Orbit Post Sitemap
📉 SOL: Dropped from 295 to around 100, on-chain activity is alive, but buying pressure died first
$SOL has fallen 72% from its all-time high of $295, currently just above $100, far below the $188 price at the launch of the spot ETF in October 2025.
ETF inflows have sharply slowed. In the first five weeks after listing, SOL ETF weekly net inflows exceeded $100 million. From December 2025, weekly inflows dropped to $20–25 million. By June 2026, there was a net outflow of $790,000, and by mid-July only $3.65 million flowed back in — compared to hundreds of millions per month in 2025, the institutional support has basically vanished.
But SOL’s problem is more awkward than BTC’s: on-chain activity is thriving, but no one is buying the price. In the last 30 days, Solana processed $108 billion in DEX volume, compared to Ethereum’s $63.7 billion; active addresses are 2.17 million, more than three times Ethereum’s. The busier the chain, the more the price falls.
Leverage is still crowded at the door. Open contracts near $120 pile up to $7 billion; a drop below $119 triggers long liquidations, while a rise squeezes shorts. The longer the sideways movement, the tighter the rubber band. When SOL fell below 100 in October 2026, $879 million in longs were liquidated, and open interest dropped 12% in a week.
SOL has stories to tell. But stories need incremental capital to be priced, and incremental capital is not here now.
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ Price levels are not signals. Volume and confirmation matter more. 📊
$SUI is approaching the psychological $1 level, but a 14.63% monthly recovery still needs volume confirmation.
$HYPE shows long-term strength but recent weakness. Trading near $80 doesn't automatically make it cheap.
$PEPE 's $150M daily volume shows activity, not buying pressure. Watch price action before drawing conclusions.
Trade the evidence, not the round numbers.
#CanBTCReboundLast The first topic is the OKX Prophet Earnings Season Zone: Will Netflix's stock rise on the first full trading day after its earnings report?
Which specific indicators should we look at? Take notes ⬇️
1️⃣ Revenue
Netflix will stop disclosing subscriber numbers starting in 2025. Revenue drivers are divided into three parts: subscriber growth, pricing, and advertising. The company's July guidance is a 12% year-over-year increase, i.e., $12.86B, with market consensus at $12.87B, almost identical.
2️⃣ Operating Margin
The ratio after deducting content, marketing, and technology costs from revenue is Netflix's defined profitability metric. 26.7% in 2024, 29.5% in 2025, and a target of 31.5% in 2026. This quarter's guidance is 33.2%, with expansion driven by 13% revenue growth exceeding 10% content amortization growth; the difference between the two is the margin space.
3️⃣ EPS (see Figure 2)
Operating profit minus interest, taxes, and one-time items divided by shares. Market consensus EPS is $0.82, which is the indicator most prone to deviation from expectations. In Q3 2025, revenue and operating margin met targets, but EPS fell significantly short due to a one-time recognition of a roughly $600 million tax dispute in Brazil.
It seems Netflix's guidance is conservative. If the advertising revenue doubles as planned, there is a chance for an upward revision in Q4. I choose Yes!
#奈飞财报在即，广告业务成新看点 Looking at this message, it still follows the direction of weak confidence and unstable recovery, so it cannot be said that the trend is strengthening. Analyst Darkfost stated that after excluding BTC held for over 10 years, about 53.8% of the current supply is in profit, which had briefly exceeded 60% before. For me, this more easily reinforces cautious sentiment rather than fueling optimistic expectations.
I have three principles for analyzing trends. First, focus on persistence, not momentary changes. The profit supply ratio surged past 60% and then fell back, at least indicating the improvement is not yet stable. I won’t conclude that $BTC has moved past the phase of lacking confidence based on a single brief rebound.
Second, distinguish between indicators and price. This is the profit supply ratio, not the number of profitable holders, and certainly not a guarantee of price increase. If the ratio continues to improve and the price trend strengthens accordingly, then I would consider it evidence of trend strengthening—this is my judgment criterion, not something that has already happened.
Third, wait for confirmation and don’t rush the market. Currently, nearly half of the supply is still not in profit, so I tend to believe holder sentiment remains prone to fluctuation; a single data point cannot support comprehensive optimism. I prefer to be a bit slow rather than guessing bottoms to seek validation.
