for institutions wanting to do RWA (Real World Assets). In fact, in the past year or two, many crypto institutions have already treated the Middle East as their second home, moving exchanges and funds there.
We often say crypto should be decentralized and borderless, but when it comes to implementation, money and licenses are often more honest than slogans. Coinbase’s move doesn’t necessarily mean it’s bearish on the U.S., but at least it shows that in its eyes, wherever the rules get established first, that’s where the business will grow first.
Zooming out a bit more. Stablecoin giant Circle just announced a few days ago that its public chain Arc will launch in September, aiming to be a settlement layer for financial assets. On one side, the issuer is building its own chain, and on the other, the exchange is moving its tokenization headquarters to the Middle East. What everyone is really competing for is the same piece of the pie — the infrastructure for putting traditional assets on-chain.
So here’s the question. While the U.S. is still bickering over legislation, will those traditional assets that truly want to go on-chain gather first in the Middle East? By the time U.S. regulation becomes clear, will the tokenization dividends that should belong to Wall Street have already been preemptively claimed by someone else?It is often said that the Federal Reserve is independent, but this time it was revealed that it frequently communicates with the President.
On the morning of August 20, four members of the Senate Banking Committee jointly sent a letter to Federal Reserve Chairman Kevin Warsh, demanding that he disclose all communication details between himself and President Trump. The lead signatory was Senator Van Hollen. The letter was straightforward: they wanted not just a summary after the fact, but the verbatim records of every call.
The trigger for this was a report by The Wall Street Journal's chief economic reporter Timiraos, who is known as the Fed's mouthpiece and is always well-informed. He revealed that after Warsh took office, he maintained frequent calls with Trump, but the Fed's publicly available schedule showed no records of calls during that period. On one hand, they chatted privately often; on the other, there were no records publicly. This selective transparency made the senators uneasy.
What they really worry about is not just casual chats. The glaring issue is whether there is any boundary left between a country's monetary policy leader and the head of the executive branch. If the chairman's phonebook is full of the president's numbers, it is hard for outsiders to believe that the next rate hike or cut is based on data rather than a word from the other end of the line.
Trump later denied the related reports, saying he only had a brief conversation with Warsh a few days ago. White House National Economic Council Director Hassett tried to smooth things over, saying the two have long had economic discussions but the president does not pressure the Fed. The Fed's response was also very official, saying it still delays disclosure of the chairman's schedule according to established rules. But the more standard the official language, the more it feels like something is being left unsaid.
Interestingly, the timing of this revelation is very coincidental. Just these days, the crypto market had just come out of a sharp rebound, with Bitcoin once surging close to $70,000. Many interpreted this rally as a sign of easing coming, that money would become cheaper. But just as the market was betting on the Fed turning dovish, the Fed's own meeting minutes showed that several officials actually favored a rate hike at the last meeting, with three directly voting against and advocating a 25 basis point increase.
On one side, the market is betting on easing; on the other, the Fed internally wants to tighten, and now there's the added suspicion of a hotline between the chairman and the president. These three things combined give the impression that the Fed's independence, once considered sacrosanct, is now under a microscope.
For those of us watching the market closely, the most important thing is not who called whom, but that once this line is pulled open, the lifeline of interest rates becomes more susceptible to political winds. When Bitcoin is rallying enthusiastically, the biggest fear is often a sudden reversal of expectations. Historically, every time the Fed's independence has been questioned, the market's first reaction is to reprice risk assets, and crypto, which lives on liquidity, is most sensitive to interest rate expectations.
So the question is left to you: when the halo of the Fed's independence begins to fade, can your positions really withstand a reversal of expectations? ##BTC breaks through $72,000, can this rally continue?
I won’t sleep tonight, watching this big bullish candle closely. Here are some numbers first:
$BTC broke above $71,000 on 8/20, surging over 10% in 24h
$3.264 billion liquidated across the network in 24h, 185,000 people liquidated — a single-day record since 2021
Short liquidations account for 92%, short-to-long ratio is 10:1, over $1 billion forcibly liquidated in one hour. What’s driving this rally? Old Zhou slams the table: pure short squeeze, not retail chasing longs. Previously, after six months of consolidation, shorts piled up positions around $60,000, with options downside protection also concentrated there. Then one bullish candle pierced through the liquidation dense zone — shorts were forced to cover in a chain reaction, pushing the price higher and higher. 92% of shorts liquidated means this is a "shorts being crushed" scenario, not a "longs charging" one. But how long can the short squeeze last? Let’s look at the relay. Old Zhou shows you three green lights:
🟢 First light: ETF took over on the breakout day. On 8/19, spot ETF net inflow was $517 million, a 3-month high — IBIT alone took in $285 million. On 8/13 there was still a net outflow of $130 million, but on the day of the rally institutions rushed in, this isn’t chasing highs, it’s real money passing the baton.
🟢 Second light: On-chain whales are quietly accumulating. CryptoQuant data shows that in the past 60 days, big players have net increased holdings by 43,000 BTC, starting to accumulate from around $60,000 — for several monthsTrump just sang bullish on Bitcoin and then immediately blasted the Federal Reserve
This week, Trump invited a group of crypto executives to the White House, speaking confidently about ending the crypto war and America becoming the world’s crypto capital. But in the midst of this rally, he turned around and fired at the Fed.
On Wednesday, he publicly criticized the Fed’s interest rate policy, saying that economic data is clearly improving, yet rates remain too high. The U.S. should be paying much lower financing costs. He cited Switzerland as an example, where the benchmark rate is only 0.5%, while the U.S. is around 3.5%, which he said is unreasonable. He also mentioned that the 30-year Treasury yield has surged to 5.3%, a nearly 20-year high, and the average mortgage rate has returned to about 7%. He even said Fed Chair Powell is doing a good job but then complained that political factors are involved in the board, implying someone is deliberately holding rates high.
Actually, Treasury Secretary Yellen had already taken action. A few days ago, she announced doubling the long-term Treasury buyback size from $2 billion per operation to $4 billion, clearly trying to suppress long-term rates. But Trump felt this was not enough and decided to personally pressure the Fed. This kind of fiscal and monetary policy contradiction is rare in any administration.
Interestingly, the Fed has actually been cutting rates since the second half of last year, with six cuts in total, but Trump still thinks it’s too slow. Saying the economy is good while complaining about high rates reveals his real anxiety.
The contrast is hidden inside. Trump just said cryptocurrencies greatly relieve the pressure on the dollar, but then he pressures for rate cuts, fundamentally fearing the interest burden on $40 trillion of U.S. debt. On one hand, he praises crypto as the new favorite, on the other, he fears the old debt being crushed by high rates. Both narratives actually aim for the same demand: cheap money.
The Fed is not buying it. The July meeting minutes showed more than one regional Fed president leaning toward rate hikes, believing inflation must be controlled by tightening. The president calls for cuts on stage, while the central bank wants hikes behind the scenes. This kind of opposition is rare in the market.
For us, this drama is more relevant than it seems. The low rates Trump wants have always been the fuel for risk assets, and this crypto rebound partly bets on that expectation. But if the Fed is truly tied to inflation and moves to tighten, relying on a rally sparked by a single speech leaves a weak foundation.
What we should watch most now is not what pretty words Trump says again, but who will give in first in this tug-of-war between him and the Fed. Whether money is cheap or not is the real key to this rally.The most eye-catching data in the market last night was definitely the short liquidations: within 24 hours, about $1.42 billion worth of BTC short positions were liquidated, and the total short liquidation across the entire market approached $2.74 billion. The numbers are huge, and the sentiment is very heated.
But I think simply attributing this rally to "shorts getting squeezed" is somewhat putting the cart before the horse.
What’s really worth noting is that the market’s trend condition had already improved before the price surged significantly. In other words, short liquidations are more like the gas pedal, not the engine.
Many people tend to chase the rally when they see a short squeeze, thinking "the shorts are gone, it’s about to take off." But a liquidation is essentially a forced buy after leverage is cleared; it can push the market faster, but not necessarily sustain the move longer. What truly determines whether BTC can hold its ground is spot buying support, whether capital continues to flow back, and if the market continues to form higher lows after the breakout.
So going forward, I will focus more on two questions:
1. Can BTC hold key support after the rally, rather than quickly falling back to the previous consolidation range?
2. Can trend indicators maintain strength continuously, rather than just briefly warming up during the liquidation wave?
If the price is only propped up by liquidations, the market may soon enter a high-level divergence; but if buying remains on dips and trend signals don’t reverse, this wave is more likely the start of a new upward move.
The market never lacks "short squeeze narratives," but what’s lacking is the ability to judge, when sentiment is hottest, whether this is a trend start or just a leverage-fueled fireworks show $BTC
(This is only a personal market observation and does not constitute investment advice)Even Google has started borrowing money, fueling a computing power frenzy sustained by debt
Google, a company with hundreds of billions of dollars in cash on its books, did something surprising this week: it issued bonds in Australia. It’s not because they lack money, but after calculating, they found borrowing is more cost-effective than using their own cash.
Behind this is a whole set of quietly changing rules. We used to think AI was a money-printing machine—whoever had the strongest model would rake in huge profits. But the reality is, what really supports this computing power race isn’t profit, it’s debt. Public data shows that global AI-related debt financing has already piled up to about $489 billion, and Alphabet’s Australian dollar bonds are just the tip of the iceberg.
What’s more intriguing is where the money goes. Most of this borrowed money isn’t for paying salaries but is poured into data centers, buying Nvidia chips, and building those power-hungry computing clusters. In the same week, Marvell signed a massive chip purchase-for-equity deal with Google worth up to $12.2 billion. The more these giants compete, the bigger the bills get.
The problem is, this massive supply is flooding the bond market. The 30-year US Treasury yield has been pushed to its highest level since 2007, and borrowing costs are visibly climbing. Bank of America has outright listed shorting AI bonds as the best current hedge strategy, essentially saying this bubble has grown too big to ignore.
What does this have to do with our crypto circle? Just a few days ago, Bitcoin staged an epic short squeeze, swallowing $1 billion in shorts within an hour, pushing the price to $70,000. But zooming out, the real competition for the same pool of risk capital is precisely these AI giants borrowing crazily. The higher bond yields go, the more tempting it is to keep money in safe assets, weakening the flow into high-volatility markets.
On one side, the crypto world cheers an 8% rebound; on the other, tech giants quietly borrow hundreds of billions in debt to burn on computing power. Which story will stand the test of time? It’s hard to say now. When the bills from this wave of bond issuance come due, will the market show a different face? We’ll see then.For every $500 million worth of chips Google buys, it gets an additional batch of stock.
Last night, an 8-K filing was submitted to the SEC system, detailing something rarely seen in the semiconductor circle.
Marvell agreed to issue stock warrants to Google, allowing Google to purchase up to 58,970,907 shares of its own stock at a price of $206.58 per share, totaling about $12.2 billion if fully exercised.
The key is not the number itself, but the vesting method. These warrants are not fully granted upon signing; only about 1.4 million shares are released in the first year. The rest are divided into 240 batches, and Google unlocks one batch for every $500 million of custom chips it purchases from Marvell, continuing through Marvell's fiscal year 2033.
In other words, the more chips Google buys, the more Marvell stock it receives.
In the normal business world, suppliers chase after big clients, often willing to lose money. This time, it's reversed: the big client places orders and simultaneously holds equity in the supplier. You can think of it as Google adding a rebate to its purchase orders, but instead of cash, the rebate is stock.
These chips will be integrated into Google's TPU ecosystem, including AI inference accelerators, storage controllers, network interface controllers, memory interface controllers, and near-memory computing chips. The commercial agreement was actually signed on July 29. Once announced, MRVL's pre-market price surged over 10%, and during the morning session, it jumped as much as 14%.
Interestingly, the same company experienced a single-day plunge of 19.8% in March 2025, its worst day in over twenty years, due to market doubts about the solidity of its AI orders. More than a year later, by handing over equity to customers, it regained certainty.
My first reaction to this news was not envy but familiarity. This structure should resonate with those of us in the crypto world: the big client is both buyer and shareholder, and the purchase amount directly determines the pace of equity unlocking. Demand and valuation are tied together. This closed loop looks great when things are going well—revenues rise, stock prices rise, and both parties profit. But if the purchasing pace slows down one day, it becomes hard to tell whether that revenue is genuine demand or a cleverly designed self-sustaining cycle.
Looking at the bigger picture: just last night, Bitcoin was squeezed up to $70,000, and Ethereum surged nearly 20% in a single day—the market is very hot. But in the real battle for long-term capital, AI has already upgraded its playbook to locking customers with equity. This year, we've seen mining farms converted to data centers, computing power traded as futures, and institutions extending credit lines to AI companies, one after another.
So here’s the question: AI locks in its demand with equity, but what do we rely on to lock in liquidity on our side? Do you think this client-becomes-shareholder closed loop is a sign of industry confidence, or is it just risk being pushed down the road? How should the tokens of a profitable project be repriced?
A long-neglected question is now being seriously addressed by institutions: the project is really making money, so how much is its token actually worth?
Arca's Chief Investment Officer recently laid this out clearly. He said that the digital asset space has spent fifteen years trying all kinds of fancy token valuation methods, but the next truly important innovation might just be the approach stock investors have long used: making money, increasing profits, allocating capital well, and ultimately letting token holders share in the gains. The words are simple, but they hit the core issue.
