Orbit Post Sitemap
After talking about Bitcoin, let's talk about the US stock market. This week continues the Q3 earnings season, with particular attention on Elon Musk's companies SpaceX $SPCX and $TSLA Tesla. Since last week, after he launched the flying car attracting a lot of market attention, the stock price effect still seems poor, and this week's earnings report is the real moment of truth.
After market close on Tuesday, 10/20, SpaceX will release its earnings.
After market close on Wednesday, 10/21, Tesla will release its earnings.
On Thursday, 10/22, up to 1.3 billion SpaceX shares will be unlocked.
On Saturday, 10/24, about 328.4 million shares will expire, with the first trading day being next Monday, 10/26.
Based on past experience, Musk often manages market value intentionally or unintentionally (within SEC compliance) by releasing news about cool high-tech, new infrastructure, and other positive factors when stock performance is poor. Obviously, the current stock performance of SPCX and TSLA is not good, so his flying car and stock donations are more likely a hedging tactic to attract traffic.
Looking at the actual earnings, both companies roughly meet expectations. SPCX only profits from Starlink, with market revenue expectations around $12.89 billion. This time, it will be important to see if the AI segment's spending and revenue have improved.
If earnings beat expectations, the stock will likely rebound back above 150+ to leave room for subsequent selling pressure. If earnings miss expectations combined with massive unlocking, SPCX will probably fall back to the 13X range in the short term, near the IPO price.
Also, the two earnings reports are released back-to-back, so...Elon Musk said today on X that next year he plans to give one share of SpaceX stock he personally holds to every child in the United States, and he mentioned this is just the first wave. As for what age counts as a child, how the shares will be distributed, and when they will be delivered, he did not specify.
SpaceX closed just above $146 last Friday. There are about 72 million people under 18 in the U.S.; one share each would total over $10 billion. This is his own stock, not new shares issued by the company, so existing shareholders won’t be diluted. He personally holds nearly half of the company’s shares, and the shares given away would be less than 1% of the total shares outstanding, so his voting power basically remains unchanged.
This announcement came shortly after Anthropic said it would put 5% of its shares into a charitable foundation. Musk thinks it’s better to give shares directly to ordinary people. Currently, the U.S. has “Trump accounts” where donated stocks are usually locked for five years; whether Musk will use this approach is still undecided.
Regarding the stock price, the company itself hasn’t fundamentally improved or worsened. In the short term, the topic might attract more attention; but by saying he plans to give away more shares later, he is effectively telling the market in advance that more shares will be released. If there is a five-year lockup, very few people can sell now; once the lockup ends, tens of millions of people holding small amounts might start selling gradually. Ultimately, the stock’s value will depend on who receives the shares, when they receive them, and what the stock price is on that day.#俄美柴油合同推进，签约后15至20天或抵美
Diesel could arrive in 15 to 20 days, but the 15 days haven't started counting yet.
▪️ Novak 10/18: Russian diesel will enter the US market 15 to 20 days after contract signing
▪️ The US Department of Energy has identified the transaction parties and buyers; commercial terms are still under negotiation — contract not yet signed
▪️ The first batch will immediately release 300,000 tons, followed by 500,000 tons next month, totaling 800,000 tons
▪️ 300,000 tons is about 2.2 million barrels, equivalent to four to five product tankers
▪️ 10/15 TASS estimate "at least 2 to 3 weeks," consistent with today's range
▪️ 10/19 Brent fell about 1.5%, closing near $108
The disagreement is not whether the diesel can arrive, but that the "15 to 20 days" count starts from the signing day, not from today.
Signing, loading, crossing the Atlantic, unloading — all four stages must fit within these 15 to 20 days. If negotiations drag for a week, the arrival date shifts back by a week.
800,000 tons is the total volume over two months. The market today is selling "it's coming," not "how much has arrived."
The direction is "geopolitical premium eases first, supply premium arrives later" — conditions: contract signed within October; invalid if terms collapse or sanctions tighten again.Just saw this post, and I almost took “large position” to mean “accurate judgment” 😂 I've been in the circle for a year, and messages with big numbers like this still easily make me pause. But after thinking about it, the size of the funds and whether the judgment is reliable seem to be two different things.
According to Lookonchain monitoring, a certain whale has made a large long position in BTC and ETH, with a total long position size of $140.88 million, including 1,236 BTC (about $102.2 million) and 15,928 ETH (about $38.67 million).
My understanding is that this is more like a snapshot of the position and cannot yet be taken as proof of new market buying; I’m not sure if that’s correct. The data doesn’t provide the entry time, so the current position size doesn’t equal how much money just entered the market; it also doesn’t provide leverage or other positions, so looking only at the long position, we can’t judge how much directional risk it overall carries.
So for someone like me who is still learning, the biggest use of this information is to remind me to gather more data, rather than to guess price movements based on it. If there is also hedging, then the bullishness expressed by this long position might not be as strong as the headline suggests—this is just my speculation.
What I haven’t figured out yet is: when experienced veterans see this kind of whale long position info, do they first check the entry records or check for hedging positions? Which one better helps avoid misinterpretation?Let's settle the accounts tonight first. I set a bet at 82,600 in the early session, but there was no result today. BTC peaked at 83,168 but couldn't hold; current price is 82,537, up +0.78% in 24 hours; it also didn't fall below 82,000, and the retest of 80,800 didn't happen. Neither right nor wrong, it's a draw. Price is flat, and the fee rate didn't move. Tonight, the fee rates for the three coins all rose: BTC 0.01%, ETH 0.0066%, SOL doubled from 0.0037% to 0.0087%. However, BTC open interest shrank from 30,833 contracts to 30,122 contracts, about 2.48 billion USD, money is flowing out. Simply put: bulls are willing to pay to hold their positions, but no one dares to add positions to bet on a breakout. Fee rate reflects attitude, open interest reflects courage. Price is stuck near 82,500, both sides are waiting for 82,600 to give a clear signal. Tomorrow morning I will only watch two numbers: if BTC stays above 82,600 and fee rate doesn't drop, I expect 83,500; if it falls below 82,000 overnight with fee rate declining, this analysis is void, and I will look back to 80,800. Do you think this warming of fee rates is genuine or fake?In the futures market, whether warehouse receipts can circulate and who is accountable when problems arise are two different matters. From what I see in traditional financial infrastructure news, the habit is to first review the rules, then see how wide the channels are built; the old issues have not changed even when brought into the crypto market.