The trend is the best friend; my attitude remains to wait for the recovery to stabilize. Facing this recent drop in the profit ratio, what methods are you using now to judge the trend: looking at continuous improvement in on-chain indicators, or considering price and volume together?Netflix $NFLX will release its Q3 earnings after the market closes on October 20. The headline numbers won't be bad, with revenue at 12.86 billion and an operating margin of 33.2%, both within guidance, but there are troubles underneath.
Revenue growth has dropped to around 12%, the slowest for the same period in nearly three years. The margin improvement mainly comes from price hikes—the price increases in the US, Mexico, and Spain only fully took effect this quarter, so the growth is "raised" rather than "grown."
The real anxiety lies in user engagement. Total viewing time only increased by 2% in the first half of the year, average monthly viewing per user dropped from 66 hours in 2023 to 49 hours, US user churn rose 16.6% year-over-year, and downloads fell by 20%. YouTube's viewing time is already twice that of Netflix, and TikTok is still capturing fragmented time.
Advertising is the only growth story. The target this year is $3 billion, doubling year-over-year, and US pre-sale commitments are also nearly doubled. But ad revenue accounts for less than 10% of total revenue, and the ad tier in nine European markets won't roll out until March 2027, so distant water won't quench immediate thirst. More complicated is live sports: MLB and NFL are included, consuming over 5% of this year's content budget but contributing only about 1% of viewing time, making the math difficult.
Before the earnings report, 1,000 employees were laid off and the content head was replaced. Management turmoil combined with slowing revenue growth means the market's patience is running thin.
$BTC is on a different channel than Netflix. ETFs saw another outflow of 229 million last week, and Bitcoin is being pressured around 82,000 #奈飞财报在即，广告业务成新看点 "A rebound is not a bugle call; capital is the signpost"
When the market turns red, people shout about a surge, easily overlooking a more important clue: where the money is flowing. This month, Bitcoin ETF net outflows have exceeded $600 million, and Ethereum ETF outflows have surpassed $300 million in a single week. The signal of institutional selling is not subtle. Higher inflation and delayed rate cut expectations are the most direct drivers of this round of withdrawal.
Currently, $BTC rebounding from around $80,000 looks more like a technical correction after a deep drop; $ETH has pulled back deeper and recovered weaker. The persistence and strength of ETF outflows are stronger for ETH than BTC, showing a more resolute institutional selling attitude. Bulls and bears are still tugging, but there is insufficient evidence of large capital re-entering.
Therefore, do not mistake a rebound for a reversal. The real conditions worth waiting for are the simultaneous appearance of two factors: continuous net inflows into ETFs and a price effectively breaking through key resistance. Only when these two signals resonate is it a reasonable window to increase positions or chase the upside. Before that, chasing the upside is just emotion; observing capital flow is discipline. Watch less fantasy, watch more flow.
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？
#SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓
#奈飞财报在即，广告业务成新看点 At the opening of the US stock market, BTC made a very awkward move. The Bitcoin spot ETF saw a single-day inflow of $527 million, with BlackRock's IBIT alone accounting for $665 million, clearly showing strong capital inflow. However, Nasdaq futures fell more than 0.5% pre-market, and the tech sector sentiment was cold, pushing BTC, which had just touched 81,600, back down to around 81,495.
What changed? On the 1-minute chart, the MACD barely formed a golden cross below zero, but volume clearly shrank, and the price was stuck between the middle and upper Bollinger Bands, unable to rise or fall.
Why is this worth noting? In the past 24 hours, the entire network liquidated $188 million, with long positions liquidated accounting for $104 million, and Bitcoin long liquidations at $30.87 million. Just after the bulls were cleaned out, the ETF buying came in, but the price did not immediately take off, indicating a tug-of-war between futures selling pressure and spot buying support.
Which observation is currently more supported? It supports the idea that ETF funds are providing a floor, but short-term pricing power still lies with US stock market sentiment. The key to watch next: within the first half hour of the US market open, will BTC weaken following Nasdaq futures, or will it ignore the tech sector drag and rely on ETF buying to hold above 81,600 on its own? If it falls with the market, it means crypto has not yet broken free from the risk asset anchor; if it holds steady, then this $500+ million ETF inflow can be considered truly absorbed.
