wesley教授
wesley教授
Founder of Block Infinity, Poker player, Trader, Chinese whale, @drhashclub
880Following
4.3Kfollowers
Feed
Livestream
Feed
This morning the screen was full of a "positive" news: Putin is basically ready to resume the trilateral Russia-Ukraine talks in mid-November, and those who are long immediately took it as a reason for risk-off de-escalation.
But last night's news was: Russia launched an airstrike on Kyiv, injuring fifteen people.
Talking about negotiations with words, but still fighting with actions. This is not a contradiction; this is exactly what negotiations look like — first overturn half the table, raise the stakes to the maximum, then sit down to bargain. True ceasefire is still several rounds of escalation away.
I'm not saying something big will happen tomorrow. What I mean is: don't use an unconfirmed "ready to talk" as a reason to forcibly patch today's rebound as a risk-off de-escalation. Tail risk is just not priced in, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
An interesting contrast: on one side, the AI computing power bubble is being squeezed out bit by bit, while on the other side, a new narrative in the robotics track has already been presented to take over. At today's Physical AI Conference, Yushu said that the G1 humanoid robot has cumulatively shipped tens of thousands of units, making it the world's best-seller, and also mentioned that top-tier large models can already "write programs themselves and collect data on their own."
The stories are all very exciting. But the same person added a sentence that many overlooked: it will still take five to ten years for the technological breakthroughs to spread and become accessible to everyone.
This is the standard play in a bubble market—packaging something that will take five to ten years into a financial report that can be realized next quarter. When the old bubble is about to burst, there always has to be a new bubble to take over the burden.
I do not deny the long-term value of robots. I just don't want to be the one paying tonight's bill for a ten-year story.
$BTC was still above 84,000 this morning, with the whole screen shouting "the reversal is here" for the second day. By tonight, the price slipped back below 82,000, $ETH fell below 2,400, and $SOL also retreated. Within a day, the reversal story couldn't continue.
Card players have an old habit called results-oriented: seeing a big bullish candle, they infer "the bottom is here" and chase in. But whether that candle represents bulls entering or bears making a last squeeze before exiting, just focusing on price can't tell.
My approach is: I don't add shorts or close shorts during the pullback; I wait for it to exhaust itself. Tonight's pullback candle answered half of that for me.
Did you chase, or just watch from the sidelines?
During the day, the AI sector collectively rebounded, with SpaceX and Nvidia looking more spirited than ever, while retail investors kept shouting for three days straight that "storage has bottomed out." The few short positions I held didn't move all day.
Looking after the close: Tesla's earnings report came out, and the stock price dropped nearly 3% in after-hours trading; as Asia opened, the Hang Seng Tech index showed another big bearish candle, and the AI chain collectively deflated. The daytime rebound felt more like a last gasp rather than a reversal.
I'm not just arguing with retail investors. This round of AI valuations is propped up by a series of "capital expenditure promises that haven't materialized yet." As long as those promises aren't fulfilled, the bubble isn't considered burst. $BTC also slid back from above 84,000 tonight; the risk-on confidence was always fragile.
In this kind of market, holding on is more valuable than being right. Did you chase the rally today, or did you hold back?
The same rising candle can be seen by some as "bulls entering the market," while others see it as "bears being forced out." These two interpretations have completely opposite implications for what happens next, and the method of judgment lies not in the price itself, but in the structure.
Tonight, I analyzed three layers: First, the funding rate is only mildly positive, and bulls are not rushing to add leverage to chase; second, the past 24 hours' liquidations are dominated entirely by short positions, indicating that the fuel for this rise mainly comes from shorts being squeezed and passively covered; third, the trading volume is shrinking, not expanding to push the price up.
Putting these three together, it looks more like "shorts being squeezed" rather than "new money taking over." A short squeeze can push the price high and scary, but it burns existing fuel, and once it's gone without new buying to continue, it often results in the most beautiful spike that leaves those who chased it stranded at the peak.