This time, Polygon has launched CDK Besu, supporting banks and financial institutions to deploy private blockchains based on Hyperledger Besu, and connect to other blockchains and their liquidity from the start through Agglayer. It currently supports deployment on the Ethereum mainnet.
My judgment is that this is positive for interconnection of institutional chains, but the real challenge lies in the boundaries of responsibility. Private chains originally emphasize permissions and internal control; after connecting to external chains, how assets are recognized and who handles anomalies cannot be answered solely by "technical connectivity." The difference between the crypto market and traditional markets is that channels can be set up first, but the rules among participants may not be synchronized; this information has not yet explained these arrangements.
If subsequent work can clarify permissions, settlement, and anomaly handling, I will value its significance for institutional business collaboration more, rather than using it to speculate on coin prices. Are there any friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? When a bank's private chain connects to external liquidity, do you first check asset admission rules or the accountability mechanism for cross-chain issues?The sideways confirmation of BTC these days is very exhausting, but I want to say
📌Sideways is not rest! The long-short game of BTC is entering the final stage, remember the key points, beware of spikes tonight!
1. Long and short forces are evenly matched
There are a large number of profit-taking orders near 83500 above, so whenever it rises, someone sells; there is bottom-fishing capital support at 81200 below, so whenever it falls, buyers step in. Neither side can break through the other's range, pulling back and forth.
2. Stock capital game, lack of new funds entering
Without heavy positive news stimulation, off-market funds are watching, and there is no incremental capital to drive a breakout. Funds are just flowing back and forth within the market; some funds go to speculate on small-cap coins like ZEC, while BTC's own volume shrinks and cannot form a one-sided trend.
3. Temporary vacuum in macro news
In the short term, there is no heavy CPI or Federal Reserve speech news; the dollar and US bond yields fluctuate little, lacking macro driving forces to lead BTC out of the trend, so it can only wait in place for news to choose a direction.
4. Technical rebound followed by digestion and shakeout
After the previous rebound, short-term profit-taking needs time to digest; the main force uses sideways movement to wash out short-term speculative chips; this stage is prone to spikes back and forth, shaking out leveraged positions.
In summary: selling pressure above, support below, lack of incremental funds + no heavy news, only range-bound oscillation waiting for direction choice. The S&P is at 76% over the 100-day range, but only 25 out of 82 stocks are above the 20-day moving average.
Even the S&P itself hasn't stood above it.
At last Friday's close, SPY was at 769, the 20-day moving average at 773, a difference of 4 points.
I think this combination reveals more than any price change.
The index looks high, but internally it has already undergone a blood change.
Look at these two lists to understand.
11 stocks hitting 100-day highs: Costco, Coca-Cola, Microsoft, Shopify, Seagate, and SPY itself.
14 stocks hitting 100-day lows: Broadcom, Rocket Lab, AST, IREN, AppLovin.
There are 3 more new lows than new highs.
And all the new lows are high beta, while all the new highs are defensive and heavyweight.
Costco is the best example, hitting a 100-day high of 1008.82 on October 15, and still standing 36 points above the 20-day moving average.
Money hasn't left the stock market; it has moved from storytelling stocks to sales-driven ones.
This is not a bull market; it's an index bull market and an individual stock bear market.
The danger lies in the index being supported by a few stocks, with no support underneath.
Once the heavyweight stocks turn down, the index will fall faster than expected.
The dividing line is the 20-day moving average, 773.
If it can't get back above, breadth will only worsen.
$COST
#IndexBullMarketIndividualStockBearMarketAnother company has spent nearly $100 million buying BTC, with an average price of $81,734.
Tonight Strive disclosed that from last Wednesday to Friday, it increased its holdings by 1,223 BTC, bringing the total holdings to 36,818 BTC.
Looking at this amount in terms of ETF funds makes the scale more intuitive.
From October 12 to 16, the US BTC spot ETFs had a total net outflow of $228.4 million. Strive's increase in holdings is equivalent to about 43.8% of the ETF net outflow for that week.
Looking further back, from October 12 to 16, Strive bought a total of 4,045 BTC at an average price of about $82,803, corresponding to approximately $335 million, which is about 1.47 times the ETF net outflow amount during the same period.
On one hand, ETF channels are withdrawing funds; on the other hand, companies are increasing their holdings with even larger amounts. The notion that institutions have all fled BTC clearly does not hold up.
There is another matter: Strive raised about $630 million through preferred stock financing, with the funds intended for BTC acquisition, operating capital, income-generating assets, and share buybacks. The company also plans to maintain reserves covering about 18 months of preferred stock dividends. This indicates that the reserve funds for buying BTC have increased again.
I am confident in the long-term bullish outlook. Whether the short-term can strengthen next depends mainly on whether ETF funds can follow the corporate buying momentum. [Short positions liquidated 97% in 1 hour, but BTC didn't surpass 83000]
The most striking data today: In the last hour, $28.18 million was liquidated, with $27.42 million coming from short positions, accounting for 97%. BTC shorts near 82000 were heavily liquidated. However, the price did not break through 83000; instead, it faced resistance and pulled back around 82800-83200.
1. What happened? On a 24-hour scale, long liquidations still account for 59.9%, but the short-term structure flipped sharply—shorts were squeezed out in a very short time.
2. Why is this noteworthy? Volume did not increase; total 24-hour liquidations only rose 2.41% compared to the previous day, indicating this was a precise short squeeze rather than a trend-driven capital inflow.
3. Which observation does this support? It supports "technical repair" rather than a trend reversal. ETFs still saw a net outflow of 229 million last week, with no incremental buying, so the short squeeze only clears leverage and cannot sustain the trend.
Next, watch if 83000 can be effectively held and whether ETF outflows will converge. Shorts have been fully cleared; who will take over next? Feel free to discuss in the comments. $BTC #奈飞增长或放缓，广告业务成新看点 For two consecutive weeks, the US Bitcoin spot ETF has been seeing outflows. From October 5 to 9, there was a net outflow of $679 million. From October 12 to 16, another $228 million left. In total, $907 million flowed out over two weeks. ETH looks even worse, with a net outflow of $320 million last week; only October 13 was positive during the five trading days, the other four were all red. Combining BTC and ETH, $548.5 million left last week alone. According to past experience, this should have caused a significant price drop. However, BTC is currently hovering around 81,000, just over a thousand dollars above 80,000. On October 15, when the CPI was released, it did dip to 80,672 but didn’t hold that low and recovered. As of this morning, it’s still up over the past 24 hours. This is a bit strange. Money is flowing out, but the price isn’t falling—who is buying? At first, I thought someone was quietly bottom-fishing. But after checking liquidation data, it turns out that’s not the case. [Illustration 2:02_Liquidation Tide Recedes.png] From October 8 to 9, there were $1.191 billion in liquidations across the network over three days. On October 15, the CPI day, $937 million, with longs accounting for 84%. In the last 24 hours up to today, only $359 million remain, with longs at $281 million and shorts at $78 million, and over 100,000 people liquidated. OneBuying three names may only express one viewpoint
$BTC rose 1.09% in the past 24 hours; it is suitable for expressing an overall market improvement view, with relatively straightforward logic.