Will this $500 million ETF inflow be dispersed immediately by the US market open, or will it hold until the close? Share your judgment in the comments. $BTC Tuesday night copy:
The breakout attempt failed again, and it was pushed back by geopolitical factors. Last night BTC once rose above 83,000, but this afternoon, air raid sirens sounded in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, with reports of intense explosions. The Houthis were also hit by airstrikes. US crude oil instantly pulled back above 100 dollars, Brent crude stood at 111, and inflation panic resurfaced. BTC responded by falling below 82,000, currently around 81,400, ETH at 2,400, SOL at 104, with over 50,000 liquidations in 24 hours. The 83,500 level failed for the third time, confirming the effectiveness of this resistance. Bulls' two attacks were both pushed back into the range. Fundamentally, there is a hidden concern: last week, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of 228 million dollars, new funds did not follow, and the rebound mainly relied on short covering and existing position battles, making the foundation unstable. Structurally, it has returned to the 80,000 to 83,500 range. Tonight, the focus is on whether the Nasdaq can hold up after the US stock market opens against oil prices. If US stocks fall along, BTC will most likely test 80,500 to 81,000 again overnight; as long as 79,600 is not broken, the consolidation pattern remains unchanged. In terms of operations, continue to hold short positions in contracts and watch the market. This kind of news-driven market flips back and forth, making both long and short positions vulnerable to stop-outs; spot orders remain inactive, the second support at 80,000 is getting closer, and as usual, wait for 15-minute support confirmation before deciding.In the futures market, a price rebound from a low level does not mean that on-site confidence has been restored. The trapped positions have just caught a breath; this is different from being willing to continue taking risks. When I see this kind of news, I usually first distinguish whether it’s just that the accounts look a bit better or if the funds really dare to move forward.
Darkfost stated that after excluding BTC held for over 10 years, about 53.8% of Bitcoin’s current supply is in profit, having briefly exceeded 60% before; he judges that the market still lacks confidence. Although profits have slightly recovered, it is still insufficient to support holders generally making significant gains and pushing prices further up.
My view is that this is more like a reminder that the recovery has not yet stabilized, not a bearish signal that can be determined by a single ratio. The decline in the proportion of profitable supply indicates that the coverage of on-paper profits has narrowed, but this number cannot directly tell us whether holders are willing to sell.
The crypto market is different from traditional futures. The $BTC indicator looks at the profit distribution of on-chain supply, not futures account profits and losses, nor new funds. Excluding holdings over ten years also limits the statistical scope, so I prefer to use it to observe holding pressure rather than as a directional signal.
From my old futures perspective, I still look at whether the on-paper recovery can turn into sustained support. Are there any friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? Would you see 53.8% as an unstable recovery, or would you pay more attention to trading volume and fund changes for verification?Just finished putting the baby to sleep and tidied up the toys by the bed, only now had time to scroll through this message 🍼. Analyst Darkfost stated that after excluding BTC held for over 10 years, about 53.8% of the Bitcoin supply is currently in profit, previously briefly exceeding 60%; he believes the market is still rebuilding confidence.
My understanding is that this is more like a "checkup report showing the recovery hasn't stabilized yet," and shouldn't be directly taken as a signal that $BTC will rise or fall. The 53.8% refers to the supply proportion, not that so many investors have made money; the feeling in each individual’s wallet may vary greatly.
The decline in the profit ratio indicates that the previous improvement in profitability is still unstable, and holders may not be confident enough to continue increasing their investment; but looking at this indicator alone, it’s also unclear whether new funds are willing to come in. My guess is that if there is a lack of follow-up support, confidence rebuilding may be repetitive, and one cannot simply take "some people are in profit" as enough momentum for an upward trend.
If it were me with small funds, I would first separate money for baby formula, daily expenses, and money I can afford to risk, then observe whether the profit status can continue to improve, without rushing to make decisions based on a single number. Even when grocery shopping, you compare prices at two stores; watching the market requires more than just quick reflexes.
For friends who are also taking care of kids or working, during such confidence rebuilding periods, do you check indicators at fixed times, or reduce market watching and prioritize life?#SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓
Look at the earnings forecasts of these four companies from #OKX Outcomes
I personally chose YES for all, expecting better-than-expected results.
First, let's talk about #SPCX, which will announce its earnings after the market closes tomorrow early morning.
The market revenue expectation is about $12.7 billion, but it also depends on the AI sector's cash burn and net profit situation.
My personal prediction is better-than-expected, but given the current macro market conditions and high oil prices, exceeding expectations might not be enough to drive the stock price significantly higher.