In the past, a project would issue tokens with grand stories, and token prices were supported solely by expectations and sentiment, no one cared if the project was losing money. Now it's different—on-chain protocols can actually generate cash flow, like fees from decentralized exchanges, commissions from staking protocols, interest spreads from lending protocols. These real revenues finally give traditional metrics like profit and buyback-and-burn a meaningful role.
The contrast is clear. Retail investors still rely on charts, while institutions have picked up the price-to-earnings ratio as their measure. Protocols with stable income and chains that reliably capture fees have more solid token value. Decentralized exchanges and staking protocols with strong fee capture can already show real quarterly revenues, and institutions using P/E ratios to value them is far more reliable than valuing a project based only on Twitter followers. Valuation logic is moving from castles in the air down to solid ground, and the gap between pie-in-the-sky tokens and money-printing machines will widen.
Of course, implementation is not that simple. On-chain income is volatile, tokens and equity are not the same, and rules about dividends—whether to distribute and how—are still undecided. More importantly, making money on-chain doesn’t mean token holders actually get a share; many protocols’ revenues go into treasuries or team pockets, unrelated to token holders. This measure can quantify income but not how much ends up in your pocket.
So for ordinary token holders, don’t get carried away just because the project’s financials look good. First ask how that money relates to your tokens. If you can’t answer, even a low P/E ratio is just empty joy. No matter how precise the institution’s measure is, it can’t gauge your greed or fear. That’s why the same financial report can be seen as an opportunity by some and a trap by others. Valuation is never just calculated; it’s a game of strategy.
What do you think— which chain will be the next to be revalued by institutions using the P/E ratio?BTC rose 11% breaking through 70K USD, gold increased by 4%
The 30-year US Treasury yield is approaching 5.4%, the US Treasury Department urgently repurchased
[The market seems to have started speculating on the narrative of US debt crisis + BTC + gold]
The 30-year US Treasury yield at 5.4% is the highest since 2007
This indicates that lending money to the US government requires the market to charge higher risk compensation
[The US Treasury Department can't sit still]
On August 19, it announced raising the single repurchase limit of US Treasuries from 2 billion USD to at least 4 billion
After the news came out
The 30-year yield dropped from around 5.33% back to about 5.20%
The 10-year also fell from 4.71% to 4.64%
This magnitude is equivalent to the market indeed sneezing
[This is a desperate measure that does not solve the problem]
Where does the US Treasury get the money to repurchase US Treasuries?
Isn't it still borrowed from the market?
Everyone is originally worried about nearly 40 trillion USD of US debt weighing down
It’s unlikely to be repaid in the future
They sell US Treasuries to control risk
Demanding higher interest compensation
Now instead of trying to increase income, reduce expenses, and improve debt repayment ability
They take borrowed money to rush into the market to buy their own debt
Simply trying to artificially lower interest rates
So others can borrow money more cheaply
Why should that be?A plumber's word made this coin rise ten thousand times
The most magical thing in the crypto world often happens in a single sentence. On August 11, trader Frank DeGods casually mentioned the word plumber on social media. That word became the name of a certain meme coin, which then surged to a ten-thousand-fold increase, all without a whitepaper or roadmap.
No team, no product, the project party might even be nonexistent. PLUMBER was ignited by just one word, the community went viral on Crypto Twitter, retail investors rushed in, and the price multiplied over a hundred times within days. This kind of thing is not uncommon on Solana, but a ten-thousand-fold increase still stunned people, especially since there was no decent performance to support it from zero to ten thousand times, and no substantial data could be found on-chain.
What’s even more intriguing is the on-chain data. These coins often lack decent liquidity; the pools are as thin as paper. Tens of thousands of dollars can create a straight bullish candle line. The group cheers, seemingly like big money entering, but it might just be a few wallets trading back and forth. Later retail investors click the link and buy at a falling price, while the earlier ones have already cashed out.
Looking at the bigger picture, meme launchpads produce nearly two thousand new coins daily. Statistics show that 99% go to zero, with a median drop of 97%. PLUMBER’s ten-thousand-fold surge is an extremely rare survivor bias; among a thousand coins, it’s the one, while the other 999 are forgotten, let alone profitable.
Compare it with other memes this week: DOGO rose 57% in one day, JIMOTHY surged over three times after Elon Musk posted a raccoon video, and FRONG was born by accident on the Robinhood chain. Each has a story, each is priced by attention, not value. Attention comes fast and goes fast; when the hype fades, thin pools mean you can’t even exit quickly.
We must recognize that meme coins profit from emotional arbitrage, not company profits. What comes fast goes fast. When you see a ten-thousand-fold increase, the whales might already be selling while you’re still trying to figure out why it’s rising.
Some treat memes as the crypto market’s thermometer; the crazier the rise, the more active the scene. But a high temperature could also mean a fever, not health. Don’t mistake hype for a trend. Wait until the pool is thick and you can exit safely before considering participation.
Do you know anyone who rushed in just because of a single word? Regulatory easing reopens compliant token financing channels
After being suppressed for more than half a year, token financing channels seem to be opening again. This week, the SEC proposed a new draft rule for crypto asset issuance, aiming to exempt certain digital asset issuers from registration requirements, effectively providing projects with a legal fundraising channel without having to hide overseas to issue tokens.
This reversal is quite striking. In previous years, the SEC was the most troublesome opponent for the crypto industry, frequently issuing subpoenas and lawsuits, making fundraising a precarious endeavor for projects, always fearing being classified as securities. Now the tide has turned; regulators are proactively offering a safe harbor, creating a complete path for tokens to move from legal fundraising to exemption from securities regulation. Such a shift in attitude was unimaginable two years ago.
Don't forget, just on the 14th of this month, the SEC canceled a scheduled meeting to discuss crypto asset issuance rules, which disappointed the market. Now the draft is back, indicating internal debates have not stopped, and the pattern of easing then tightening will likely continue. Unlike the already implemented GENIUS stablecoin legislation, this draft targets token issuance itself, covering a broader scope and affecting the entire primary market, not just the stablecoin niche.
How exactly will it be relaxed? The draft provides two exemption paths: one for small-scale issuances and another for qualified projects. The core is to clearly regulate token issuances that would otherwise require securities registration. For the market, this means the primary market could become lively again, projects no longer need to detour, and retail investors have a chance to participate under a more transparent framework instead of just taking over tokens in private groups.
But don't get too excited yet. Exemption does not mean no regulation; projects still must disclose required information and respect boundaries. Also, the draft is still a draft; after public consultation, revisions, and implementation, the timeline remains uncertain. Historically, SEC crypto rules have often been pending; how broad this opening will be and who will oversee it depends on detailed rules. It's too early to talk about full deregulation.
The impact on us traders is direct: reopening compliant token issuance channels will activate primary market funds, but more new assets also mean sharper blades. In the short term, sentiment will be boosted; in the long term, only those who can truly execute within the rules will survive, while projects that only make empty promises will still be eliminated.
Do you think this easing truly unbinds the industry, or is it just replacing the reins with a finer one?The boss of the world's largest exchange is betting the bull market on a single bill
The boss of the world's largest compliant exchange made his position clear today. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong posted a vision chart on social media, expressing hope that the CLARITY Act will receive strong bipartisan votes on September 15, followed by what he calls "Uptober," kicking off the next round of the cryptocurrency bull market.
This sounds like a call to action, but it carries significant weight. Coinbase is the exchange with the most users in the U.S., and the boss publicly tying the bull market to a single bill is essentially putting the entire industry's expectations on the table. His wording was "just as prophesied," with a tone full of certainty, even specifying the exact month.
But reality is not so straightforward. The CLARITY Act still has a long procedural path; the September 15 vote is only one step. Bipartisan negotiations, Senate amendments, and final implementation could all cause delays. Earlier, the American Bankers Association already stated support for the bill's passage but wants the stablecoin reward provisions tightened, as banks fear stablecoins will drain deposits. You see, even insiders are not united, so the final version of the bill will likely differ from the current draft.
More delicately, there's the Trump side. The White House recently had a meal with giants like Coinbase, Kraken, and Ripple, verbally calling for an end to the war on crypto, yet the Trump family's own crypto business has already earned over $1.4 billion this year. The overlap between policymakers and stakeholders means the market will sooner or later have to reprice this entanglement; when the positive effects are realized, they might also be fully priced in.
To add, the CLARITY Act aims to clarify the jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, defining Bitcoin and similar assets as digital commodities and assigning some tokens to commodity regulation, no longer fully governed by securities law. This is a real moat for Coinbase; with license certainty, institutions will dare to enter the market in force. But political cycles wait for no one; before the midterm elections in November, any bill could be used as a bargaining chip. Whether the September vote passes smoothly is uncertain.
For us, whether this bill is a genuine positive or an early overextension of expectations is unclear now. But one thing is certain: the fact that the exchange boss dares to publicly bet on it shows that the channel for compliant funds to enter is indeed opening. In the short term, don't take this as a battle cry; in the long term, you can track regulatory implementation as an industry watershed. The September vote is worth marking on your calendar.
Do you trust Armstrong's prophecy more, or do you think this is just another case of managing expectations?Eight surrender red lights are on, but institutions advise retail investors not to bottom-fish
Let's start with a data point that hits hard. VanEck's latest report says that among the twelve Bitcoin surrender indicators they track, eight have already slipped into the extreme zone. This is not some individual's panic call; it's a health check list compiled by institutions themselves, based on on-chain data and holding structures, so it can't be easily dismissed as fabricated.
These eight red lights cover old indicators like price retracement, miner profitability, and the proportion of holders at a loss. What's more painful is that in the past three months, all twelve indicators have been triggered at least once. Historically, when eight to twelve indicators light up simultaneously, Bitcoin's average return over the next ninety days is 12.8%, and over 180 days is 32%, both below the long-term average. In other words, the lights turning on doesn't mean an immediate reversal tomorrow; rather, it indicates the market is still in deep waters, so don't rush to treat the signal lights as a starting gun.
Here's the contrast. Most people see eight red lights and instinctively think the bottom has arrived and rush to buy. But VanEck itself pours cold water, saying this cluster of signals is better suited to judging the cycle position and is not a bottom-fishing signal. Bitcoin has already dropped about 49% from last October's high, and the 30-day realized volatility has fallen to 27.2%, only about 30% of the long-term average. The market seems drained of energy, so quiet it's eerie, but quiet often precedes big moves.
Miners are having an even harder time. Network daily revenue has dropped about 46% year-over-year, mining difficulty has fallen 18.3% from last November's peak, one of the largest declines since China's mining ban in 2021. A batch of inefficient mining machines has already shut down and exited. Whether miners will become the last straw to break the price is worth watching. Their retreat is both a cost clearance and a potential source of selling pressure.
Interestingly, just before the report was released, Bitcoin violently surged from around $63,000, liquidating over $1 billion in shorts within an hour, like a short squeeze. But VanEck's data reminds us that such pulses are not the same as a true cycle bottom. The rebound can be fierce, but bottom confirmation is slow, and the two are often confused by emotions.
For those of us trading swings, this data boils down to one sentence: the market is still clearing out, but volatility is suppressed. The lower the volatility, the harder the directional move will be later. In the short term, don't mistake low volatility for safety; in the long term, start paying attention to layout windows for cycles over a year.
Do you think these eight red lights represent the last stretch of darkness before dawn, or just a mid-journey pause to catch a breath? Bitcoin squeezes $1 billion shorts in one hour
In that one hour at dawn, Bitcoin surged directly from 68,000 to 70,000, the bullish candle on the screen was so steep it hardly seemed real. It then fell back to around 69,800, but the intraday gain still stubbornly clung above 8%. What’s truly frightening isn’t the price, but the string of liquidation numbers on-chain. According to Bloomberg statistics, in just sixty minutes, over $1 billion worth of Bitcoin short positions were forcibly liquidated, marking the largest short squeeze since 2021. Those who had bet on Bitcoin falling for half a year were kicked out by the market within an hour.
This situation is somewhat absurd. In recent months, the most crowded trade in the market was shorting Bitcoin. Everyone thought the macro environment was bad, regulations were uncertain, and mining farms were doomed; short positions piled up layer upon layer. Then the U.S. Treasury suddenly announced doubling the scale of long-term bond repurchases, from $2 billion per operation directly to $4 billion, and the yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond also fell by about nine basis points. Liquidity expectations changed instantly. On top of that, Trump invited major industry players like Coinbase and Kraken to the White House for talks, signaling a push for a friendlier regulatory framework. These two forces combined, and the shorts found themselves on the wrong side.
As the price rose, shorts had to buy back to cover, and this buying pushed the price higher, forcing more to liquidate, like a snowball rolling downhill. According to Coinglass data, in the past 24 hours alone, shorts on BTC and ETH were liquidated for over $600 million and $360 million respectively. If the entire crypto market is included, the total liquidation amount in this round approaches $1.3 billion, with over 100,000 traders taking losses, more than 90% of whom were shorts. Crypto stocks also collectively took off, with Strategy rising nearly 13%, and Coinbase up over 9%. The whole market felt like a tightly wound spring suddenly released.