However, adding several altcoins to a portfolio does not necessarily mean there are multiple independent reasons; they may all be anticipating the same market recovery. More names do not mean different drivers.
Clarifying this point first is very useful. If you are generally optimistic about the market, you can study it; if you want to achieve performance beyond it, then explain the additional business advantages of other coins. Each position should have its own role.
$HYPE had a trading volume of about $557 million in the past 24 hours, and its activity brings it into the research scope, but I will examine the business layer separately.
Its native application is an on-chain order book perpetual exchange. What’s worth comparing is whether the trading experience can bring sustained usage, rather than simply treating it as a scaled-up version of the main market.
This distinction changes the evaluation method: market recovery is the common background, product competitiveness is its own homework. Only if the latter reason stands can it be convincingly given a separate position in the portfolio.
$AAVE’s business allows users to borrow liquidity using collateral assets, and changes in collateral value also affect borrowing conditions, so it is not unrelated to the overall market.
Therefore, when adding lending coins to a portfolio, I do not immediately assume there is a completely independent business; it still depends on the environment in which it is more competitive.
My view is that the businesses can be different, but the market impact they bear may be similar. When studying a portfolio, mapping out these connections is closer to reality than simply dividing into three categories of public chain, trading, and lending.What is the most profitable business in the crypto circle?
Today's top five by expenses:
1. $PUMP Expense 5.1 million, Revenue 1.87 million, Retention rate 37%
2. Polymarket Expense 5 million, Revenue 760,000, Retention rate 15%
3. $HYPE Expense 2.47 million, Revenue 2.03 million, Retention rate 82%
4. Papertrade Expense 2.35 million, Revenue 2.36 million, Retention rate 100%
5. $UNI Expense 2.04 million, Revenue 200,000, Retention rate 10% This earnings report exceeding revenue expectations is obvious, but whether the stock price rises or not doesn't depend on revenue; it depends on whether the burn rate can be caught up by income.
First, looking at the revenue side, AI contracts are indeed being realized in concentration. Anthropic runs at full capacity generating $1.25 billion per month, Google executes at full speed from October with $920 million per month, plus a fourth contract of $1.1 billion per month, the three contracts annualize close to $40 billion. UBS expects Q3 AI revenue at $7.6 billion, Citibank conservatively estimates $6.9 billion, even at the lower estimate, it's more than double quarter-over-quarter growth. Revenue consensus is $13 billion, up 65% year-over-year; this is the first time the AI computing power story is validated by real contracts with actual money.
But the problem lies on the expenditure side. Starlink is the only stable profit engine, with an EBITDA margin of 63%, but Starlink generates only about $3 billion in free cash flow per year, which cannot fill the combined $10+ billion hole from the rocket and AI segments. After one earnings report, the stock price dropped over 10%, and this is what caused it.
So the real variable in this earnings report is not the revenue figures, but whether management dares to provide a clear Capex peak timeline and free cash flow inflection guidance. If they do, the market will accept this long-term story of "burn first, then collect rent"; if not, no matter how good the revenue looks, the stock will be hammered after hours. The 14th Starship test flight reaching orbit is a long-term narrative, but it doesn't solve the cash flow problem in the short term. Don't bet on the stock price exceeding expectations just because revenue exceeds expectations. #SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓 @OKX星球 #芯片股八连跌后反弹，AI交易能否修复？
The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped 13% over eight days, then bounced back 1% overnight—this is not a recovery.
▪️ The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell for 8 consecutive trading days, a cumulative drop of over −13%, the longest since 2008
▪️ Semiconductor market value evaporated by about $2 trillion; Nasdaq 100 dropped −5.5% last week, the largest weekly decline since April 2025
▪️ The rebound on 10/19 only occurred in futures: Nasdaq 100 futures once rose nearly 1%, spot market has not opened yet
▪️ Short sellers gained about $32 billion on paper over seven trading days; triple short semiconductor ETF trading volume hit the third highest in 20 years
▪️ TSMC’s Q3 revenue and net profit both hit record highs, yet its ADR still fell after the earnings report
▪️ After a 13% drop, a 14.9% rise is needed to break even; a 1% bounce only narrows the gap from 13% to 12.1%
The disagreement is not whether AI trading can repair, but that the numerator and denominator of "recovery" are not on the same scale.
1% is one day, 13% is eight days. Earnings hitting new highs while stock prices continue to fall indicates that earnings are not the variable driving this round of pricing.
The direction suggests "rebound confirmed, recovery not confirmed" — conditions: closing above half the decline for three consecutive days; invalidation: futures gains give back, spot market turns down.$ASTER Aster spent 99% of the fees over two weeks to buy back 2.72 million ASTER.
But upon closer inspection, the repurchased tokens were not burned; instead, they were distributed to staking users. The tokens actually burned were an equivalent amount held by the team.
In other words, this money ultimately became staking rewards.
An annualized return of 24.8% looks quite attractive, but the catch is a lock-up period of 208 weeks, a full four years.
Would you be willing to exchange four years of liquidity for this yield? The decline of $PONS is like boiling a frog slowly, while the daily revenue scale of $PUMP is 30 times that of pons!
Let's first look at the latest data; the gap between the two is already very obvious.
$PONS: Fundamentals and price are weakening in sync. The price has dropped from a high of $0.90 to $0.26, a retracement of about 71%;
Daily protocol revenue is only about $36,000!!