After all, the US stock pre-market price is already below $147. Plus, there is a lock-up expiration wave on 10/24, which may be reflected in Monday's stock price. Unless oil prices fall by then, it could boost the market.
If the results are not significantly better than expected, or even below expectations, combined with the lock-up wave, the price might approach the $130-135 range seen in late August, which is near the issue price.
Overall, there will be selling pressure on Saturday. Don't expect a big rebound in price.
Back to trading, shorting now feels a bit like seeking victory in danger.
Maybe wait for a dip into the bottom range before getting in.
And for friends who haven't participated yet, join quickly, there are many rewards. #OKX美股财报季🔐 Multi-signature, timelocks, and security audits—can they prove a project is absolutely secure?
No.
Multi-signatures can change the authorization method, but signature keys can still be stolen; timelocks provide review time but may not cover all operations; security audits can identify some risks but cannot guarantee there are no vulnerabilities.
What really needs to be checked:
* Who controls the critical permissions?
* Which operations are constrained by multi-signature and timelocks?
* What does the audit cover, and have the issues been addressed?
* Can subsequent code and actual progress be verified?
Security is not a label but a process that requires continuous verification.
Today we completed Day 1 of the ONEA seven-day plan topic. Tomorrow, we will continue discussing common misconceptions behind digital asset restriction mechanisms.
#ONEA #Web3 #Blockchain #SmartContracts XRP Explosive Game: The $1.25 Defense Battle Begins, Can RWA's 1458% Surge Ignite the Next Round?
From recent trends, XRP is currently in a technical pressure versus ecological fundamentals acceleration battle window. The price repeatedly oscillates between the key support zone of $1.29 to $1.33, with a dense resistance band from $1.37 to $1.40. Although technical indicators have issued the first buy signal since September, trading volume has not effectively expanded, so short-term movement remains mainly a consolidation and recovery.
In terms of competitiveness, the tokenization scale of RWA on the XRP Ledger has climbed to $6.3 billion, with 30-day trading volume surging 1,458% to $7.03 billion, even surpassing Ethereum in the tokenized commodity sector. On the cross-border payment front, Ripple has pragmatically shifted to a "complement SWIFT" strategy, using the RLUSD stablecoin as the institutional settlement tool, with Standard Chartered Bank already providing custody services.
Regarding market influence, spot XRP ETFs have accumulated inflows of about $1.7 billion, with seven products already trading, but BlackRock remains absent, showing a clear division in institutional attitudes.
In terms of strategy, the short-term defense bottom line should be $1.25, and holding above $1.33 can be seen as confirmation of a rebound; mid-term focus should track RLUSD on-chain increments and ETF capital flows, as these two are core signals to judge whether the ecological narrative can translate into price momentum.
#韩国全北银行接入Ripple，XRP能否受益 $XRP 瑞士今天批了 ETF，盘面却纹丝不动：今晚就看 81,200 守不守得住 三个半小时过去，BTC 几乎没动：17 点 81,423，现在 81,466，24 小时跌 1.28%，低点就贴在 81,200。这不叫企稳，叫被按在地上摩擦。ETH 2,394（-1.08%）、SOL 104.4（-0.76%），全军跟着趴，没一个敢走独立行情。 今晚最值得看的还是费率。BTC 资金费率 0.0022%，ETH 0.0024%，SOL 0.0051%。昨天 BTC 还是 0.0087%，今天直接贴地。说白了，多头连利息都懒得付，看涨情绪躺平。BTC 持仓 3.07 万枚、25 亿刀，比昨天少了几千万，多头在悄悄减仓。 盘面上唯一的新变量是瑞士：FINMA 今天批了首只面向公众、直接投现货 BTC 的 ETF。听着是利好，但两点要看清：公告里没发行方、没上市日期，钱今天一分进不来；美现货 ETF 今天净流入 5.27 亿听着热闹，可 IBIT 一家独揽 6.65 亿，ETH 那边还净流出 1.03 亿。钱在分化，不在狂欢。 所以我的判断：今晚到明天早盘，就盯 81,200。跌破且四小时收不回来，短#芯片股终结八连跌，AI行情能否持续？ $MU
$2.3 trillion evaporated over eight trading days, with short sellers only taking away $32 billion.