But amid the excitement, no one can really answer the key question. Is this rebound supported by real money stepping in, or is it just a short-covering rally forced by liquidations? If it’s the latter, once the forced buy orders run out, can the price hold above the 70,000 mark? No one has a clear answer. Do you think you’ve bottomed out this wave, or are you caught in the middle again? A company that helps NVIDIA label data is worth $20 billion
The recent capital moves in the AI circle have been quite astonishing. According to The Information, NVIDIA is negotiating an investment with a data labeling company called Mercor, which is currently pushing a financing round with a valuation soaring to $20 billion, with existing shareholder General Catalyst in talks to lead the investment.
You might not have heard of Mercor, but what it does is very straightforward: hiring people to tag images and text, feeding this to AI models as training data. This tough job has mainly served closed-source giants like OpenAI, Google, and Anthropic, which doesn’t sound glamorous at all. Moreover, it labels not only text but also tasks that teach AI to understand images and videos. This business has a low entry barrier but cannot do without humans; the top-tier models rely even more on manual quality control.
The turning point lies with NVIDIA itself. It plans to launch the open-source model Nemotron, aiming to compete with the world’s most advanced open-source models. Data quality directly determines success or failure, which is why it is investing heavily to build labeling capacity. Last quarter alone, NVIDIA paid Mercor tens of millions of dollars and also used companies like Turing and Scale, while maintaining its own internal data team. The chip giant has ironically become a major backer of labeling companies, which is quite a contrast.
What’s even more intriguing is where the money flows. Mercor’s $20 billion valuation round would have been unthinkable six months ago. Back then, the market was worried about an AI bubble burst, but now capital is queuing up to pour in. Looking further back, Google borrowed heavily to build computing power, OpenAI raised tens of billions in credit before going public, and AI debt financing has already piled up to nearly $500 billion. The massive funds machines need to consume are competing for the same risk appetite capital as our crypto space. Don’t forget, crypto itself is desperately telling AI stories, but the real cash is flowing solidly to Silicon Valley’s labeling factories.
This is actually an old story. Every time there’s a tech frenzy, the real money is often made not by the stars on stage but by the shovel sellers. In AI, the shovel is data labeling; in crypto, meme-based shovel-selling platforms recently made tens of millions monthly. When the hype dies down, who’s left exposed is unknown, but those collecting tolls at the base layer already have full accounts.
Interestingly, crypto is also riding the same wave. Arthur Hayes just returned pushing FLOP as fuel for AI Agents, with various DeFAI narratives on everyone’s lips. But at the real money table, the lowest-level work like data labeling has already surged to a $20 billion valuation.
We retail investors watch daily which meme might rise, while capital quietly bets on AI’s most unnoticeable infrastructure. The excitement belongs to others, and our liquidity is being quietly moved away. When this wave passes, how much water remains in the crypto space might be the most important thing to ponder next.The most heavily shorted crypto stocks have all gone crazy with gains
During the hour when Bitcoin surged to $70,000, a group of people in the US pre-market were more panicked than anyone else. They weren't retail investors, but professional short sellers who had bet months ago that crypto stocks would collapse.
On Wednesday, the crypto market saw its biggest rebound since March. Bitcoin rose nearly 8% in a single day, briefly touching $70,000 intraday, while Ethereum soared nearly 20%, marking its largest single-day gain since March. Just Bitcoin shorts were liquidated for over $1 billion within an hour, the most intense short squeeze since 2021. Throughout the day, nearly $2 billion worth of positions across the crypto market were forcibly liquidated, the vast majority being shorts.
Riding this momentum, several of the most heavily shorted stocks on Wall Street collectively took off. Strategy closed up nearly 12% that day, at one point surging over 13%, with its stock price rising above $103; Coinbase gained 9%, Circle nearly 10%, and even BitMine, which holds the most Ethereum, rose about 10%.
What really tormented the shorts was how tightly these stocks were tied to the coin prices. Strategy holds about 840,000 Bitcoin, making it the publicly listed company with the largest Bitcoin holdings globally, and its stock price almost mirrors Bitcoin's. BitMine holds about 5.82 million Ethereum, making it the closest publicly listed pure Ethereum exposure. When coin prices rise, shorts are forced to buy back to cover, which in turn pushes the stock prices higher, creating a self-reinforcing rally. The fund managers who originally bet on these stocks going to zero ended up fueling the rebound.
There was also a macroeconomic push behind this. The US Treasury just announced it would at least double its long-term bond repurchase scale, raising it from $2 billion per operation to $4 billion, causing the 30-year Treasury yield to fall immediately. Market liquidity expectations loosened suddenly, and risk assets collectively warmed up. On the same day, Trump met with crypto giants like Coinbase and Kraken at the White House and hinted that the SEC is drafting friendlier issuance rules. With all these positive factors stacking up, the shorts were completely panicked.
The rebound in Coinbase and Strategy was especially driven by short covering. Both were heavily shorted stocks, and when prices reversed, those betting against them had no choice but to buy back. However, even after this rally, these companies are still down for the year; one day's bounce hasn't filled the previous losses.
Now everyone is focused on the same question: can Bitcoin truly hold above $70,000, or is this rally ultimately just a collective short squeeze? The market calls this kind of rise a short squeeze, but short squeezes are always a double-edged sword. Those who bet on crypto stocks going to zero got squeezed hard this time. When a rebound relies on short covering rather than genuine buying power, how long can this excitement last? What do you think?The trigger for this surge was Trump's speech at the White House summit. He said the US is considering a large purchase of Bitcoin and crypto assets — but he's been saying this for four years, and it hasn't materialized yet.
He also mentioned hoping the "Clarity Act" can pass quickly to maintain the US's leading position in the crypto field.
Interestingly, he specifically named a certain exchange as promising for entering the US market, and as a result, that token surged 20% immediately!
Then he wanted to ask the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates again. After he spoke, the market took off, open interest quickly piled up, funding rates dropped simultaneously, ultimately triggering an extremely fierce long squeeze.
In the past 12 hours, the total liquidation amount across the network exceeded $1.76 billion, which is quite staggering!
Actually, volatility has been suppressed during this period. Historical patterns tell us: the more volatility is squeezed, the stronger the subsequent market moves will be, and this time it perfectly proved true.
But now, there's a very abnormal huge gap on the liquidation map: the liquidity below far exceeds that above! If the price drops to around $55,000, long liquidations will exceed $7 billion; whereas if it surges to $78,000, short liquidations are only about $3 billion. This huge disparity indicates that if the main force wants to liquidate downward, the profit margin and selling pressure below are obviously much greater. Currently, the price is challenging the "bull market support zone," a tough barrier. Although the range has been broken, the 4-hour candle close confirmation is meaningless; what really matters is whether this week's weekly candle can close steadily above the resistance line. There are still a few days left this week; if it holds, the market will continue strongly; if not, this will be a typical false breakout.
Looking deeper, in every past bear market, Bitcoin's "iron bottom" was only truly established after breaking below both short-term and long-term realized cost bases. These two cost lines currently lie roughly between $50,000 and $55,000. This means that although this rebound looks good, we may not be completely out of danger yet — a similar sharp rally happened in 2022 but was ruthlessly crushed afterward. So, although this rise is indeed driven by Trump's speech, from a technical perspective, we are still in the bear market bottoming phase. Without more confirming signals, I won't blindly conclude that the bottom has been reached.
I previously precisely bottomed a long position at $58,000 and will continue to hold it. I've held it for a long time; many people have sold out along the way, but of course, I hope it keeps flying upward. My defensive pyramid orders have been laid all the way down; you can learn about my strategy internally. I'm also ready to add more at the bottom if the price breaks down and retests the lows. This week's weekly close is the indicator I will watch most closely next.
Ethereum has also risen in sync and looks ready to explode on the charts, but I think the safest strategy now is to keep steady daily investments in the currently undervalued range. I don't rule out the possibility it might hit new lows along with Bitcoin.
That's all for today. If you found this useful, remember to like and follow Forbes says Bitcoin can solve the dollar's Triffin dilemma
Forbes recently published a long article proposing a big thesis: Bitcoin might solve the dollar's Triffin dilemma and become a global neutral reserve asset. It sounds like a hype call, but the logic behind it is worth unpacking. After all, this isn't some random site; it's a reputable financial media seriously discussing this, not just blowing smoke.
The Triffin dilemma refers to the fact that the dollar serves both as the global trade settlement currency and as the domestic credit currency, which is hard to balance. In the long run, it inevitably causes tension: if too much is issued, the world complains; if too little is issued, the US economy collapses first. Forbes suggests that Bitcoin, an asset not tied to any country's credit and with a fixed total supply coded in, could act as a neutral chip that no one controls, patching the international reserve system and allowing countries not to all crowd onto the dollar boat.
Looking at on-chain data, this idea has some basis. In recent years, central banks and institutions worldwide have started discussing BTC as a reserve allocation option. The proportion of long-term holding addresses on-chain is also rising, indicating that some money truly regards it as digital gold rather than just a speculative chip. The proportion of holders keeping it for over a year remains high, showing these holders do not intend to move it.
But don't get too excited. This is more of a long-term narrative, not a market move happening tomorrow. In the short term, Bitcoin is still driven by macro interest rates and liquidity; big terms like the Triffin dilemma are far from the trading floor. To truly treat it as a reserve asset, hurdles like regulation, volatility, and custody remain unresolved. Institutional purchases are still small-scale tests, nowhere near replacing anyone. Ultimately, whether Bitcoin can be a reserve depends not on how well articles are written but on whether central banks are willing to actually put it on their balance sheets. Right now, it's still small-scale testing, far from being a true global reserve. Don't be dazzled by grand narratives.
Long-term, you can trust this direction; short-term, don't use it as a reason for a surge. From another perspective, Forbes daring to raise this topic shows that mainstream finance circles have begun seriously discussing Bitcoin within the reserve asset framework. This itself is a change. Ten years ago, no one compared it with the dollar system; now it’s on the table thanks to real institutional money entering this cycle. Whether it succeeds is another story, but the narrative level is rising. For long-term holders, this is far more important than tomorrow’s price moves; direction matters more than price points.
Do you think Bitcoin can really become a global reserve, or is this just another pretty story? The parent company behind BONK only has enough cash to last 9 days
For those still holding BONK, this is a must-read. Odaily checked the parent company behind BONK, which stands behind a market cap of about $22 million, and found that the company only has enough cash on hand to last 9 days. Yes, nine days, not nine months. At the current burn rate, by the end of the month, they might not even be able to keep the lights on, let alone pay salaries.
This contrast is heartbreaking. The coin price is propped up by community sentiment, with a market cap still over $20 million, but the people truly supporting this project have just over a week's worth of cash left in their pockets. Meme coins rely on attention; once the narrative cools down and buying stops, the parent company won’t even be able to pay salaries. What will support the coin then? Love? But love doesn’t pay the bills.
Don’t underestimate this signal. The lifeline of a meme coin has never been technology, but the continuous willingness of people to buy in. The parent company having only 9 days of cash means it has no capacity to develop, market, or build an ecosystem—it can only rely on market conditions to survive. When the market is good, everything’s fine; when it cools, the first to collapse are these thinly capitalized tokens because no one is injecting more money, and the price crashes on its own.
Of course, some bet on it being acquired or another hype wave to extend its life. Such things have happened in the meme space before; last year, some dog-themed coins had a brief revival thanks to a narrative boost. But betting on survival and betting on your own insight are two different things. Short-term emotional trading is fine, but don’t treat these tokens as long-term holds to cling to. Even leaving a tiny portion in your portfolio is already too much; a total wipeout could happen in a day.
Looking more broadly, BONK is not an isolated case. Many meme coins are supported by small teams; when the market is good, everyone calls them treasures, but when it cools, even operations can’t be maintained. The parent company having only 9 days of cash is far more common in the meme space than people think. So this isn’t bad news for just one coin—it’s a warning to everyone holding meme coins as major positions. You’re betting on the narrative, not the company. Don’t mistake a gust of wind for a foundation; when the wind stops, you’ll see who’s swimming naked. So when looking at meme coins, don’t just check if the community is lively—check how much ammunition the parent company has left. The excitement is someone else’s; the ammunition is yours. A project with no money on the books is just paper-thin no matter how lively it seems. When the market is good, everyone looks like a genius; when the tide recedes, you see who’s swimming naked. This saying is most true in the meme space.
How many more months can the parent company behind the meme you hold keep burning cash?Retail investors are frantically buying put options while still bullish on the underlying
Recently, retail investors in the US stock market did something quite unusual. According to data from Vanda Research, the volume of put options bought for the 12 most popular stocks this year is nearly double that of the first quarter. This defensive bet accounts for 110% of net cash inflows, up from 26%. In plain terms, retail investors are verbally bearish but still pouring money in, buying more puts than the stocks themselves, which on paper looks like panic.
Don’t be fooled by appearances. Buying a lot of put options doesn’t necessarily mean true bearishness; often, they are used as insurance or purely to bet on volatility. The report says the underlying bullish setup hasn’t changed; retail investors are just buying protection for their long positions, while also using leveraged ETFs and prediction markets to chase higher returns. When it comes to actually closing positions, they’re reluctant—typical tough talk but soft hands.