Distinguishing between these two types of rises is much more important than guessing the exact price point. $BTC
A news story drowned by AI's counter-push: OpenAI proactively wrote to the Governor of California, expressing support for strengthening AI regulation, demanding a "kill switch" for cutting-edge models, mandatory annual independent audits, and stricter cybersecurity.
It's rare to see an industry leader voluntarily asking the government to put shackles on itself. Don't rush to praise it for having a conscience.
Compliance comes with costs. Independent audits, security frameworks, kill mechanisms—each requires money and manpower. For a leader that has already raised tens of billions and reached a sky-high valuation, this is just a drop in the bucket; for the small and medium players trying to catch up, this is a wall. Proactively seeking regulation often means pulling the ladder away.
What’s even more intriguing is the timing: an industry still desperately pushing growth stories now starts focusing on "safety" and "controllability," which usually means insiders themselves are beginning to have doubts about that story.
Everyone is focused on the AI rebound today, and no one is pricing in the tail risk from the Middle East.
The New York Times reported that the US and Israel have already prepared specific plans for a new round of strikes against Iran, most likely to be executed after the US election; on the same day, the US delegation in Saudi Arabia warned that hostile actions "could escalate rapidly"; early this morning, Russian missiles struck Kyiv again.
The biggest pitfall here is to directly translate "war" into "BTC safe-haven bullish." History doesn’t work that way: when the Middle East is in turmoil, oil rises first, oil price increases transmit into inflation expectations, and inflation then forces stronger rate hike expectations—the result is that gold and BTC are both suppressed, not soaring together.
If you want to verify the direction, don’t look at sentiment; look at where the two-year US Treasury yield is heading. For risk asset shorts, this line is your friend. $BTC
Today the AI sector as a whole rebounded, SpaceX and Nvidia each more spirited than the other, and retail investors have been shouting for three days straight that "storage has bottomed out." I haven't moved a single short position.
It's not stubbornness; I can distinguish between "thesis" and "one day's fluctuation." What I short is never today's candlestick, but the valuation of this entire round of AI financing chain. A single day's short squeeze doesn't change the fact that a company relies on issuing debt to burn cash and has negative cash flow—the two storage giants underperformed the entire sector today, and this structure itself speaks for me.
Anyone who plays cards understands one truth: holding good cards but getting scared off by a single flop is the real way to lose money. Those washed out by a single-day rebound won't be able to catch a single cent when the real waterfall comes.
The premise of holding a position is to place stop losses where the trend truly fails, not just to be stubborn. As long as the level isn't broken, I'll keep holding. $BTC
Tonight Trump said "I don't know" three times in a row: he doesn't know if the embassy in Saudi Arabia has evacuated personnel, doesn't know how personnel are being redeployed in the Middle East, and is uncertain whether the denuclearization talks can take place.
In the past two days, oil prices and risk aversion sentiment have been wildly stirred up by Middle East narratives—one moment it's an oil tanker hitting a mine, the next it's regime overthrow. Yet the people who should have the most firsthand information themselves don't know anything when asked.
What I want to say is just one thing: don't use this kind of noise as a basis for trading. War narratives are the easiest to hype people up and the hardest to verify; they scare you one day and are forgotten the next.
What you really need to focus on are the hard data points that can be confirmed at market close: interest rates, funding costs, and open interest. Sentiment changes daily, but these do not.
$BTC Have you been influenced by Middle East news in your trades these past two days?
Tesla earnings night, the screen is full of news about the mass production of Optimus robots and the Semi truck rolling off the line, everyone is excited.
I usually flip to the less glamorous page first: automotive business gross margin at 19.6%, the old core business of making money by selling cars, still that repeatedly diluted figure. The real valuation increase is all bet on robots and the wafer fab whose equipment won't be commissioned until 2027.
This is the most typical AI narrative pattern in recent years: the cash flow story about "now" can't hold up, so they tell a bigger, farther story. The farther the story, the better, because it can't be falsified.
I'm not arguing whether it can be done or not, just a reminder: the part of the money paid for the "next story" will evaporate first when the wind changes. Which stocks in your hand have prices that are all stories?