▪️ The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell for eight consecutive trading days from 10/7 to 10/16, down a total of −15.7%
▪️ Closed at 11,137.29 on 10/16, the longest losing streak since October 2008
▪️ Nearly $2.3 trillion in market value evaporated over ten trading days
▪️ Short sellers made about $32 billion in paper profits during the same period
▪️ $32 billion accounts for only 1.4% of the $2.3 trillion
▪️ On 10/19, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rebounded 1.61%; pre-market on 10/20, MU −2.57%, SKHY −4.21%
The disagreement is not about whether the rebound can continue, but that short sellers hardly exerted any effort during this decline.
The $2.3 trillion is a reduction in market value, not money taken by anyone. The $32 billion earned by short sellers indicates that the main force driving the sell-off is the holders themselves reducing positions, not short sellers pressing down. Therefore, the "end of the eight-day losing streak" looks more like exhaustion of selling pressure rather than a return of buying — the two main pre-market targets fell again, indicating that what is exhausted is selling pressure, and the rationale remains.
The direction suggests "limited rebound height, first watch the gap" — conditions: Philadelphia Semiconductor Index recovers 11,800; invalidated if it falls below the low of October 16.Is Worldcoin going crazy with dumping again?
The $WLD associated wallet has been secretly dumping for the past 7 months! It has sold over 3 million dollars worth, with an average price of only $0.40. The most shocking part is, they never stopped; just an hour ago, they transferred another 250,000 WLD to the exchange.
Honestly, seeing this official associated address continuously depositing coins to the exchange really chills me to the bone. We keep staring at the K-line charts analyzing everything, but the project team cashed out openly at the $0.40 mark? This 7-month long slow boil of dumping is a huge blow to retail investors' confidence.#Meta巨额AI投入进入回报检验期 $META 本季度财报，我为什么押注 Yes？ 看多的理由👇 1️⃣ 广告业务依然强劲 Meta最赚钱的业务还是广告，Facebook、Instagram和Reels背后的AI推荐系统，现在已经直接影响到广告收入。 上一季度Meta广告展示次数增长14%，平均广告价格上涨12%。这两个数据比单纯的用户增长更重要。 广告展示量和单价同时增长，说明Meta不仅能留住用户，还能让广告主愿意花更多钱。 如果这个趋势延续到Q3，广告收入继续超预期的概率不低。 2️⃣ 华尔街的预期还有上修空间 目前市场对Meta Q3营收的预期在630多亿美元，同比增长接近24%。 这个预期其实不低，但上一季度Meta营收同比增长28%，说明广告业务的增长速度依然很快。 Meta过去几个季度的执行力一直不错，尤其是广告端。只要广告展示量和单价继续维持增长，实际营收就有机会超过市场一致预期。 3️⃣ AI已经开始给Meta赚钱了 这也是我比较看好Meta的一点。 现在很多科技公司都在疯狂砸钱搞AI，但真正能把AI直接转化成收入的公司并不算多。 Meta不一样。 AI推荐系France counts converting coins into stablecoins as a sale, with a 31.4% tax on gains starting January 2027. What really stings isn't the tax rate, but the scope: moving BTC to USDT within the exchange to hedge triggers an immediate 30% tax on unrealized gains on paper, turning stablecoins from a trader's cash reserve into a taxable event. For swing traders, every entry and exit is taxed, which is much harsher than fees. The amendment is still awaiting Senate approval, having just passed the first hurdle.
$BTC
$ETH How much is ETH worth? Using the same model table from 21Shares, increasing the discount rate from 10.30% to 19.56% lowers the valuation per coin from $4,892.84 to $1,797, with the former being about 2.7 times the latter.
The discount rate is the rate used to convert future income into today's value: the higher the required return, the less one is willing to pay today. The report first estimates the income of validators responsible for auditing, then forecasts the next 20 years and discounts it back to the present. Therefore, these figures are model valuations without a "must arrive by a certain year-end" deadline.
Before comparing to institutional target prices, first see what it is calculating. The table assumes 80% revenue growth in 2027, then gradually slowing; if revenue does not reach the assumed level, the valuation must be recalculated. Subsequent factors to consider include fee income, token issuance, and risk requirements; you cannot just copy the final numbers.
This research was published on August 10, with data up to May 31, and this round of review. The original text separately states $4,877, slightly different from the table; here it follows the attached figure and is not considered a new upward adjustment in October.