Robinhood Chain's DEX trading volume yesterday was about $775 million, ranking fourth across the entire chain. #NetflixQ3AdsAndMargins Thin order book triggers chain reaction stampede: AI perpetual contracts flash crash replay at dawn
On October 18, Tread.fi CEO DYJ reviewed the flash crash of US stock AI concept perpetual contracts at dawn. He believes the selling pressure started on Binance: a roughly $2 million SNDK long position was liquidated, and due to insufficient order book depth, it directly broke through the buy orders, with about $407,000 executed in seconds, then immediately increasing to about $1.03 million; MU was almost simultaneously under pressure. Subsequently, the risk spread to Hyperliquid, where about 10 addresses submitted IOC sell orders concentrated on SNDK, SOXL, DRAM, SKHX, SKHY, and MU within 1.8 seconds, triggering a second round of synchronized selling. Notably, most of these orders were newly opened short positions rather than simple position reductions, indicating that funds actively shorted by leveraging the momentum. In terms of volume, during the first round of selling, Binance saw about $21.9 million and $5.1 million traded for SNDK and MU respectively within a minute, while Trade.xyz contracts corresponded to about $3.1 million and $300,000; on Hyperliquid, MU volume further expanded to about $10.8 million and $9.5 million within two minutes. DYJ stated this phase was driven by chain liquidations.🚀 Bitcoin rockets back to 82,000! Don’t rush to call a bull return
On October 19, BTC climbed back above $82,000, even breaking through $83,000 intraday, rising over 2%🔥. But to be clear: this looks more like a “weak recovery,” not a major trend reversal.
The trigger was the sharp drop on October 15, when BTC fell below $80,000, liquidating $948 million in leveraged positions, 90.6% of which were longs. After this bloodbath, a technical rebound followed😮💨.
This bounce relies on two factors: oil prices retreating from a five-month high, with Brent crude dropping as much as 2%, improving risk appetite; and easing fears of continuous Fed rate hikes, with a softer dollar providing a breathing room. The capital flow is also interesting: spot ETFs saw a net outflow of about $910 million in the past two weeks, but since late August, whales have stopped depositing coins to exchanges, and stablecoin balances on exchanges surged from 21.7 billion to 30.5 billion in one month, an increase of about 40%👀—big money seems to be waiting for a signal.
$BTC $ETH $ZEC
Key technical levels to watch: 81,500–82,000 is a turnover zone; breaking above 84,246 could open up space, with resistance at 84,500; short-term support is at 81,603. Institutions are also divided: Bitwise expects $100,000 by year-end, LO:TECH projects $85,000–$95,000, while Bloomberg is more pessimistic. The main pressure remains macroeconomic: a 3.7% YoY CPI disrupts rate cut expectations, so short-term likely range is 80,000–85,000 for consolidation. Next, it depends on whether ETF funds can return to net inflows📈. #机构资金转弱，BTC与ETH谁先迎来回流？ Planet's new rules have exposed the '100x Battle God,' and today BTC's lower shadow candle dealt another blow
After OKX Planet updated its rules, sharing positions now directly shows profit amounts and profit rates. Previously, the screen was full of 100x screenshots, but now they're all silent—opening 100x with 0.1U only earns a few cents, and the data has completely torn off the fig leaf.
Today $BTC is even more ruthless. After dipping to 80200–80400, the short momentum exhausted, triggering a liquidation cascade, producing a textbook "lower shadow washout" candle, reclaiming above 83000. The entire network saw about $67.7 million liquidated in 24 hours, with shorts and longs each accounting for half, a double kill for both sides.
The new Planet rules and this lower shadow candle are about the same thing: leverage multiples don't generate profits, position management does.
What really should be shown off is not "how much leverage I used," but "I'm still alive, and my account is in the green." Star said a few days ago, if you still believe in this industry, now is the time to keep building. For traders, building means controlling positions, sticking to stop losses, and not handing over chips during washouts. What do you show off on Planet, profit rate or leverage multiple?
What do you show off on Planet, profit rate or leverage multiple? Let's talk in the comments, I want to see how many real traders there are👇
#机构资金转弱，BTC与ETH谁先迎来回流？ $USD1 losing over $400M in market cap in two weeks is a notable outflow, but the peg held through large redemptions. That is the real stress test for any stablecoin. Shrinking supply is worth watching, yet holding the dollar peg under pressure is what builds trust.A coin hoarding company even more aggressive than MicroStrategy announced another Bitcoin purchase today
Strive disclosed today: from last Wednesday to Friday, it spent 100 million USD to buy 1,223 $BTC at an average price of 81,734 USD. Total holdings are 36,818 coins, valued at about 3 billion USD.
Last week, MicroStrategy bought 250 coins, Strive bought 2,822 coins, which is 11 times that of MicroStrategy.
This week, MicroStrategy bought 267 coins, Strive bought 1,223 coins, which is 4.6 times that of MicroStrategy.
This morning, Strive's founder publicly stated: permanently shorting the USD and going long on Bitcoin! It can be inferred that more Bitcoin purchases will follow.
Currently, Strive's estimated Bitcoin holdings rank 4th among all publicly listed companies. It is only 6,700 coins away from entering the top three on the list. BTC is once again testing our patience! BTC briefly touched above 83,000 today, then quickly dropped back near 82,500, while $ETH is hovering around 2,424. As soon as there was a slight rebound, some called it a reversal, but I’m still not bullish yet. The market’s bet on a Fed rate hike in October has dropped to about 12%, so the bearish pressure has eased. Tech stock futures in the US are also rebounding, which should mean risk appetite is recovering, but BTC still can’t hold above 83,000, which I find a bit weak. Looking at the weekly ETF data: BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of about $228 million, and ETH ETFs a net outflow of about $320 million. Although the outflow narrowed compared to the previous week, ETF funds have not turned into net inflows, with ETH looking especially weak. Therefore, I still expect a bearish consolidation over the next 1-3 days, with ETH relatively weaker. The 83,000–83,500 range is the resistance zone I’m watching for BTC; if it can’t hold above this, I’m not optimistic about a rebound relying solely on easing rate hike concerns.The most common mistake at noon is mistaking "sideways trading" for "no opportunity" 🌙 But have you noticed that the real movement often isn't in the big coins, but in those little guys in the corners? Let me say this upfront: this round of midday volatility, what I see is not a broad rally, but a light "event repricing." BTC is hovering around 82650, up about +1% in 24 hours, with the intraday low at 80680 holding firm; the resistance now is between 82800 and 83000. ETH is around 2426, only slightly up 0.3%. The perpetual funding rates on both sides are neutral to slightly bullish, but only at a few ten-thousandths level, indicating bulls aren't really pushing their positions. BTC dominance is close to 61%, and altcoins are still bleeding overall. This background is important: the index hasn't moved much, but money is picking stories. Then there are two small signals I focused on today. PEPE is up about +3.7% in 24 hours, with trading warming up, and short-term meme sentiment slightly recovering; VVV is up about +7%, the strongest in the AI narrative. Note, this isn't a "sector takeoff," more like existing funds looking for a theme to talk about in sideways trading for short-term moves. BTC is stagnant, so altcoins have no overall liquidity, relying only on sentiment pulses. That's why I prefer to see this as a rhythm issue rather than a directional one. The bullish path isn't complicated: as long as BTC holds above 82500 and funding rates aren't blown out, short-term funds still have room to tap m There was a rebound, but don’t rush to call a bull return yet. First, look at a set of data that makes the bulls uncomfortable.