This mentality is the same as in the crypto space. Bitcoin recently bounced from 65,000 to 70,000, scaring people into buying hedges, but when it comes to exiting, few are willing to leave. The market’s biggest fear isn’t bearishness but everyone verbally fearing a drop yet not selling, which can cause a stampede once the trend reverses. When liquidity is good, it’s fine; when fragile, a single trigger can spook everyone and drag the whole market down.
The macro backdrop also matters. The US Treasury has directly increased long-term bond repurchases, causing the 30-year Treasury yield to fall 9 basis points from its high to 5.19%. With liquidity easing, risk assets collectively catch their breath. Retail investors buying puts now seem more like buying tickets for a possible pullback, not deserting. If a real crash happens, they might be the first to rush in and buy bargains, turning into bottom-fishing troops. This fearful-but-buying mindset actually indicates the market hasn’t hit a despair bottom yet; true bottoms often occur when even hedging is too lazy to buy. The fact that people are still willing to pay for insurance means money is still in the market and not completely lost hope.
Looking at the longer term, this fearful-but-buying behavior often appears during market bottoming phases. At the real bottom, everyone shouts “it will fall” but doesn’t actually sell; when the market turns, these people become the ones igniting the rally. Vanda’s data also shows put buying is concentrated in these 12 popular stocks, indicating fear is very specific, not a broad collapse. Localized anxiety with no overall crash is actually a relatively healthy state, more stable than widespread panic.
Are you secretly hedging yourself, or stubbornly holding on to the end? What does it mean that Shanghai included Web3 in its five-year plan?
Sometimes, domestic frontline moves are more worth pondering than a piece of overseas regulatory news. In Shanghai's recently issued Digital Shanghai 15th Five-Year Plan, it explicitly states the intention to carry out research on the Web3.0 innovation pilot mechanism, and specifically calls for innovation in third-generation internet applications, promoting artificial intelligence, the metaverse, embodied intelligence, and Web3 in the same sentence with considerable weight.
This is interesting. On one hand, token trading is not openly allowed; on the other hand, a top-tier frontline city includes Web3 as infrastructure in its five-year blueprint. The contradiction is clear: regulators want control over underlying technology and industrial discourse power, not to encourage retail investors to rush in and speculate. This approach is similar to early support for the internet and AI—first controlling financial risks, then holding the technology tightly, and only opening up when the timing is right, managing the pace very steadily.
For us, the signal is more critical than the literal words. A city of Shanghai's scale engaging in research on Web3 pilot zones effectively leaves a door open for compliant on-chain applications and enterprise-level blockchain. Future projects involving settlement, data rights confirmation, and stablecoin peripheral infrastructure will have more room to land than now, and talent and capital will more easily gather along this line. After all, when policy direction changes, money follows. Ultimately, including Web3 in the plan does not mean token prices will rise; it affects the industrial soil for the next three to five years. Those who truly want to plan ahead should focus on which types of applications will be approved first, not just the few points on today's market.
But don't misunderstand. The plan does not mention token speculation once, nor does it open any door for retail investors. Anyone hoping to use this as an opportunity to pump prices should stop early. Short-term speculators should not treat this as a bullish signal to act recklessly; long-term technical developers can pay attention to whether Shanghai will issue specific pilot zone rules, such as which scenarios will be approved first and which institutions can enter early—that is the real opportunity.
Looking ahead, Shanghai including Web3 in the official plan means more than just adding a slogan. It sends a signal to local developers and enterprises that this line is a long-term asset in policy vision, not a passing trend. The real bottleneck remains the implementation details and pilot scope; whoever gets the entry ticket first will occupy the ecological niche early. All regions are competing for this position; Shanghai has moved, and other cities will likely follow. No one wants to lose this piece of the pie.
Do you think this move truly loosens restrictions on Web3, or is it just a different way of tightening control over the ecosystem?13F Data Shows Institutions Increasing ETH Holdings Against the Trend, Outperforming BTC
The Q2 institutional holdings report is out, and after going through it, it feels quite counterintuitive. Most institutions not only didn’t cut positions during the downturn but actually increased their crypto asset holdings against the trend, and the asset they added the most wasn’t Bitcoin, but ETH. The report states that ETH exposure comprehensively outperformed BTC, both in terms of holding proportion and quarterly growth, with ETH surpassing BTC. This is completely different from last year’s blind accumulation of BTC, indicating that institutional preferences have quietly shifted.
In simple terms, smart money is rebalancing. Last year, everyone treated BTC as the only answer; now they are moving positions toward ETH, betting that as the Ethereum ecosystem’s fees, staking, and ETF channels gradually smooth out, ETH will have greater upside potential than Bitcoin. In Q2, ETF fund flows and institutional behavior were somewhat decoupled; institutions were buying at their own pace, not simply following retail investors’ subscription trends. This shows these players are adding based on their own models, not chasing hype.
What does this mean for our market? If ETH can continue to outperform BTC in this rally, then the altcoin season signs are not just empty talk. Many who have been waiting in altcoins are anticipating this moment. But don’t get carried away—institutional accumulation is a slow quarterly process, not a buy today, pump tomorrow scenario. Using the ETH/BTC ratio as a short-term reference is much more reliable than focusing on a single coin. The ratio often turns before prices do, providing an early signal.
The long-term logic is clearer. Institutionalization of crypto has deepened significantly over the past two years. The 13F filings show more traditional asset managers including digital assets in their portfolios, with even pension funds and endowments cautiously allocating some. The market may still be shaking on a bear market framework in the short term, but institutional moves at the bottom area often carry more information than retail panic—they are voting with real money, not just shouting bullish.
Looking back at this cycle, institutions have quietly shifted from only recognizing Bitcoin last year to reallocating toward ETH this year, mainly betting on improved liquidity after Ethereum spot ETFs get approved. Data doesn’t lie—where real money flows is where the long-term story holds. What we retail investors should learn most is not to blindly follow trading calls but to watch where the big money moves and then decide which side to take. Don’t just be led around by a single line. Institutional rebalancing is slow, but its direction is more valuable than retail sentiment.
In this wave, do you trust the direction of institutional rebalancing more, or do you think they are just taking the bag?$ETH $2,271, 24h +18.72%.
Market cap $323B, 24h increase is more than twice that of BTC.
This time it's not just a BTC solo rally, it's ETH catching up + capital rotation.
Logic chain: BTC breaks $69K → capital seeks the most elastic asset → ETH → capital inflow.
24h ETH short liquidations $1.13B, second only to BTC's $1.42B.
Plus Neuberger's $613B asset management launching HINC fund for high-yield bond tokenization, adding solid proof to the RWA narrative, boosting ETH settlement layer demand.
A brother who fully invested in ETH at 3,800 last year sent a screenshot: "Finally back." The mindset is good, but it's still early for ETH to really return to 3,800.
Strong short-term, mid-term depends on BTC's mood.
2,200 hold is a buy, 2,100 stop loss. Short-term 2,400, strong resistance 2,500. RSI 73+ be cautious chasing highs.
The ETH catching up and the ETH leading are two different scripts
#ETH强势拉升，空头清算超11亿美元 Crypto surged, long bonds fell, what exactly happened last night? Last night looked chaotic. The FOMC minutes were hawkish, the U.S. Treasury suddenly expanded long-term bond repurchases, and the administration called in a group of crypto industry executives from Coinbase, Robinhood, Kraken, and others to the White House. Putting these three things together, the logic is actually very clear. The Federal Reserve is telling the market that interest rates cannot be lowered easily; the Treasury is telling the market that long-term bond yields cannot rise indefinitely. This is the real contradiction from last night. First, the FOMC July meeting minutes showed that "several" officials supported a direct 25bp rate hike, and "many" officials believed that if inflation does not continue to decline, further tightening would be needed in the future. The final vote was 9:3 to maintain the 3.50%—3.75% range unchanged, with three members explicitly requesting a rate hike. Judging by the minutes alone, it was undoubtedly hawkish. But it has an inherent issue: this was the Fed three weeks ago. Since the meeting, employment and inflation data have changed some trading expectations. So these minutes are more like telling us that the hawkish forces within the Fed are strengthening, rather than telling us there will definitely be a rate hike in September. What truly shifted the market was the Treasury's 30-year bond yield, which surged to 5.34% the day before, a new high since 2007. Subsequently, the Treasury announced that starting September 9, the single repurchase size for 10–20 year and 20–30 year long-term bonds would be increased from the original 2 billion Bitcoin breaks through 70,000, shorts lose 1 billion in an hour
Accounts finally got some relief this week. Last night, Bitcoin directly pierced through 70,000, reaching a high near 70,300, rising nearly 8% in 24 hours — the first time since early June. Even more intense were the shorts: over 1 billion USD worth of BTC short positions were forcibly liquidated in about an hour, combined with roughly 1.3 billion USD liquidations across the network. This marks the largest wave of short liquidations since 2021. BTC shorts alone burned 660 million, ETH shorts took out 366 million, and those who usually shout about shorting got completely crushed this time.
I watched the order book for a long time; this rally wasn’t a slow grind up, it was forced. In previous months, the short positions were too crowded; once the price turned, those short accounts were forced to buy back to cover, pushing the price higher, which forced even more to cover — a classic short squeeze spiral. ETH was even more extreme, surging about 19% in a single day, the largest daily gain since March, dragging Coinbase up 9%, Strategy nearly 12%, Circle nearly 10%, igniting the entire crypto sector.
The market impact is direct. Those holding long positions are profiting, but don’t get dazzled by a single candle. Above 70,000 is a dense trading zone, with trapped and profit-taking orders stacked there. Historically, every time the price hits this level, it shakes out. Short-term followers should set stop losses at levels where they can sleep peacefully, don’t get overexcited and max out your positions. For swing traders, if this short squeeze can maintain volume and the pullback doesn’t break half of the previous high, the trend can be considered truly established; otherwise, it’s just building ammo for the next drop. The sharper the rise, the harsher the fall tends to be.
The catalyst isn’t just within crypto. On Wednesday, Trump met with executives from Coinbase, Kraken, and Blockchain.com at the White House, fueling market bets on friendlier regulation. The SEC also released new token issuance rules this week, aiming to open exemption channels for some token offerings. Additionally, the US Treasury doubled the 10- to 30-year Treasury buyback scale from 2 billion to 4 billion, warming liquidity expectations. The 30-year Treasury yield fell by 9 basis points, and with more money flowing, risk assets naturally attract capital.
The framework of short-term bearish and long-term bullish hasn’t changed. A single surge can’t save a bear market, but with shorts so heavily liquidated, it shows that crowded positions in the wrong direction are costly. The comfortable days of blindly shorting are temporarily over. For this rally, do you think it can hold above 70,000, or will it peak and then take profits first? HYPE surged 20% in one day as Trump actively gave it the green light
A few hours ago, Hyperliquid's native token HYPE rose more than 22% within 24 hours, reaching a price of $71.94. The big bullish candle was directly triggered by one sentence from Trump: the US SEC chairman is pushing for Hyperliquid to enter the US market in a compliant manner.
The contrast here is almost absurd. Hyperliquid has been a decentralized on-chain derivatives platform from day one, with no KYC, no US license, and the team deliberately placed itself outside the reach of US regulation. Its rise to the top spot in on-chain perpetual contracts over a few years relied precisely on this offshore, unregulated wild growth. Now the most counterintuitive scene has appeared: instead of it meekly begging for regulation, the US president stands up and says our SEC chairman is helping you get in.
Trump made these remarks at a White House crypto industry meeting. Present were the heads of Coinbase, Ripple, Robinhood, Kraken, Chainlink, Gemini, as well as SEC chairman Paul Atkins and CFTC chairman Michael Selig. He also urged Congress to pass a so-called fair version of the Clarity Act to provide a clear regulatory framework for the crypto market.
Those who know some history understand that before Atkins became SEC chairman, the agency's stance toward on-chain trading platforms was basically to investigate whenever possible. Now the same person is said to be actively paving the way, a turnaround sharper than the market itself. If Hyperliquid really gets the US entry ticket, it could very well become the first compliant model for decentralized derivatives, effectively opening a door for all on-chain exchanges.
The on-chain activity hasn't been idle either. Around the time of Trump's speech, a wallet linked to Amber Group withdrew 200,000 HYPE from Hyperliquid, worth about $13.83 million. Whether this was profit-taking after the positive news or a big player repositioning early is unclear to outsiders. But the timing of such a large order appearing right then shows the smart money was definitely not asleep.
Even more theatrical is that on the same day Trump also said the US government has discussed accumulating large-scale Bitcoin and other crypto reserves. On one hand, elevating Bitcoin into a national strategic asset, and on the other, inviting offshore exchanges in—this combination move looks far from mere formal politeness.
What’s truly worth watching is what the so-called compliance framework will actually look like. If Hyperliquid adds KYC, cuts some trading pairs, and accepts daily SEC audits just to enter the US, will it still be the Hyperliquid we know? This question might be more worth discussing than how high HYPE can rise.Trump talks about saving money but is hoarding coins for the US
Just after 5 a.m., Trump dropped a sentence that instantly woke the entire crypto community from their sleep. The president said the US government has discussed plans to accumulate a "large-scale" reserve of Bitcoin and other crypto assets. Note, it's the phrase "large-scale," not just a symbolic small purchase.