Source and original table: 21Shares "How to value digital assets" pages 6–7. Below is only the ETH spot price. $ETH Buying 5,000 $CORE coins, if it goes to zero, I'll quit the exchange and leave the crypto circle; I don't want to waste any more time in this crypto space. These days have been physically and mentally exhausting.
I'm prepared to hold at the 0.014 level; I really don't want to explain to others anymore. From the peak, it has been crashing all the way down, the candlestick chart is full of long bearish candles and spikes, and the community's daily calls for it to go to zero have never stopped. I have 20,000 CORE tokens listed, worth about 5,000 yuan; if it goes to zero, I'll just consider it a sunk cost. I'm not being stubborn; I've already calculated the worst-case scenario in my mind.
This kind of small market cap and highly concentrated token is most tormenting because: it's not completely illogical, the BTCFi narrative is still there, buyback and burn are still ongoing, and the mainnet hasn't stopped; but it's also not a reassuring asset. Unlock pressure, thin liquidity, and the risk of delisting from exchanges all truly exist. Watching the market daily, monitoring capital flow and order book depth, I clearly understand that I'm not betting on an immediate fundamental reversal, but rather betting that one day the funds will return to hype this narrative again.
5,000 yuan is neither too much nor too little. It might be my chip for the next turnaround, or it might end up as a gift to the dog traders for their amusement. But what I fear more is knowing the poor token structure and still treating it as my only hope.
So I can hold this position, but I won't add more. If it really rebounds to a position where I can catch my breath, I will reduce part of my holdings first. Speculation is fine, but you can't let one position hijack your emotions and life. I accept the possibility of it going to zero.On October 19, JPMorgan Asset Management released the "2027 Long-Term Capital Market Assumptions," 31st edition. Bitcoin entered this table for the first time in 31 years.
Annualized compound returns: BTC 10%, REITs 8.2%, US large-cap stocks 7.5%, gold 5.5% — the highest in the entire table. But one sentence in the press release was overlooked: "A return range for BTC is given, but no allocation recommendation is included." They allow you to see it, but not to buy it, citing volatility as the reason.
1. 20.9% and 10% are not the same. Arithmetic annualized return is the simple average of yearly gains, while compound annual growth rate is the actual long-term realized return. Losing half requires doubling to break even. So the statement "JPMorgan says BTC annualized return is 20.9%" is itself incorrect. The bear market scenario is a loss of 11.2% per year.
2. What determines whether it can be included in a portfolio is volatility and correlation. The model assumes volatility of 55%, but Grayscale's actual realized volatility over the past year has dropped to 43%. Correlation with US stocks is 0.33, with gold 0.10 — about two-thirds of BTC's volatility cannot be explained by US stock volatility.
3. Regulation is advancing. EBA has recognized Circle's European USDC as the first EMT under MiCA. On the same day, Swiss FINMA approved the first public Bitcoin ETF.
A more accurate way to put it: moving from the narrative stage to the modeling stage — the former debates belief, the latter debates how much weight to assign.
Would like to hear everyone's thoughts: should it be included in asset allocation? 2023到2024年，整个加密圈都在为以太坊扩容狂欢：L2、高吞吐、低gas、秒级确认。一年多时间里十余条L2公链相继上线，四大明星项目 $OP、$ARB、$STRK、$ZK 各自讲着不同的技术故事——前两者押注乐观汇总与欺诈证明，后两者用零知识证明把安全性交给数学。技术叙事几乎无懈可击。 但这里有一个被集体忽略的裂缝：技术先进是一回事，代币持有者能否赚到钱是另一回事。这两件事之间没有必然的因果链。我承认 $ARB、$OP、$ZK 的链上体验确实流畅，速度快、费用低，可产品做得好与币价上涨从来就是两条独立的曲线。眼下这四大L2的治理代币持续走低，走势近乎归零，而它们的网络数据并不难看。这种背离本身就是最诚实的市场信号。 把镜头拉远，这不是L2的个案，而是整个加密行业的结构性病症：绝大多数项目与其治理代币是两套逻辑。项目可以很成功、有真实收入、有现金流，但只要协议不回购代币，价格就能一路向下。代币在这里更像一张叙事门票，而不是对现金流的索取权。项目方在讲故事，接棒的是二级市场里以为自己在"早期布局"的新人。 真正稀缺的样本是 $HYPE 背后的Hyperliquid：它用交易手续费赚来的Bitcoin is currently in a period of uncertainty, with buyers and sellers hesitant.