$BTC touched 83,100, $ETH was hard pulled back from around 2,180 to 2,418, $ZEC surged from 1,048 to 1,191 — prices are rising, but in the past 24 hours, $BTC spot ETF net outflow was 331 million, with IBIT alone withdrawing 326 million, marking the third consecutive day of net outflow. $ETH is even more painful, with last week’s ETP net outflow of 249 million, the largest single-week outflow since the end of January. Price rebound and capital outflow are happening simultaneously; this divergence is the real focus today.
$BTC: 82,000 is not the end, but a touchstone. The rise to 83,100 followed by a pullback shows that selling pressure above is not just for show. ETF funds have been flowing out for three consecutive days; institutions are not buying aggressively at this level. If 82,000 can hold sideways with reduced volume on the pullback without breaking, the short-term structure can be considered truly stable. But without a volume breakout above the previous high, all rebounds should be regarded as mere corrections for now.
$ETH: The weakest one, don’t fool yourself. Wintermute directly stated that $ETH is "not the asset to hold under the current macro environment." The $ETH/$BTC ratio dropped to 0.0275; this week $ETH fell over 10%, while $BTC only dropped 5.7%. The resistance and pullback at 2,450 is no coincidence; it’s capital voting with its feet. If the rebound near 2,400 continues to lack volume, the high and fall scenario is highly probable. The narrative for ETH hasn’t disappeared, but in the current macro window, liquidity tolerance for it is clearly lower than for $BTC.
$ZEC: The strongest rise, but also the most likely to bite back. This $ZEC rally is not pure air pumping; Multicoin has been accumulating since February, publicly stating the logic that "Bitcoin resists censorship but cannot stop property tax," making privacy demand a real narrative. But the problem is, $ZEC has already risen too much this year; after quickly reaching 1,191, profit-taking impulses are stronger than for $BTC and $ETH. The resistance at 1,200 is not drawn from technical lines but built from chip structure. Holding 1,100 means the story can continue; if it fails, the drop will be faster than the rise.
On the macro side, saying "Fed rate hike expectations are cooling" can be misleading. The reality is: after April’s CPI exceeded expectations, the market has basically ruled out rate cuts, with a 99%+ probability of no change in June. The so-called "cooling" refers to the fear of further hikes, not the arrival of easing. The fear and greed index plunged from 49 last week to 25, an extreme fear zone; funding rates turned negative across the board, yet prices did not crash deeply — this indicates leveraged longs have already been cleaned out once, short-term selling pressure has been partially released, but it doesn’t mean new funds have entered to take over.
So the characterization of this wave is clear: a correction after a decline, not a reversal. Correction means shorts covering and oversold buying pushed prices up, but ETFs are still flowing out, macro conditions have not eased, and $ETH’s relative weakness remains unchanged. Next, watch the pullbacks — $BTC holding 82,000, $ETH holding 2,400, $ZEC holding 1,100. If they hold, the rebound has a second half; if not, today’s high will be the starting point of the next decline.
#Institutional funds weaken, who will see inflows first, BTC or ETH? My answer may be unpopular: watch $BTC first, but "inflow" does not equal "reversal." Until ETF outflows stop, all rebounds carry question marks.
#SpaceX’s first full quarterly report after IPO will be revealed #Netflix growth may slow, advertising business becomes a new focus #SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓
SpaceX Q3 Earnings Preview
Last quarter results: The first report since listing exceeded expectations
✅ Total revenue $7.8 billion, up 92% year-over-year, net loss $540 million
Starlink quarterly revenue $4.291 billion, users grew to 12 million, profits stable
❌ AI computing power business, Starlink launch investments consumed a lot of funds, heavy investment in AI and rocket R&D, concerns over long-term return on investment
———————————————————————
This quarter:
Expected total revenue around $13 billion, a significant increase, likely the first profitable quarter post-IPO
Starlink users also grew to 14.3 million, a significant increase, revenue about $4.9 billion, AI revenue also reached $6.4 billion, surpassing Starlink business
Main risk still lies in AI computing power, costs, and losses cannot be underestimated, large depreciation of AI computing equipment will directly compress profits, even if marketing targets are met, GAAP US stock earnings are unlikely to meet expectations
Market rumors say adjusted EPS is $0.14, GAAP basis must deduct stock compensation and large equipment depreciation, which will eat into book profits
Q3 GAAP EPS is very likely close to expectations, but the chance of missing expectations is greater
So, I choose No this time
@misaENFP @okxchinese
#OKX美股财报季 #OKX达人 #交易TradFi就来OKX #Netflix growth may slow, advertising business becomes new focus [Nasdaq futures up 1.25%, but ETH is "standing still" at the 2400 level]
The most striking pre-market divergence: Nasdaq futures rose 1.25%, showing a clear rebound in risk appetite, while ETH is currently around $2420, with a 24-hour gain of only about 0.3%. Intraday, it once dropped to 2329 before barely recovering.
1. What happened? US tech stocks are warming up, but ETH is struggling to hold above the 2400 mark, with the 20-day and 50-day moving averages tightly pressing down in the 2547-2552 range.
2. Why is this noteworthy? ETF funds have seen net outflows for three consecutive weeks, with another $320 million withdrawn last week, bringing the October total close to $1 billion. Institutions are selling, and even good macro conditions are not translating into gains.
3. Which view is more supported? The tug-of-war between "macro sentiment recovery" and "ETH's own capital hemorrhage" is more likely than a trend resonance. On-chain, addresses that built positions at $2667 in September are now selling at a loss; the funds that can't hold on are exiting.
Next, watch two things: whether 2400 can hold at the close, and whether ETF outflows will narrow. Nasdaq is rising, but ETH is "standing still"—can this round of macro tailwinds really blow into the crypto space? Feel free to discuss in the comments. $ETH Last weekend it even fell below $80,000, but waking up this morning, Bitcoin is already above $82,000.
Monday Asian session started with a rebound: Bitcoin once surged to $82,678, up more than 2% for the day; last week's low was $80,112, rebounding over $2,500.
A standard "macro gives a step down": US Treasury yields fell, Brent crude dropped to around $107 (US exempted new sanctions on Russia), China's Q3 GDP at 4.5% exceeded expectations, Ethereum rose over 3%, Solana rose over 4.7%.