The most intriguing part is the contrast. Less than ten minutes before this news, another flash report stated that the US federal debt had just surpassed $40 trillion. Over the past year, US debt increased by a full $3 trillion; excluding the pandemic period, this is the fastest growth in history. The Congressional Budget Office even predicts that the public-held federal debt to GDP ratio will exceed the post-WWII peak of 106% around 2030. On one hand, debt alarms are at full blast; on the other, there's a plan to borrow money to buy crypto. This logic feels surreal.
Trump himself previously vowed to control government spending, but before saving any money, he's already planning to buy Bitcoin for the country. Where the money will come from, when to buy, and how exactly to operate—all remain unclear.
Actually, the US has shown signs of building crypto reserves for some time. Earlier this year, the White House pushed policies to establish a strategic Bitcoin reserve, which stirred the market but seemed more like a gesture without real capital entering. Now with "large-scale accumulation" mentioned, the tone changes, as if crypto assets are about to become a permanent item on the national balance sheet.
The market has long speculated on one thing. The US holds a large amount of Bitcoin seized from past law enforcement actions, most of which were frozen by courts or awaiting auction. If the "strategic reserve" moves from slogan to policy, this existing stock plus new purchases could be larger than anyone imagines. Because of this expectation, every time the White House hints at reserves, Bitcoin tends to shake up first.
Right after the statement, Bitcoin surged past $69,900, and Ethereum jumped over 20%. The market clearly took this as a buy signal. But think carefully, Trump said "discussed," not "decided," and certainly not "buying tomorrow." Between discussion and implementation lies not just money but also Congress members who don’t understand K-line charts.
Even more striking is who he’s about to meet. The news mentioned Trump is expected to meet executives from Coinbase, Payward, and Blockchain.com. On one side, the state is entering the market; on the other, industry giants are entering the White House. This scene looks like paving the way for something big.
But we must stay calm. This president has repeatedly made statements about crypto; the expectations he sets with words often get discounted in reality. He says "large-scale," the market rallies out of respect, but what if this is just a test balloon? What really matters is whether the White House will come up with concrete plans, where the money will come from, and whether Congress will approve. If it stops at "discussed," today's rally might just be a meal the bears served the bulls. What do you think? Is he serious this time, or just flying another beautiful kite?The local coins you sent haven't made anyone rich, but those selling the shovels are already earning tens of millions per month.
Since the beginning of this year, the overall crypto market has been quiet, with altcoins largely underperforming, and the usually lively secondary and airdrop groups have become much quieter. Yet, amid this downturn, a group of people are doing quite well—they don't trade coins themselves, they just sell the shovels.
Looking at the numbers is quite sobering. Pump.fun earned $34.68 million in the past 30 days, with platform trading volume reaching $1.7 billion. This single platform's profitability has already surpassed Hyperliquid. GMGN made nearly $20 million, Axiom over $14 million, and even the socially oriented trading platform fomo brought in $8.79 million. The worse the market gets, the more stable they become.
The profit model of these platforms is very straightforward. Creating tokens on Pump.fun is free, but during the bonding curve phase, every buy or sell transaction incurs a 1.25% fee, nearly 1% of which goes directly into the protocol's pocket, plus an additional 0.015 SOL fee for migration after graduation. GMGN is even simpler: the platform takes 1% from every completed user transaction, and copy trading follows the same standard. Fomo sets a minimum fee of $0.95 per transaction; meme players tend to trade small amounts frequently, so this minimum fee actually becomes a significant revenue source. Axiom is similar, with almost all income coming from Solana, and the effective net fee rate ranging between 0.75% and 0.95%, relying on volume to generate cash flow.
The contrast is the most interesting part. The meme coin myth of getting rich overnight with a $50 million market cap within hours is becoming increasingly rare this year, with many coin issuers themselves complaining about not making money. But the platforms remain unaffected; as long as new coins are launched and people keep trading, they continue to take their cut. When the stock meme MarsCoin was hot on BNB Chain, Flap earned $5.58 million in 30 days, 90% of which came from that chain. Pons issued 15,000 tokens in one day on July 15, collecting over $18 million in fees over 30 days, and it even uses 80% of protocol income to buy back and burn its own platform tokens. On GMGN's side, the largest income actually comes from Robinhood Chain, with over $11 million a month; the meme craze on the US stock chain is clearly fueling trading tools.
Even competitors are poaching talent. Recently, overseas communities have been buzzing that Pump.fun spent money to lure fomo's talent away, offering a $20,000 signing bonus plus a $30,000 monthly salary. A token issuance platform personally trying to intercept trading tool personnel shows that this shovel-selling business has become fiercely competitive.
In short, the most stable winners in a gold rush are always the shovel and water sellers. Ordinary people rush in hoping for a one-in-ten-thousand chance of getting rich, but the platforms bet on the certainty that you will come to gamble. Next time your fingers itch to jump into a new project, ask yourself one question: whose pocket does your transaction fee finally end up in? The veteran stablecoin quietly changed its name, hiding a major move behind it
Berachain's stablecoin called HONEY quietly changed its name a few days ago; it is now called Bera USD, with the symbol changed to BUSD. Many people thought it was just a rebranding to boost visibility, but there’s more to it—behind the scenes, it signals a strategic shift targeting institutional investors.
The official explanation is that this change helps institutional users immediately recognize it as a USD stablecoin. However, there’s a technical catch: because the token name is part of the EIP-712 signature design, all off-chain authorizations previously signed under the name HONEY automatically become invalid and must be re-signed. In other words, every integrator must update accordingly—wallets, protocols, frontends—no one can skip this, or they won’t connect.
This is where it gets interesting. On the surface, it’s a brand upgrade, but in reality, it’s a forced comprehensive audit of the entire ecosystem. For ordinary users, previously authorized interactions might suddenly stop working, requiring re-approval, which is annoying and may lead many to think their wallet is malfunctioning. But for project teams, this is a good opportunity to clear out zombie authorizations and simultaneously check for risks, wiping out old unused permissions all at once.
Stablecoins are the lifeblood of DeFi. Berachain’s chain was built on a liquidity proof mechanism, and HONEY was the fuel for its ecosystem operations. This shake-up will cause short-term fluctuations in TVL and user experience, but in the long run, if BUSD can truly gain traction through institutional narratives, its moat will be stronger than before.
However, to be realistic, the stablecoin space is already a red ocean. USDT and USDC together hold over 80% market share, with PYUSD, EURC, and many native on-chain stablecoins also competing. Berachain can’t expect to capture institutional funds just by changing its name. HONEY’s market cap and circulation scale don’t even rank among mainstream stablecoins. The scale difference is several orders of magnitude, so overtaking on a curve won’t be easy. The rename is at best an entry ticket; to truly convince institutions to move funds over, it depends on whether its liquidity proof mechanism can generate sustainable returns. Otherwise, the rename is just a new signboard with the same product inside. In the short term, don’t panic sell just because of the rename—that’s just scaring yourself; in the long term, whether it can really attract institutional capital is the key to this coin’s fate.
Do you think this rename is a positive upgrade or just unnecessary trouble for users?I believe this surge of BTC breaking through $72,000 is mainly an emotional release caused by a "short squeeze," along with Trump's announcement that the government might hold positions. It's difficult to stabilize directly in the short term and will most likely pull back to confirm support. Look at the data: nearly $3 billion liquidated in 24 hours, which shows a large part of the upward momentum comes from short stop-losses rather than active buying by bulls. Prices driven by "passive buying" like this often lack a solid foundation. I built a base position at $68,000, and when it surged to $71,800 today, I decisively reduced my position by 30%. Because experience tells me that after a sharp rise, there will inevitably be profit-taking pressure. If the spot ETF does not continue to see large net inflows, it will be hard for leveraged funds alone to hold the $72,000 level. The current strategy should be: don't rush to chase the highs; wait for it to pull back and stabilize in the $69,000–$70,000 range before reassessing. For us retail investors, the biggest taboo at this time is to jump in just because the price has risen, as that easily makes you a high-level bag holder. #BTC突破72000美元，本轮上涨能否延续？ The US Dollar Index suddenly plunged, and risk assets collectively rebounded
On the 19th, the US Dollar Index suddenly dropped sharply with a big bearish candle, quietly but solidly. Many people didn't notice that this was actually the flip side of the same event as the crypto surge that night. A weaker dollar means assets priced in dollars become relatively cheaper, so global money naturally flows into risk assets.
That night, BTC surged straight to 69,500, ETH touched 2,100, and one of the driving forces behind this was the dollar's retreat. A more direct trigger was the US Treasury doubling the liquidity repo scale for long-term government bonds, raising the single transaction limit from $2 billion to at least $4 billion, effectively injecting another wave of liquidity into the market. When money flows in, the first to react are often high-beta assets like stocks and crypto, so you saw US stocks and crypto concept stocks also rally strongly that night.
Looking at a longer timeline, a weak dollar and a crypto bull market have always been partners. From 2020 to 2021, the US Dollar Index fell from just over 100 to below 90, while BTC surged from 10,000 to 69,000. The script of that night almost repeated itself, just on a smaller scale. The market is now betting that the Fed will be forced to turn dovish; once rate cut expectations are confirmed, the dollar will weaken further, which is a continuous tailwind for crypto. Conversely, if inflation data rebounds and the dollar strengthens again, this liquidity-driven rally will be the first to be punctured.
Interestingly, a weak dollar not only benefits crypto but also gold, which went crazy as spot gold directly rose above $4,510 that night, gaining over four points intraday. This shows the market is trading not just a single coin but an entire logic line of a weak dollar and ample liquidity. For those of us analyzing the market, the US Dollar Index is an unignorable background sound: when it falls, non-sovereign assets like BTC tend to rise—this is an old rule.
But don't get too excited. This dollar drop is mostly suppressed by US Treasury yields, while the Fed minutes remain hawkish, with several members openly or covertly wanting rate hikes. Trump verbally calls for rate cuts but can't suppress internal divisions. Liquidity is coming, but the tightening rhetoric hasn't eased. In the short term, a weak dollar plus loose liquidity indeed extends crypto's life; in the long term, if the dollar reverses and strengthens, the foundation of this rebound will be unstable. So now is not the time for blind bullishness; don't load your positions too heavily.
Do you think this dollar drop is the start of a trend or just a breather? The reserve company holds 840,000 BTC, accounting for 4% of the total supply
The latest investor briefing from Strategy states a figure: as of August 9, the company has 840,447 BTC on its books, roughly 4% of the total supply. What does this mean? The total circulating coins in the market are just over 20 million, and this one company holds more than four-tenths of that, even more than most sovereign holdings of countries.
This company has long been unsatisfied with simply hoarding coins. The briefing explicitly states that the core strategy is to use the capital market to build a platform called digital credit, with the goal of increasing the BTC backing each share. In plain terms, it wants to turn itself into a perpetual motion machine: issuing shares, issuing bonds, swapping coins; as the coin price rises, the valuation increases, allowing it to issue more shares, and so on in a cycle. Michael Saylor has been playing this game for years, and the market has shifted from mocking to following suit, with many smaller companies copying this model. Just in the first half of this year, more than twenty such coin-hoarding companies have emerged.
Comparing horizontally is even more frightening: the figure of 840,447 BTC far surpasses the holdings of any spot ETF, even BlackRock’s largest IBIT looks like a retail investor in comparison. It relies on an all-weather ATM issuance program, issuing new shares in a dilutive manner whenever the stock price rises, using real money to buy coins on the market. The problem is, this strategy fears not a crash but a sideways market; if the coin price doesn’t move, the BTC per share stagnates, the story can’t continue, and the premium between market cap and holdings slowly leaks away.
On the other hand, more and more people in the market are calling the bear market bottom, but players like Strategy, who hoard coins with high leverage, fear sideways markets the most. If the coin price doesn’t move, their financing costs can’t be suppressed; maintaining a 4% share requires burning a lot of money annually, which outsiders can’t calculate. They claim to be long-term investors, but in reality, they are constantly looking for new money to take over. Their legitimate operating cash flow can’t satisfy this appetite at all; they rely entirely on capital market blood transfusions.
For the market, this whale-level buy order is a support force but also a hidden risk. If it is forced to reduce holdings, the market will instantly have a giant seller, and prices will break through multiple support levels at once. In the short term, its existence provides a buffer below, giving bulls confidence; in the long term, no one dares to guarantee whether this model can survive an entire bear market cycle. Leverage is a double-edged sword that must be repaid sooner or later.
Do you think holding 4% of the coins in one company’s hands is a positive or a ticking time bomb? Everyone says the Fed will cut rates, but three Fed officials want to raise them.
Bitcoin just surged to $69,500 last night in one go, with a single-day increase close to 8%, marking the largest daily gain since March. The entire community is shouting that the bull market is back. But just as everyone was eyeing the $70,000 mark ready to celebrate, the Fed meeting minutes to be released tonight might pour cold water on this enthusiasm. This rally even pushed Bitcoin back above the 100-day and 200-day moving averages, triggering over $1 billion in liquidations within just one hour.
At the July rate-setting meeting, three Fed officials voted against keeping rates unchanged. They explicitly demanded a rate hike, with a strong rationale: core inflation was still at 2.6%, well above the Fed’s own 2% target. It’s rare in recent years for three people inside the central bank to publicly call for a rate increase, showing a notable split.
