wesley教授
wesley教授
Founder of Block Infinity, Poker player, Trader, Chinese whale, @drhashclub
876Following
4.3Kfollowers
Feed
Feed
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?
Meta's after-hours earnings report is out, revenue exceeded expectations, and the stock price rose 4%, with positive news everywhere. What I'm focusing on is not this, but two other lines.
First: The full-year capital expenditure guidance was raised to $135 billion to $145 billion, and it explicitly states that active investment in AI will continue after 2026. Second: Reality Labs is expected to lose another $15 billion next year.
To translate: The pace of burning money is accelerating, not slowing down. The market now interprets "still pouring money crazily" as confidence, but this is precisely the most comfortable stage of a bubble—everyone believes, so no one is doing the math.
By the way, today it also issued a batch of Class C shares with no voting rights. Burning shareholders' money while keeping the steering wheel in its own hands.
For those watching $BTC, don't just look at the coin price; this capex curve is the trump card in the AI game.
Retail investors have been shouting for three days straight that "storage has bottomed out," but at today's close, I only focus on one structure: the entire AI sector is rebounding together, SpaceX up 7.7%, Nvidia up 2%, yet the two storage giants only barely rose 2%, lagging at the bottom in this wave of celebration.
The weakest on a rebound day is often the first to collapse in the next round. A single day of gains does not mean a bottom; you have to see whether it is leading the rise or being dragged up by others.
My short positions on storage stocks like $MU and $SNDK haven't moved a bit these past few days. It's not stubbornness, but the thesis hasn't broken: valuations are still at their highest, and the whole industry is surviving on AI capital expenditure, which is a different matter from today's 2% price increase.
Do you think this wave is a true bottom, or just a last gasp in the rebound?
Don't let tonight's crypto watch be distracted by Middle Eastern oil tankers and missiles; there's a quieter number more worth your attention: the Federal Reserve's overnight reverse repurchase agreements, which today only absorbed $237 million.
This tool used to swallow over two trillion dollars daily and served as a "reservoir" for excess liquidity in the banking system. Now the reservoir is basically dry, meaning the thick liquidity buffer in the market is almost gone. Once the buffer is gone, if the Fed continues to shrink its balance sheet, it will be withdrawing real reserves, and money will genuinely tighten.
This trend isn't as dramatic as war and won't make headlines, but it is the foundation of risk assets. Oil price fluctuations are pulses; liquidity tightening is a chronic condition. Assets like $BTC and AI, whose valuations rely on liquidity support, are never scared of one or two days of panic but of the water level receding inch by inch. While headlines show you the smoke of battle, I only watch this nearly empty reservoir.
A news story drowned by AI's counter-push: A New Mexico judge ruled Meta to pay $25 billion for misleading consumers on privacy issues.
What does $25 billion mean? It's more than the annual net profit of many listed companies. But today, everyone's attention is focused on how much storage chips have risen and whether AI can still be discussed; few are calculating this bill. This is the most typical symptom of a late-stage bubble—the market only wants to price the story and selectively ignores the real costs and risks.
The regulatory sword has always hung over tech giants' heads, but no one wants to look up during a bull market. When sentiment recedes, these ignored bills will be laid back on the table one by one. In my shorting logic, it's never just about interest rates, but also these "hidden costs everyone pretends not to see." What's cheap is never the valuation, but the optimism.