But don't rush to call a reversal: US spot Bitcoin ETFs have bled for two consecutive weeks, reportedly with a net outflow of $228.6 million last week and $681 million the week before; 24-hour CVD is flat to slightly negative, and the most active Deribit contracts are put options with strike prices below the current price.
I think: this is a combination of macro easing and short covering, not a shift in spot consensus; whether $82,000 can hold depends on this week's tech earnings and rate hike expectations before the FOMC (according to Dow Jones citing LSEG data, the probability of a rate hike on October 28 is about 12%).
Do you think this wave is the start of a reversal or just a one-time position cover? Will $82,000 hold, or will we see $80,000 again next week?
$BTC
#BitcoinReboundIn-depth research on HYPE: What is the real moat? Don't just focus on HYPE's trading volume. What's more worth studying is: why Hyperliquid is not content with being just a DEX, but chooses to build its own high-performance L1? 01｜Why are ordinary chains not enough? The trading market has special requirements for speed, matching efficiency, and risk management. AMMs suit many trading scenarios, but large orders, complex leverage, and continuous matching demand higher liquidity and execution efficiency. Hyperliquid has chosen a different path: embedding the trading engine directly into its own chain architecture. 02｜What is the real technical difference? Its core consists of two parts: HyperBFT: responsible for network consensus and transaction ordering. HyperCore: responsible for order book, matching, margin, and liquidation. Official documentation states the network currently supports about 200,000 orders per second. Note, this is order processing capacity, not 200,000 completed trades per second. More importantly, its order book does not rely on traditional off-chain servers. This makes the trading process more transparent but does not mean all MEV, manipulation, or systemic risks are eliminated. 03｜Its ambition is not just contract trading HIP-1 supports native spot tokens, HIP-2 introduces liquidity mechanisms, and HIP-3 supports deployers creating perpetual contract markets. HyperEVM further provides developers with a universal smart contract environment. This is the path[Nasdaq futures up 1.25%, BTC only followed by 1.6%, who's holding it back]
The most notable pre-market divergence: Nasdaq futures rose 1.25%, BTC is currently at $83,086, with a 24-hour increase of only 1.68%. Risk appetite is warming up, but BTC has not shown its usual high beta elasticity.
1. [BTC] What has changed? US stock futures are rising, BTC is following but struggling, once dipping below the 80,000 mark intraday before pulling back.
2. Why is this worth attention? Spot ETFs have seen net outflows of about $910 million for two consecutive weeks, with October cumulative net outflows reaching $615 million, indicating continuous capital withdrawal. The price holding up is not due to incremental buying but sustained by existing holdings.
3. Which observation is supported? Currently, the tug-of-war between "macro sentiment recovery" and "crypto's own capital bleeding" is more supported, rather than a trend-driven resonance upward.
Next, watch if 83,000 can hold steady and whether post-market ETF outflows will converge. Nasdaq leads the way, BTC can't keep up, who will let go first? Feel free to discuss in the comments. $BTC The drowsiness accumulated from working during the day was just diluted by this news. The room is left with only the screen lit; I originally planned to scroll through and then sleep, but seeing "4.9% of total supply," my hand stopped again. 🌙
According to PR Newswire, Bitmine announced an increase of 12,535 ETH in the past week; as of October 18, 2026, the total holdings reached 6,041,481 ETH, accounting for 4.9% of the total ETH supply.
Calming down, I think this is somewhat positive for $ETH sentiment, but not enough to indicate a comprehensive strengthening of market demand. What really keeps me awake is: will the actions of a single company be taken by everyone as a thermometer for the entire market?
Continuing to increase holdings for a week at least shows that this company is still increasing its ETH exposure, which can send a positive signal to the market. But one firm buying firmly does not mean other funds are following; and the total holdings are cumulative results, so they cannot all be counted as new demand this week. If the discussion only focuses on the 6.04 million ETH, then the significance of this 12,535 ETH increase might be exaggerated—this is my concern, not a price judgment.
A reminder to myself: don’t take a whale’s holdings report as your direct market answer. Who else is still awake at this hour, and what ETH signals are they watching? After this news, will you be more inclined to confirm whether other funds are following, or first look at whether price and volume respond?#AMDQ3HeliosRevenue Morgan Stanley is cutting $AMD's GPU demand forecast by 43.3%, from 14.1M to 8M units.
The forecast spans from 2026 through 2030 and was just released a few days ago.
Would be curious if anyone knows the *why* behind this significant of a cut?
Lisa Su was just in Taiwan talking about significant demand, so much that it was tough to keep up.#Institutional funds weaken, who will see inflows first, BTC or ETH?
📊 【Funding: Big money is retreating】
📉 Since mid-October, $BTC ETF net outflows reached 228 million, $ETH is even worse, with outflows exceeding 320 million.
🩸 Institutional buying cools down, Galaxy Research directly points out: the supply-demand gap within the year is as high as 127,300 BTC.
📉 When the city gate catches fire, the fish in the moat suffer; last week, 141 altcoins fell an average of 14%, liquidity contracted rapidly.
🔍 【Rebound truth: all thanks to short covering】
BTC’s rebound to 82,000 is entirely due to crude oil falling and US stock futures rebounding, restoring sentiment. The core driver of the rise is short covering, with hardly any new buying following. The 80,000-85,000 meat grinder range remains unbroken.
⚔️ 【Brutal divergence between BTC and ETH】
During macro contraction, institutions prioritize protecting their "BTC base positions." So when funds flow back, BTC definitely ranks first, ETH has to step aside. Ethereum has bled for three consecutive weeks, showing extreme weakness, closely watching the 2330 support level below. As for $ZEC, its narrative is too independent; even if the market flows back, it may not benefit.
#SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓 #奈飞增长或放缓，广告业务成新看点 Bitcoin and Ethereum can exhibit completely different market trends under the same market environment, which in itself is an underestimated piece of information. When $BTC rises, $ETH continues to weaken—what does this divergence indicate? My judgment is: the breadth of the rebound is more worth monitoring than the height of the rebound. $BTC, as the leading asset in the crypto market, naturally attracts most of the attention and incremental funds; whereas $ETH's performance is more like a mirror reflecting whether investors are willing to take on broader market risks. The former is a thermometer of confidence, the latter a touchstone of risk appetite. When the two diverge, focusing solely on Bitcoin's gains can lead to wrong conclusions. This is exactly why I track both the BTC/ETH ratio and their individual prices simultaneously. A widening ratio and relative bleeding of ETH means funds are concentrated in a few assets, indicating a narrow market structure; a converging ratio and relative recovery of ETH indicate that risk appetite is truly spreading. A healthy market cannot rely on just one asset to hold the stage. The key signal now is: if $BTC continues to rise strongly while $ETH keeps depreciating, this recovery is most likely still a narrow-based rebound, and participants' optimism should be discounted; conversely, if ETH starts to outperform relatively, that confirms an improvement in breadth. This is not a price prediction but a structural interpretation—the direction of the ratio reveals the true attitude of funds earlier than individual coin candlesticks. A referenced argument: Bitcoin determines the height of the market, Ethereum determines the breadth; a rise without breadth is ultimately just a celebration for a few.📊 #At first, I also thought that BTC and ETH ETFs were flowing out together this month.
Counting the trading days on Farside this month, it doesn't add up. BTC spot ETFs had net inflows on half of the days, while ETH had only 1 day, which was last Tuesday with $24.8 million.
Combined, BTC had a net outflow of about $610 million this month, and ETH about $960 million. The ETH ETF pool is much smaller than BTC's, yet more funds flowed out, and almost every day.
So, as for who will see inflows first, I think BTC has already been in a tug-of-war with funds coming in and out, while ETH hasn't started yet. The count is up to last Friday; today's data will only be available after the US stock market opens tonight.
If ETH shows two consecutive days of net inflows this week, I'll admit I was wrong.
#机构资金转弱，BTC与ETH谁先迎来回流？ #奈飞增长或放缓，广告业务成新看点 Steadily exceeding expectations In the futures market, when a major player continuously accumulates, people usually focus first on inventory concentration rather than assuming the market will rise just because they hear "increased holdings." When I see this kind of news, I also tend to separately weigh the new additions and the total holdings.
According to PR Newswire, Bitmine increased its holdings by 12,535 $ETH in the past week. As of October 18, 2026, its total holdings reached 6,041,481 $ETH, accounting for 4.9% of the total ETH supply.
My judgment is that this news is somewhat positive for holders' confidence, but what matters more is concentration rather than the buying strength of this week. The new additions are not large relative to its existing holdings, so the massive total holdings should not be treated as newly generated demand; conversely, holding 4.9% of the total supply means this company's holdings are more likely to influence market sentiment.
Crypto differs from traditional commodities; corporate holdings are not like factory raw materials, with no production or consumption clues to judge from. If the market equates corporate holdings directly with long-term removal from circulation, I think that is an overreach, as the information does not explain the subsequent use of these coins.
I prefer to see it as a window to observe the chip structure rather than a directional signal. Are there friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? When facing such corporate coin hoarding, do you raise your guard like you would with commodity inventory concentration, or do you think the two are fundamentally incomparable?MicroStrategy, the largest Bitcoin bull, has issued another announcement, continuing to add 267 $BTC to its holdings.
MicroStrategy founder Saylor announced again: this time spending $21.75 million to buy 267 $BTC, while also repurchasing $193 million of preferred shares $STRC.
Looking back at MicroStrategy's entire operation, from 4,603 coins in August, down to 250 last week, and 267 this week, a five-time decline, they continue buying Bitcoin but at a slower pace.
However, in the same announcement, the real action is elsewhere. The repurchase of preferred shares worth $193 million is 8.9 times the amount spent on buying coins.
Most importantly: he raised the repurchase plan scale from $2 billion to $3 billion.
So MicroStrategy's current logic is very clear: slow down the pace of buying Bitcoin, allocate more funds to repurchasing its own preferred shares, and improve its capital structure. #NetflixQ3AdsAndMargins I think Netflix does outperform because of the ads#NetflixQ3AdsAndMargins #嘉信开放BTC转账，德银布局托管
The leader has something to say
Deutsche Bank and Charles Schwab have taken another step forward in crypto business. Deutsche Bank plans to launch BTC and ETH custody services for institutions and enterprises within weeks, while Charles Schwab has started phased support for qualified clients to make external wallet transfers. Standard Chartered and BNY Mellon are also expanding custody.
I believe this is long-term infrastructure, but with limited short-term impact. A comment in the discussion section hit the mark: Deutsche Bank's custody will first be implemented in Germany, and expansion in Asia will wait until 2027, making it a long-term option rather than an immediate benefit. The channel is becoming smoother, and the compliance ceiling is rising, but converting this into actual capital inflow will take time.
Market reaction is mild, BTC slightly up 0.54%, ETH slightly up 0.52%. Today, I shorted BTC at 82,800, exited at 80,200, pocketing 2,600 points profit, now in a flat position. Next, I will watch if the 80,000 level can hold. If it holds, expect consolidation; if broken, expect deeper correction. Resistance above remains between 84,000 and 85,000.
Bank custody is a slow variable, not a directional switch. BTC short-term still follows macro trends. Do not chase highs or panic sell lows, wait for signals, and set stop-loss orders properly. $BTC $ETH $ZEC
The above analysis is time-sensitive; orders must have stop-losses set. Good luck.Screenshots of 50x and 100x returns flooding the planet, first let's look at a set of data to calm down.
With 100x leverage, if the price moves less than 1% in the opposite direction, you could be liquidated. In the past 30 days, $BTC had 27 days with intraday volatility exceeding 1%, averaging about 2.6% back and forth daily.
Number of days intraday volatility reached the liquidation threshold (rough estimate of liquidation distance ≈ 1/leverage):
· 100x (≈1%): 27 days
· 50x (≈2%): 19 days
· 20x (≈5%): 1 day
· 10x (≈10%): 0 days
At high leverage, even if you pick the right direction, it's not enough; if your entry timing is slightly off, a normal intraday fluctuation can liquidate you. If beginners really want to trade contracts, start with low leverage, small positions, and use stop-loss.
The screenshots only show those who survived.
Not investment advice | Data: OKX BTC/USDT daily (UTC) 9/19–10/18
#Bitcoin #Contracts #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 To start with a dose of cold water, I don't take "continuing to focus on crypto" as a signal of new funds entering the market. According to Bloomberg, Multicoin Capital, which manages $2.7 billion in assets, stated it will continue to focus on digital assets and will not follow peers in expanding its investment scope to artificial intelligence and robotics technology. This is a statement about investment boundaries, not an announcement of increased positions.