What’s more subtle is the conflicting data. July’s CPI showed core prices rose only 2.5% year-over-year, the lowest since March 2021, yet the same month’s employment report showed a loss of 23,000 jobs. On one hand, inflation isn’t under control; on the other, employment is dropping. Even Fed insiders are uncertain, which is why the hawks and doves are fiercely debating.
The market had almost firmly expected rate cuts, and much of Bitcoin’s recent rally was built on the assumption of easing liquidity. Ironically, this surge happened right after the U.S. Treasury announced it would at least double its buyback of 10- to 30-year bonds. The money hasn’t been printed yet, but expectations have already driven prices up. However, once the minutes reveal the voices of those three hawkish officials, everyone will realize the Fed isn’t as dovish internally as thought. Analysts from Citi and JPMorgan are already warning that the revealed divisions might be larger than expected.
I actually find this quite intriguing. Bitcoin surged fiercely last night, but the options market is packed with calls above $70,000 and puts below $60,000, indicating neither bulls nor bears are fully convinced. If the minutes lean hawkish, a short-term pullback might wash out those highly leveraged longs, which is what we really need to watch next.
What do you think? Can this rebound survive the Fed’s stance, or will there be another heavy blow before the $70,000 mark?BTC breaks through $72,000, can it hold?
Just this afternoon, Bitcoin surged 11%, surpassing $72,000. Ethereum rose over 19%, SOL increased more than 13%, and HYPE jumped over 26%. According to CoinGlass data, 187,000 people worldwide were liquidated in the past 24 hours. Amid the bulls' celebration, one question stands before everyone: can $72,000 hold?
What is driving this surge?
First, a major move on the macro front. The U.S. Treasury announced it will at least double the scale of long-term bond repurchases, with each operation amount raised to no less than $4 billion, covering 10- to 30-year bonds. The new policy took effect on September 9. After the announcement, long-term U.S. Treasury yields dropped sharply, the dollar weakened, and risk assets rebounded broadly. Large funds shifted from bonds to gold and Bitcoin, becoming the core driver of the rally.
Second, shorts were completely crushed. During this rally, the crypto market saw $1.44 billion worth of short liquidations. The ratio of short to long liquidations was about 8.6:1. As prices rose, the first batch of shorts were forced to buy back BTC to cover, pushing prices higher, causing more shorts to capitulate—creating a self-reinforcing short squeeze cycle.
Third, institutional funds have returned. The U.S. spot Bitcoin ETF recorded a net inflow of $297.6 million on August 17 and another $189.3 million on August 18, totaling about $487 million over two days. Meanwhile, over the past 60 days, large holders ("whales") have increased their net Bitcoin holdings by about 43,000 BTC, equivalent to approximately $2.75 billion at current prices.
Can $72,000 hold?
Reasons to be bullish:
Technical breakout of key resistance. BTC surged from around $64,000 to $72,000, breaking out with volume and opening a larger upside space. Analysts point out BTC has formed an inverse head and shoulders pattern, and after breaking the neckline, it could target $76,000.
Sustained inflows of institutional funds provide a foundation. ETF funds have reversed previous outflows; if net inflows continue, this rally’s foundation will be much more solid than just short covering.
Positive signals from on-chain data. The 30-day apparent spot demand has narrowed significantly from negative 206,000 BTC on July 23 to about negative 5,000 BTC, nearing a positive turnaround. Among 12 "Bitcoin market capitulation" indicators tracked by VanEck, 8 have triggered extreme pessimism signals, with researchers believing the market may complete bottoming between September and November.
Concerns for the bears:
The short squeeze rally is time-sensitive. Short squeezes driven purely by forced liquidations usually fade once buying pressure exhausts. If the price quickly falls back after reaching $72,000, it indicates short-term funds and short covering dominated this surge.
The macro picture is not fully clear. Bond repurchases only indirectly suggest increased rate cut expectations, not actual rate cuts. A true trend reversal requires official rate cut announcements.
Market divergence remains large. Bloomberg Intelligence strategists warn that Bitcoin’s continued weakness below $69,000 strengthens extreme predictions of a drop to $10,000. Fundstrat research notes Bitcoin’s volatility is at historic lows, with a potential 30% swing in the next 60 days—using $64,000 as a base, the upside target is about $83,200, while the downside could reach $44,800.
Key indicators to watch
In the coming days, focus on these three:
Whether ETF fund inflows continue—this directly reflects institutional sentiment
Whether U.S. Treasury yields remain low—this determines the macro environment’s looseness
Whether BTC can hold above $72,000 after a pullback—only by stabilizing and confirming support can it continue higher
Final thoughts
BTC surged over 11% from around $64,000 to surpass $72,000, a significant short-term gain. In the next few days, bulls and bears will likely fiercely contest around $72,000. Whether it can hold depends not on how high it goes today, but whether it can stand firm tomorrow and the day after.
The above content is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice. The market carries risks; please make decisions cautiously.
What do you star friends think? Is $72,000 a new starting point or a temporary peak? Feel free to share your views in the comments. #BTC突破72000美元，本轮上涨能否延续？ Standard Chartered suddenly raised Bitcoin's target to $100,000
Last night, Bitcoin made a straight surge, pulling up close to $70,000, marking the largest single-day gain since March, and finally reclaiming the long-suppressed 100-day and 200-day moving averages.
While everyone was still guessing how far this rebound could go, Standard Chartered analyst Geoff Kendrick dropped a statement: Bitcoin could surge to $100,000 by the end of this year. This is not a hype post on Twitter but an official research view from a global major bank. His key level is $65,500, saying that as long as this level holds, it basically confirms the cycle low for this round has appeared.
His main reason is not the four-year cycle, but a recent announcement from the U.S. Treasury: the scale of long-term Treasury repurchases has doubled, with the single transaction cap raised from $2 billion to at least $4 billion. In his words, the government's liquidity injection into the market is exactly the environment Bitcoin loves the most.
Yet just a few weeks ago, the mainstream market sentiment was still that the bear market wasn't over, institutions were reducing positions, and long-term holders were quietly handing over chips. Overnight, a major bank shouting $100,000 flipped the narrative. Ironically, this rally was largely driven by short covering; in the past 24 hours, about $1.5 billion in liquidations occurred across the network, with the largest single liquidation close to $50 million, instantly wiping out a large number of bearish bets.
The surge also coincided with a major event. As Bitcoin was pushing up, Trump was meeting at the White House with executives from Coinbase, Ripple, Gemini, as well as the chairs of the SEC and CFTC, preparing for a crypto regulatory roundtable. The market movement and the meeting happened almost simultaneously, making it hard to say it was just a coincidence. FalconX market maker Lim also mentioned that in previous weeks the market was suppressed by sell pressure, but Bitcoin held firm at the low $60,000 level, which shifted sentiment.
A major bank turning bullish, a bloodbath for shorts, and a warm breeze in regulation—all three happening on the same day feels somewhat surreal. Options open interest on Deribit is concentrated on $70,000 calls, indicating the market is already pricing in further upside.
Price targets like this are just for reference. Kendrick himself admits this is based on the premise of continued loose liquidity. But if the Fed minutes reveal stronger hawkish tones, or U.S. Treasury yields push higher again, the story could change at any time.
The real question is left to you: when a major bank starts shouting $100,000, is this a signal of a bottom, or just another excuse for a new batch of people to catch the falling knife? Retail investors verbally remain calm but are frantically hoarding crash insurance
Let's start with an unusual scene. Since April this year, retail investors in the US stock market have clearly slowed down their stock purchases, with the total direct buy volume steadily declining. However, the same group has turned around and poured money into put options, which are instruments that bet on the market going down.
According to Vanda Research data, for the 12 most popular stocks favored by retail investors, the volume of put option purchases has nearly doubled compared to the first quarter. Even more striking, the ratio of put option purchases to their net cash purchases has surged from about 26% to 110%. What does this mean? Simply put, the money they are spending on bearish bets has already exceeded the money spent on bullish bets.
This is interesting. On one hand, retail investors are still talking about a bull market and are fixated on holding their positions without selling; on the other hand, they are secretly insuring their accounts, betting on a big correction coming next. Put options essentially serve as crash insurance, giving you the right to sell at an agreed price before a specified date. Normally, no one wants to pay for this insurance, but when people feel uncertain, they scramble to buy it. The current level of buying insurance is rare in recent years.
The strange part is that the underlying market conditions are not actually bad. Research institutions say that although retail investors are taking strong defensive actions, the upward trend in the US stock market itself has not been disrupted; the bullish structure remains intact. In other words, the market's path upward is still open, but investor sentiment has panicked first.
This disconnect between people and the market is worth pondering. Historically, many times when retail investor sentiment is at its most pessimistic and defensive, it is not the end of the market trend. The Fear and Greed Index is currently at 27, still in the fear zone, but if you look at institutions, many are adding positions in the opposite direction. Trader Killa, who previously perfectly predicted this downturn path, said that waiting for a perfect bottom might cause you to miss the subsequent rally; rather than staying out and waiting, it's better to build some positions first.
This logic applies to BTC as well. In the past two days, BTC surged to nearly $70,000, liquidating over a billion dollars of shorts across the network, wiping out many who stubbornly shorted at low levels. Before this, retail sentiment was quite bearish, trading volume shrank, and many were on the sidelines, sharing the same mindset as US stock retail investors hoarding put options—they were all waiting for a worse price, but the price never came, and the rebound arrived first.
Interestingly, the less people believe in the rebound, the more uncomfortable it tends to be. Those who missed out are reluctant to chase, those trapped want to get out quickly, and those holding insurance are still debating whether to cut losses. The market grinds upward amid this tension.
Of course, retail investors collectively buying insurance isn't entirely bad; at least it shows leverage isn't crazy, and people still maintain some caution. The real danger often comes when everyone is unguarded and charging upward together.
So the question is, when most people are quietly buying crash insurance, is this collective caution a sign of wise foresight, or is it another missed opportunity handed away? What do you hold now—an insurance policy or chips? Privacy coins are being besieged worldwide, but Grayscale insists on listing it
In recent years, major exchanges like Binance and OKX have successively delisted Zcash in many regions, with similar reasons: regulators fear its anonymity feature being used for money laundering. Today, when people talk about privacy coins, many immediately think of avoiding or bypassing them, and even wallets quietly hide the shielded address feature.
Yet, in this atmosphere, Grayscale quietly submitted the fourth version of the Zcash Trust registration documents to the SEC this week, specifically aiming to list on NYSE Arca with the ticker ZCSH. This is not just a simple listing; after going public, authorized participants will be able to continuously subscribe and redeem shares, whereas previously this trust could only be traded OTCQX off-exchange, with no redemption allowed. This trust actually has existed since 2018, being one of Grayscale's earliest products, stuck in OTC for nearly eight years before finally getting a chance to go legit.
What’s even more intriguing is the holding structure. As of the end of June, this trust held about 2.3% of ZEC’s circulating supply, with a net asset value of approximately $155 million, which is already a sizable amount among privacy coins. Meanwhile, a subsidiary of Grayscale’s parent company DCG is reportedly negotiating to directly buy nearly 200,000 ZEC trust shares, although no agreement has been finalized yet.
When the news broke, ZEC surged nearly 9% that day, standing out sharply amid a bleak altcoin market. On one hand, exchanges are busy clearing out; on the other, institutions are accumulating. This contradiction is quite thought-provoking. Zcash, with its shielded transactions, naturally treads on the most sensitive regulatory line, yet Grayscale chooses this moment to push it into the mainstream market—what’s the strategy? After all, in an era when Binance is gradually shutting down ZEC trading pairs, it seems Grayscale is the only one daring to bring it to the NYSE.
One theory is that the more suppressed something is, the greater its elasticity once policy restrictions loosen. Grayscale has reaped compliance benefits over the years by converting BTC and ETH trusts into spot ETFs, and it’s clearly betting that the privacy sector will eventually be revalued, so it wants to secure the compliance shell first.
But on the other hand, it’s important to see that this trust is still a relatively niche fund, and the rumors about DCG stepping in to buy shares have yet to materialize. Whether privacy coins can truly make a comeback depends not on Grayscale’s willingness alone, but on how the Washington regulators ultimately classify them and whether Europe’s travel rule will be relaxed.
What do you think? After being shunned for so long, has Grayscale really caught a whiff of opportunity this time, or is this just another lonely contrarian bet?The U.S. is about to bring Bitcoin mining machine hashrate to futures
Last night, a breaking news almost got completely overshadowed by Bitcoin's surge. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or CFTC, officially issued a request for public comments on the listing and regulation of hashrate derivative contracts, with a 60-day comment period.
At first glance, this seems like a dry administrative procedure. But when combined with what CFTC Chairman Rostin Behnam said, the meaning changes completely. He stated that without a robust hashrate derivatives market, the U.S. cannot win the AI race.
This is interesting. In recent years, the public perception of cryptocurrency mining has mostly been about high electricity consumption and environmental concerns. Politicians criticize it, environmental groups pursue it, and many inside the industry have been considering transforming into AI hashrate centers to survive. Now, the top regulator of derivatives openly links mining hashrate with the nation's AI destiny. Behnam even compared it to the industrial era, saying that just as the U.S. once set trading standards for bulk commodities to promote the industrial economy, it now needs to establish similar rules for hashrate commodities to promote the intelligent economy.