I am cautious for two reasons. First, the $2.7 billion refers to assets under management, not cash waiting to be invested; interpreting this figure directly as potential buying power in the crypto market confuses existing holdings with new capital. Second, partner Spencer Applebaum emphasized that the professional advantages and resource accumulation in the crypto field are difficult to transfer directly; blindly shifting focus would weaken competitiveness. I prefer to understand this as maintaining their circle of competence rather than asserting that crypto has more opportunity than AI, and certainly not as a reason to raise valuations across the entire sector.
However, bullish people might agree: at least this institution has not chosen to broaden its investment scope. If we later see continuous new investments and portfolio projects with real demand and revenue growth, I would raise my evaluation of this news. For now, I stand on the side that "the emotional significance outweighs the financial significance." Regarding this news, are you bullish or bearish? State your reasons: do you value the institution staying put, or are you more concerned about new funds and project realization?From zero to losing 19.78 million, it took him less than 10 hours
A new wallet rushed into Hype at 11 PM last night, opening a 25x short position of 13,826 ETH at an average price of 2366.
But ETH kept grinding upwards.
With 25x leverage and the direction reversed, the margin was instantly breached. The system didn’t liquidate him all at once but sliced his position bit by bit over 10 hours. A total of 8,163 ETH were liquidated, worth 19.78 million USD. He was literally tortured alive.
The craziest part is, he still tightly holds the remaining 8,849 ETH short position, with a new liquidation price at 2430. If ETH pushes up just a bit more, the rest of the position will be wiped out too.
Entering the market with tens of millions of dollars, the first thing he did was go all-in with a 25x short. This isn’t trading, it’s gambling with life. And these high-leverage new wallets often become the best fuel for the market.
What do you think, can his remaining short position hold until ETH drops below 2366? Discuss in the comments.
The above is compiled from on-chain data and does not constitute any trading advice.
$ETH $BTC #霍尔木兹重开方案仍有效，油价能否继续回落？
🔥The reopening plan for the Strait of Hormuz, to be honest, is now just a carrot dangling in front of a donkey.
It looks effective, but has Iran really taken any action? No. As long as they keep bickering over there, oil prices can't just drop decisively.
Even if they do drop a bit, so what?
The 6.3% PPI from the day before yesterday is right there, inflation's bottom layer has already been stripped away. US Treasury yields are still sucking blood at a high 5.6%. Now you expect a rumor of geopolitical easing to rescue the Fed's rate cut expectations? Don't be ridiculous.
Looking back at the market, Bitcoin is stuck around 84,000, caught in a dilemma, and options volatility has hit a five-year low. All the funds have gotten smart; no one wants to bet on direction at this time. Everyone is waiting, waiting for something certain.
I suggest keeping your base positions untouched, and let your USDT lie in wealth management to earn interest.
In this market, more trading means more mistakes. Wait until these macro boots really drop, and the market can't hold back from choosing a direction, then we jump in to pick up bargains. For now? Just sit back and watch the show. $CL The median amplitude of 84 coins has dropped to 90% of the past 40 days, while TIA is at 1.78 times.
This means the whole market is getting quieter, but TIA is getting noisier, which is unusual.
TIA has averaged a daily swing of 15.85% over the past 10 days, compared to only 8.91% in the previous 40 days.
In this cycle, it rose from 0.293 to 0.7691, an increase of 162%.
On October 17, it hit a 100-day intraday high of 0.7691.
But it closed at 0.659 that day, with an upper shadow of 14%, pushed back after the spike.
It then fell for three consecutive days, now at 0.6047, down 21.4% from the high.
I think the increased amplitude is not a signal of trend but a signal of divergence.
The price can hit new highs, but the close is hammered down, indicating someone is selling around 0.77.
Buyers are still there, just unwilling to chase higher, so the price swings back and forth daily.
Whoever breaks first in this market will determine the direction.
The dividing line is at 0.60.
That is the starting point of the big bullish candle on October 16 that rose 15.97%.
If it breaks below 0.60, that bullish candle was in vain, and the story changes from a breakout to a false breakout.
Holding 0.60 is necessary to talk about a second attempt at 0.7691.
I tend to think it will try again because the drop was on low volume; today's trading volume is only half the average.
$TIA
#GettingQuieterAndGettingNoisier Conclusion first: This morning's rebound is real, but the strength is fake. BTC rose from 80,680 in the early session to 82,814, now at 82,493, up 0.73% in 24 hours with a 2.6% amplitude. Looks lively, right? But looking at the futures data reveals the truth: the funding rate is 0.0037%, basically zero. To translate: those going long don't even want to pay this little interest; they say they're bullish, but their wallets are honest. Open Interest is 30,311 BTC (2.49 billion USD), and leverage hasn't followed. ETH is at 2,421 (-0.03%), stagnant; SOL is the most active at 105.2 (+0.92%), but its funding rate is only 0.0019%. In plain language: - 82,800–83,000 is a barrier; until it breaks through, don't mistake the rebound for a reversal - Funding rate near zero + no increase in Open Interest = no one is taking over this wave; bulls are waiting - China's Q3 GDP growth is 4.5%, macro data is relatively warm, crypto is not responding today. Looking ahead to this afternoon and tonight: my view is that 82,800 won't be broken and a pullback to 81,500 is more likely. Falsification condition is fixed: if BTC closes above 82,800 before 9 PM tonight and holds, my judgment is void and I'll admit it first thing tomorrow. The data was pulled at 12:15 today from refresh_market for Binance spot + futures real numbers, not just guessing. If you want to see what I tested, comment.#usd1 stablecoin market cap decreased by over $400 million in two weeks
[Old Leek Observation] On-chain research data shows that from October 6 to 15, the supply of USD1 on the three main chains—Ethereum, BNB Chain, and Solana—decreased by about $385 million, a drop of approximately 8.7%, with the total supply falling to about $4.04 billion. Observing a broader nearly two-week period, the decline has approached over $400 million. There are two points worth noting in this news.
The first is that redemption does not equal de-pegging. On-chain data indicates that this round of supply reduction mainly came from redemption and burning on Ethereum and $BNB Chain. During the same period, the price of $USD1 still basically fluctuated around $1 and did not experience a sustained large-scale de-pegging due to the supply decrease. Therefore, the clearer current signal is a contraction in circulating supply rather than a stablecoin run having occurred.
The second is the impact of large funds. The supply on Ethereum decreased by about $185 million, and BNB Chain decreased by about $200 million. The research report also points out that about $200 million of the redemptions on BNB Chain came from the same untagged address. In other words, a few large redemptions can significantly change the overall scale of USD1. However, on-chain addresses cannot directly prove the identity of the ultimate holder, nor can redemption motives be judged solely based on transaction records.