This request for comments covers a lot. It aims to first understand the scale and liquidity of the spot hashrate market, and also to include market regulation, manipulation risks, and customer protection in the rules. Most notably, the notice explicitly mentions perpetual hashrate futures as a product form. In other words, the hashrate miners hold may no longer be used solely for block production and coin rewards but could be standardized into contracts for trading and hedging, like crude oil or copper.
For miners, once this tool is established, it means they can finally insure the hashrate they hold. When coin prices plunge, they no longer have to just endure or shut down; instead, they can lock in part of their revenue through derivatives. This hedging ability was previously monopolized by traditional bulk commodity players, but now regulators are proactively opening the door, potentially rewriting the accounting logic for mining farms and hashrate providers.
Why now? The answer lies in the macro environment. The U.S. Treasury just announced it will at least double the scale of long-term Treasury repos. With liquidity easing, risk assets collectively rise, and Bitcoin surged close to $70,000 last night. Hashrate, a resource highly correlated with coin prices, naturally lacks a pricing and hedging tool. The CFTC’s move is essentially setting rules in advance for the future hashrate market.
Don't forget, AI training and mining compete for the same batch of high-end chips and electricity. Making hashrate a tradable and hedgeable commodity opens a direct channel for capital to bet on hashrate. When financial markets can freely buy and sell hashrate contracts, real-world mining farms, data centers, and chip orders will all be guided by this price signal.
A deeper signal lies at the strategic level. Defining hashrate as a key commodity related to winning the AI race means regulators no longer see mining as a mere speculative track. Whoever controls the pricing power of hashrate holds the foundation of the intelligent economy. The U.S. clearly does not want to cede this rule-making power to others.
What was once a matter confined to the crypto circle is quietly being elevated to the national-level table. Once these 60 days pass and the rules are implemented, the way hashrate is played could be completely different from today.Circle to launch its self-developed public chain testnet next month, which has already processed 500 million transactions
The stablecoin giant Circle is no longer satisfied with just issuing USDC. It officially announced that its blockchain network Arc mainnet will go live on September 16, positioning itself as the underlying infrastructure for the global financial market, serving settlement and various financial applications.
This is not a PPT chain. The Arc testnet has already processed over 500 million transactions, with nearly 3 million wallet addresses participating, and more than 100 partners active on the private mainnet. The initial validator group is expected to operate the network together with Circle, effectively keeping control of the chain’s lifeline in their own hands.
Circle’s strategy is easy to understand. USDC is currently one of the top stablecoins by global circulation, but the settlement channels have always been controlled by others. When Ethereum is congested, fees are outrageously high; Solana is fast but its ecosystem is not under Circle’s control. Rather than relying on others, it’s better to build a chain optimized specifically for stablecoin settlement, controlling fees, speed, and compliance all by themselves.
If this chain takes off, it means stablecoins will rise from the application layer to the infrastructure layer. Future scenarios like cross-border payments, institutional settlements, and tokenized asset trading can all run directly on Arc. Circle will transform from a coin issuer to a chain operator, a completely different identity. This is why they dare to scale the testnet so large—500 million transactions didn’t come from thin air; there’s real activity on the chain.
For on-chain players, September 16 is a date to remember. The launch of Arc could spark a new narrative around stablecoin settlement. Ecosystem projects related to USDC, teams working on cross-chain bridges and payment infrastructure might be re-evaluated by investors. The 500 million transactions on the testnet prove this is not an empty framework; hype around stablecoin infrastructure may heat up before the mainnet launch.
In the short term, speculative hype before the benefits materialize is hard to gauge, so don’t rush to chase it; in the long term, if Circle’s self-built chain succeeds, the stablecoin competition will shift from who issues more to whose underlying chain is better. This is good for the overall on-chain financial experience. Money on-chain will flow to the most efficient path—that’s an unchanging logic.
With stablecoin issuers entering the chain-building arena themselves, do you think this is a move to compete with Ethereum, or to pave a new road for on-chain finance?Retail investors have finally returned, but the market treats it as bad news
Retail investors are back, yet the market interprets this as bearish, which sounds contradictory but is actually happening.
Well-known KOL Ansem shared an observation: retail investor activity has shown a significant upward inflection point for the first time in years, but most of the market sees this change as a bearish signal. He believes this cognitive dissonance might actually be a key characteristic of a market bottom forming.
In other markets, this might be unbelievable, but in the world of memes and altcoins, retail investors have always been the fuel for rallies. Over the past year, retail investors have been educated by various crashes to retreat into coin-based holdings, on-chain activity has dropped repeatedly, and new wallet creation has fallen to levels no one wants to watch. Now, they are suddenly coming back, indicating that off-exchange money is tentatively entering the market. Although the volume is still small, the direction has changed.
The problem is, mainstream narratives are still debating when the bear market will end, and the return of retail investors is interpreted as bag holders stepping in, making sentiment even more pessimistic. The market is just that contradictory: when institutions buy, it’s called smart money positioning; when retail buys, it’s called retail investors stepping in. The same funds, but a different identity changes their nature.
Ansem’s point is that looking back at Q3 2026, the market might realize that clear bottom signals had already appeared then. He bets on the cognitive dissonance itself—when most people mistake good news for bad, a turning point is often near. This sounds like mysticism, but in an emotion-driven crypto market, sentiment reversals often precede market reversals.
For those playing with altcoins and memes, this signal is worth adding to the watchlist. A warming retail investor activity usually means two things: first, thematic coins will see more turnover; second, the relay buying during rallies will thicken. Conversely, if retail’s return is just a short-term emotional pulse, volatility will be more intense, and those chasing highs should be cautious.
In the short term, whether retail’s return becomes a sustained increase depends on whether new narratives support it; just saying "they’re back" doesn’t resolve trapped positions. In the long term, every cycle bottom has been accompanied by retail investors voting with their feet and re-entering, as seen in 2020 and 2024. Whether this will repeat this time, no one can guarantee.
Retail investors returning is treated as bad news—do you believe this cognitive dissonance, or do you think this return is just bag holders stepping in after all?After three rate cuts and five times holding steady, three members still call for a rate hike
At 2 a.m., the Federal Reserve's July meeting minutes were officially released. The most striking point was not that the interest rate remained unchanged, but that the vote was 9 to 3, with three members voting against on the spot, insisting on a 25 basis point rate hike.
These three are Logan, Harker, and Kashkari. More subtly, two other regional Fed presidents without voting rights in July, Schmidt and Moser, also publicly stated afterward that if they had voting rights at the time, they would have voted for a rate hike. In other words, the number of people who truly believe a rate hike is necessary may be more than three, but they were blocked by the lack of voting rights.
The minutes stated that many officials indicated that if inflation does not continue to decline, monetary policy would need to be further tightened; some officials also believe that financial markets are already bearing part of the tightening policy's effects. Regarding inflation, the minutes acknowledged the outlook is highly uncertain and specifically noted that the renewed escalation of the Iran war casts a shadow over the inflation outlook.
Calculating the timeline makes it even more interesting. This round follows three consecutive rate cuts at the end of 2025, with the fifth consecutive time holding steady and no hikes in between. The interest rate has hovered between 3.5% and 3.75%, but internal fractures are gradually widening. The July dissenting votes increased from sporadic to three, with two more outside voters without voting rights showing support.
What does this minutes mean for the crypto market? Just look at tonight's market. BTC hovered around 69,000 before and after the minutes were released, gold rose slightly by 3.5% to $4,489, and the market did not panic over the three dissenting votes, indicating that expectations for rate cuts are still holding. But note the sentence in the minutes that AI stock market adjustments may pose financial stability risks, which serves as a warning to both the US stock and crypto markets. Risk assets and liquidity have always been linked.
In the short term, whether there will be a rate hike in September depends on inflation data. The situation in Iran could push oil prices back up at any time; when oil prices rise, inflation expectations must be repriced. In the long term, as long as the Fed does not truly shift to rate hikes, liquidity tightening remains at the expectation level. For crypto, an interest rate-sensitive asset, the divergence in the minutes actually puts uncertainty on the table, and each subsequent data release may amplify volatility.
Three members are calling for a rate hike under inflation pressure, and two others without voting rights have also taken sides. Do you think the Fed will hold steady this round, or suddenly pivot at some point?The Bankers Association verbally supports the bill but cuts stablecoin rewards behind the scenes
Rob Nichols, president of the American Bankers Association, recently made a statement that on the surface seems to support the crypto industry, but upon closer examination reveals another layer of meaning. He explicitly stated that the goal is to strengthen, not block, the passage of the CLARITY Act, emphasizing that the digital asset industry needs a clear regulatory framework. Many interpreted this as banks finally softening their stance. However, the key point is in the latter part: the critical provisions regarding stablecoin rewards in the bill must be further tightened.
Here’s the background. The GENIUS Act, set to become law in 2025, already prohibits stablecoin issuers from directly paying interest or yields to holders. The current controversy has shifted to related parties like crypto trading platforms—whether they can issue interest-like rewards to users under the guise of incentives.
Nichols was very straightforward: if stablecoin wallets use such mechanisms to siphon deposits away from banks, the funds banks use for small business loans, mortgages, and agricultural financing will decrease. The American Bankers Association recommends amending the bill’s language to prohibit stablecoin rewards that are essentially similar to paying interest, and to remove ambiguous wording.
They are pushing senators to amend the provisions before the September vote. Nichols also made a diplomatic statement: the U.S. can be both the global banking hub and the global crypto hub, provided clear and consistent rules are established. It sounds like trying not to offend either side, but everyone knows that if the line on stablecoin rewards is cut, the first to be affected won’t be banks but the on-chain projects and users relying on rewards to attract deposits.
This message is a signal worth pondering for holders of USDC and USDT. The interest rewards on stablecoins essentially leave the yield from on-chain deposits to holders. The more banks try to cut off this channel, the harder it will be to sustain the narrative of stablecoins as yield-bearing assets. Conversely, the tighter the regulation, the faster the compliance process for stablecoins will advance—two sides of the same coin.
In the short term, this kind of clause dispute won’t directly crash the market, but it is a real policy risk warning for projects in the stablecoin ecosystem that rely on rewards to attract deposits. In the long term, if the CLARITY Act truly comes into effect, stablecoins will move from a gray area into a licensed system, which will actually solidify the industry’s foundation, though the process will inevitably be contentious.
Banks say they support crypto on one hand, but want to cut stablecoin rewards on the other. Is this really about protecting depositors, or protecting their own deposits? What do you think?Forgotten ZEC is about to be lifted onto the NYSE by Grayscale
Among the forgotten cryptocurrencies, ZEC might be the most aggrieved. Grayscale has revised its registration documents for the fourth time in order to list it on the NYSE.
On August 20, Grayscale submitted the fourth revision of the Grayscale Zcash Trust registration statement to the SEC, proposing to list this trust on the New York Stock Exchange Arca under the ticker ZCSH. Once listed, authorized participants will be able to subscribe and redeem trust shares, whereas previously this trust could only be traded on the OTCQX over-the-counter market and did not support redemption.
As of June 30, this trust held about 2.3% of ZEC's circulating supply, with a net asset value of approximately $155.2 million. More intriguingly, a subsidiary of Grayscale's parent company DCG is negotiating to contribute about 200,000 ZEC to subscribe for trust shares. Although no binding agreement has been signed yet, the direction is clear.
What does 200,000 ZEC mean? At the current price, it's roughly over $30 million, meaning the institution is adding bricks to this pool themselves. Keep in mind, ZEC has plummeted so much in the past two years that even its own supporters barely recognize it. The privacy narrative has been repeatedly challenged by regulators, retail investors have long fled, liquidity is pitifully thin, and daily trading volume is only a fraction of mainstream coins.
Don't underestimate this change. Trading on the OTCQX over-the-counter market is basically private matching between institutions, and retail investors have to jump through many hoops to participate; after moving to NYSE Arca, any U.S. stock account can subscribe and redeem with one click just like buying stocks, making liquidity and exposure on a completely different level. This is why Grayscale is willing to revise documents repeatedly for a niche coin trust, despite the tedious compliance process. Without this step, ZEC would never enter the mainstream capital's view.
Listing the trust also means two things. First, ZEC gains a legitimate capital entry point. Grayscale's repeated document revisions indicate real money is paving the way behind the scenes, not just a whim. Second, U.S. stock accounts can buy ZEC through this channel, effectively opening a new funding pipeline for this niche coin. For ZEC holders still on exchanges, this infrastructure-level move is more worth watching than minor price fluctuations on the charts.
In the short term, the news may not immediately impact the price, as SEC approval is uncertain and document revisions could continue to a fifth or sixth version; but over the long term, being the first privacy coin lifted onto a major exchange board by Grayscale will bring different identity and liquidity premiums. The market's pricing logic for ZEC may need to be recalculated.
Why is Grayscale specifically targeting a forgotten coin like ZEC? Is it because they truly believe in the value of the privacy narrative and want to position at a low point, or simply to fill out their trust product lineup? What do you think?BTC surged sharply late at night, and he went against the trend to increase his short position, becoming the top short seller.
Tonight's market felt like stepping on the gas pedal. BTC rallied from around 65,000 to 69,000, and a large number of short positions across the network were liquidated within half an hour. In the past 24 hours, liquidations surged to $1.905 billion, with short positions accounting for $1.733 billion. Over 120,000 people worldwide were wiped out. Normally, no one dares to go against the trend in such a market, but on-chain monitoring identified someone doing exactly that.
TradingBeats data shows that an address starting with 0x66 increased its short position by 800 BTC right as BTC was rapidly rising. Including previous positions, his 40x leveraged short position has accumulated to 1,200 BTC, with a notional value close to $80 million at current prices, instantly making him the largest BTC short seller on Hyperliquid.
This address is not a novice. On-chain labels mark it as a big winner and a whale, with total historical profits exceeding $1 million. The net value of his perpetual account ranges between $1 million and $5 million, and his completed trades have a 55% win rate. His average entry price is $66,891, essentially betting that BTC’s rally will end here. The problem is the market hasn’t cooperated; this position is currently at an unrealized loss of $2.39 million, with a liquidation price of $70,039, just two or three points away from the current price. A slight further rise will trigger liquidation.
Interestingly, a few hours ago another whale posted a 5x leveraged long position of 3,425 BTC, with an unrealized profit of over $13 million. One is enjoying gains in the car, the other is blocking the way at the front, making them the most prominent opposing players in this rally. The same market is seen by some as the start of a bull run, and by others as the final surge.
This contrarian short position hanging overhead serves as a reference point for short-term traders. If the liquidation price near $70,039 is hit, the short squeeze could fuel the bulls and push prices even higher; conversely, if he holds, the $70,000 barrier will be harder to break in the short term. Grid and swing traders can watch this as a barometer, but definitely don’t copy his position—40x leverage is not for everyone.
In the short term, this rally tonight is driven by short covering and regulatory sentiment, with sentiment-driven trades retreating at a frightening speed. Historically, there are plenty of examples of such sharp rallies followed by pullbacks. Looking longer term, the Federal Reserve’s July minutes have just been released, and the White House will hold a crypto executive meeting tomorrow. Policy variables are more worth watching than technicals; any surprises in these two events could reshuffle the market direction.
Here’s the question: why would a veteran with a 55% historical win rate dare to increase his short position against the market frenzy? Do you think he might be holding something we haven’t seen?After renaming to BUSD, all authorizations of old users became invalid
Berachain renamed its native stablecoin HONEY to a new name, Bera USD, using the symbol BUSD directly.
According to the announcement, this is just a brand makeover. The foundation said the rename is to let institutional users immediately recognize it as a USD stablecoin, making it appear more professional and trustworthy. The contract address did not change, and the token itself remains the same, just a different name, which sounds like a harmless minor change.
HONEY is not a niche token. It is the native USD stablecoin on the Berachain blockchain, heavily relied upon by the lending market, trading pairs, and various vaults on the chain. A single rename affects the entire financial layer that is already operational, not just a simple rebranding.
But the trouble lies in the technical details. In Ethereum's signature standard EIP-712, the token name is part of the domain separator. All permits, off-chain authorizations, and various allowance permissions previously signed based on the name HONEY will automatically become invalid once the name changes. Those who have authorized protocols, vaults, or swap routes to use their stablecoins will suddenly find their authorizations gone after some time and must re-sign. Especially for those who deposited HONEY into lending protocols or opened revolving loans, once the authorization expires, the available credit of their positions will immediately drop to zero, and in severe cases, may trigger unexpected repayments or liquidation processes.
This contrasts sharply with the project team's claim of better serving institutions and being more standardized. Old users' authorizations quietly became void without any prior notice. Many people do not understand what EIP-712 is, nor do they check daily whether their permits are still valid. When they actually need to use it, they find their credit gone, which is truly troublesome. Integrators also have to update their code to adapt again; the so-called quick full launch involves a series of unnoticed manual tasks. For ordinary users, the most realistic risk is not understanding the technology but suddenly finding previously usable functions in their wallets no longer work one day.
More intriguingly are the three letters BUSD. It was once the stablecoin issued by Binance, halted by the New York Department of Financial Services in 2023, and eventually quietly exited the market. Now a chain project picks up this symbol to use—whether because the name sounds catchy or they simply do not mind that regulatory history—is hard for outsiders to judge. At least from the appearance, this move is far more than just a brand upgrade.
The rename sounds light and casual, but on-chain it affects everything. If you hold authorizations for this type of stablecoin, it's time to check whether your permits are still valid. Two century-old banks complete their first on-chain deposit settlement
HSBC and Standard Chartered, two banks with a combined history of over three hundred years, have just completed their first real-time tokenized deposit transaction on Swift's blockchain ledger. The news was reported by CoinDesk, stating that this transaction marks a substantial step for traditional financial institutions in using blockchain to handle deposit tokens. The old money is finally not just discussing in meetings but actually settling transactions.
Let's clarify what this is about. Swift is the messaging and clearing network between international banks, through which most global bank transfers are processed. This time, instead of sending messages, it turned the deposits themselves into tokens, transferring and settling them in real time on a distributed ledger. Previously, cross-border transfers required multiple intermediaries and could take days to complete; now, with on-chain processing, the speed and transparency are entirely different.
For the crypto community, the significance of this news lies in the identities of the participants. HSBC, Standard Chartered, and Swift—any one of these names alone is enough to spark extensive industry discussion, and now the three have come together. This indicates that banks' attitudes toward on-chain settlement have shifted from experimentation to serious implementation. Previously, we often said traditional finance needed to embrace blockchain; this time, banks themselves are moving their core business onto the chain.
On the practical side, tokenized deposits by banks are somewhat similar to the stablecoin logic we use—they are both on-chain accounting certificates—but there are clear differences. Stablecoins are issued by companies like Circle and Tether, whereas bank tokenized deposits are backed by licensed banks themselves, with deposit insurance and regulatory support, making their compliance attributes completely different. In the future, enterprise-level cross-border settlements may first be realized on these bank-affiliated chains.
The short-term direct impact on the market is limited since this does not involve retail funds nor create new buying demand. But in the medium to long term, this is a significant piece in the RWA (Real World Asset) narrative. When banks move deposits, bonds, and settlements onto the chain, the on-chain capital pools and liquidity foundations will grow stronger, opening up more possibilities for stablecoins and on-chain wealth management. The investable pool of RWA assets is being built brick by brick by these major players.
What I personally find more interesting is another angle. Two major banks doing on-chain settlement shows that the compliance path is viable, which reassures other traditional institutions. Once the demonstration effect takes hold, more banks will follow, further blurring the boundaries between on-chain assets and traditional finance. By then, products like on-chain interest rates and on-chain credit may no longer be niche toys.
Finally, a question: if one day your bank deposits can be directly transferred and settled on-chain, would you still keep most of your money in traditional accounts? August 20
Gold Evening
Core Influencing Factors Analysis
The core driver of this round of strong gold price rally comes from the U.S. Treasury's expansion of the long-term bond repurchase program, raising the single repurchase limit for 10–30 year long bonds to 4 billion, effective September 9. This directly suppresses the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield and weakens the dollar simultaneously, pushing gold prices up to 4527.
Key distinction: This tool is a liquidity adjustment measure, not QE, and can only temporarily ease the pressure from long bond sell-offs. It cannot solve the long-term fundamentals of the U.S.'s high deficit and huge debt; caution is needed in the evening for concentrated profit-taking by bulls. Once long bond yields rebound, gold prices are prone to rapid pullback.
On the geopolitical front, the shipping game in the Strait of Hormuz continues, and U.S.-Iran tensions remain, providing inherent safe-haven support. However, oil price volatility will act as a hedge: rising oil prices will lift inflation expectations again, constraining gold's upside.
Tonight, focus on U.S. initial jobless claims data. Strong data will cause U.S. Treasury yields to rebound and pressure gold prices; weak data will continue to support gold holding its high level.
Technical Analysis
4-hour chart: After consecutive bullish candles, there is high-level oscillation correction. RSI has fallen back from the overbought zone, short-term upward momentum is weakening. The preferred approach tonight is oscillation, avoid chasing highs, wait for a pullback to support and stabilization before positioning.
Strategy: Range 4482-4465, defense at 4450, target 4527-4550
Disclaimer: Investment involves risks, enter the market cautiously
#美联储7月FOMC纪要9比3，官员加息分歧仍在 $XAU Revenue surged 62 times, but cash only lasts 9 days
A legendary meme coin on Solana, the listed company behind it only has $214,000 in cash on hand, which at the current burn rate is enough to last just 9 days. This is not a joke; it’s the half-year report just released by the Nasdaq-listed company Bonk, Inc. (ticker BNKK). The BONK coin itself still has a market cap of about $22 million, but the company behind it is on the brink.
First, look at the most contrasting numbers. This company’s revenue in the first half of the year was $5.5 million, a year-on-year surge of 6218%, sounds like it’s about to take off, right? But the net loss for the same period was $7.88 million, and cash on hand burned down from $2.28 million at the end of 2025 to $214,000, a 90% evaporation in half a year. The auditing firm M&K CPAS and management themselves wrote in the report: there are significant doubts about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern. In plain language, at this rate, the company could shut down at any time.
What’s more worth pondering is the revenue structure. Of the $5.5 million, $3.92 million comes from revenue sharing with the affiliated platform LetsBonk.fun, accounting for 71%, and the owner behind this platform and the founder of the listed company is the same person, Mitchell Rudy. He holds about 40.2% of the common shares and all the Series C preferred shares through Lucky Dog Holdings. The Series C preferred shares can independently elect half of the company’s board. The revenue source is him, the board is him, the lifeline is all in one person’s hands.
There are also two very typical transactions. The company used $50 million worth of BONK tokens to buy back its own stock, but what it received was not cash but the same tokens from its own treasury. These tokens are recorded at fair value, and in the first half of the year, an unrealized loss of $8.17 million was recognized, directly hitting the income statement. Paying salaries with its own tokens and buying its own stock with its own tokens—this cycle looks lively but is actually just moving money from one hand to the other.
For holders of BONK, two things need to be distinguished here. BONK is a meme coin that started as a community airdrop and has no corporate entity; the coin’s survival depends on exchanges and community enthusiasm. But BNKK, this shell company, packages the BONK ecosystem’s cash flow into a listed company story. Its financial report reflects the monetization ability of this ecosystem, not the coin price itself. Don’t assume the coin will immediately go to zero just because the company is dying, nor assume the coin will take off just because the company’s revenue surged.
On the operational level, this structure reminds us to first check if there is a real company in the chain before buying meme coins. If the founder-related income accounts for more than 70%, if shares are paid with tokens, or if cash coverage is less than ten days, any one of these should raise a red flag. Hype can deceive, but financial reports won’t.
Finally, a question: if this company really can’t survive, do you think the BONK community will take over and keep it alive, or watch it delist and dissolve?US Treasury's Buyback Doubles, BTC Returns to 11-Week High
BTC's surge overnight isn't rooted in the crypto space. The US Treasury stepped in, doubling the scale of long-term bond buybacks, raising the single buyback cap from $2 billion to at least $4 billion, effective from September 9 to November 4. Once the news broke, the 30-year US Treasury yield fell about 9 basis points from a nearly 20-year high. BTC followed suit, soaring to $69,749, marking a new high since June 2, with a daily gain of about 6%, reclaiming the 11-week peak.
It's worth breaking down the transmission chain here. The Treasury's buyback of long bonds essentially injects liquidity into the bond market, absorbing long bonds that no one wants to buy, easing selling pressure in the bond market. As yields drop, valuation pressure on global risk assets eases, and BTC, as a high-beta asset, naturally reacts most strongly. Even Standard Chartered analysts have commented that this move is exactly the type BTC favors, mentioning $65,500 as a key level.
For swing traders, the key is to grasp the timing window. The Treasury's buyback isn't a one-off action; it will continue from September 9 to November 4, nearly two months, with each buyback announcement potentially acting as a liquidity pulse. In the short term, during the bond market stabilization window, risk assets generally have tailwinds, but be mindful of the rhythm of buying on expectations and selling on facts—rallies before announcements tend to be stronger than after.
Looking deeper, the background of this rally is that long-term rates surged too aggressively. The 30-year Treasury yield once hit a new high since 2007, squeezing the market. The Fed's rate hike expectations and the Treasury's debt issuance pressure combined to weigh on risk assets across the board. Now, with the Treasury actively buying back bonds, it's effectively hedging on the supply side—a move far more concrete than verbal assurances.
From a medium- to long-term perspective, a few more words. Liquidity conditions are the fundamental variable for BTC pricing. The Treasury's willingness to maintain long bond market stability indicates a declining tolerance in policy for economic damage caused by high interest rates. For crypto, as long as the US dollar liquidity tap isn't tightened further, the return of funds to risk assets is just a matter of time. BTC's bull market narrative essentially remains a liquidity story; this underlying logic hasn't changed.
Of course, don't mistake a single bullish candle for everything. The buyback plan starts in September, with variables like Fed minutes and 20-year Treasury auctions in between. The early morning Treasury auction is the first hurdle. Risk management on positions is still necessary; don't forget your original stop-loss just because of one bullish candle.
Finally, a question: with the Treasury deploying such a major buyback move, how long do you think this liquidity spring can last?