Profits are slightly returning to the market but not enough for holders to feel comfortably in profit and push further.
This corresponds to 50% of the supply being in the profit zone. We have now retreated to 53.8%, after briefly exceeding 60%.
In this context, supply held for over 10 years is excluded to reflect a more current and less liquid market.
This is completely normal behavior, causing the profitable supply to fluctuate around the neutral 50% line.
This period of uncertainty always appears at the end of a bear market. After the capitulation phase where profitable supply falls below 40%, it takes time to break back above the 50% threshold.
This is not unusual.
Rebuilding genuine investor confidence and attracting new demand through performance takes time. Meanwhile, patience is needed to let behavior stabilize and allow profits to establish sustainably.
$BTC $ETH $ZEC Core Long-Short Logic
Dimension 📈 Bullish Signals 📉 Bearish Risks
Capital Flow ETF single-day net inflow of 665 million, capital flow shows a sharp reversal; last week ETF total still net outflow of $593 million; price failed to strengthen following ETF inflows
Technical Aspect 50-day SMA (81,166 dipped then recovered), MACD returned to zero, momentum exhausted; 82,789 false breakout turned into resistance; price below 7-day/20-day SMA
Derivatives OI decline due to deleveraging rather than new short positions; funding rate neutral; 1-hour taker buy/sell ratio only 0.5321, sell orders nearly twice buy orders
Macro October rate hike probability only 15%-17%, short-term interest rate shock risk low; economists warn "fifty-fifty"; December rate hike probability near 80%; Brent crude still around $110
Sentiment Doctor Profit at 94,000; greed index 48, sentiment neutral to slightly cold; after yesterday's false breakout, longs were liquidated $BTC $ETH #ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ To pour some cold water first, a decline in the proportion of profitable supply does not mean the "chips have been cleaned out." Analyst Darkfost stated that after excluding BTC held for over 10 years, about 53.8% of Bitcoin's supply is in profit, previously briefly exceeding 60%. My judgment on this $BTC news is cautious: confidence recovery is not yet stable, and using it as confirmation of a rebound is prone to overreading.
I see two issues. First, this ratio describes supply profit and loss, not new buying; a recovery in book profits does not directly imply someone is willing to continue absorbing. Second, dropping from over 60% to 53.8% indicates that the previous profit improvement could not be maintained. If prices rise later but lack sustained support, some holders might prefer to reduce pressure by taking profits. This is my speculation, not a conclusion proven by indicators.
Of course, the bulls might also be right; a narrowing profit margin itself does not prove further decline. If the proportion of profitable supply continues to rise and prices hold the recovery, I will retract my bearish view and not argue against the data. Are you bullish or bearish: does 53.8% look more like a recovery starting point or a sign of weak confidence? Explain your reasons, don't just state a direction.[Pharaoh's Market Watch]
The US plans to whitewash the sanctioned "dark fleet" and let them resume transport. Does this mean oil prices will be pushed down?
Pharaoh says directly, don't rush to call it bearish; this move is called "distant water can't put out nearby fire," much ado about nothing.
US Energy Secretary Wright said they want to turn the "bad guy fleet" into a "good guy fleet," allowing buyers to purchase sanctioned oil tankers, repair them, and then operate legally. Sounds fierce, right? But the reality is harsh. There are about 1,600 sanctioned oil tankers worldwide, and only a few dozen to a few hundred can be successfully whitewashed.
The real powder keg is still in the Strait of Hormuz. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard just announced that two "violating" oil tankers hit mines and caught fire, and they also shot down a US military drone. Brent crude has already reached $110, and the OPEC basket price is $108.62. This US move is essentially a "first aid package" to suppress diesel prices before the midterm elections, not a "surgical knife" to solve supply issues.
What does this mean for Bitcoin? In the short term, oil prices won't come down, inflation expectations remain firm, and the Federal Reserve won't dare to ease. Bitcoin is hovering around 81,700, with short-term support at 81,000 and resistance at 83,000. Don't short oil prices or bottom-fish Bitcoin just because of a "ship release" news; until the geopolitical fire in Hormuz is out, all news is noise.
Remember, whitewashing oil tankers is a political show; the mines in Hormuz are the real deal. $BTC $ETH #美国拟恢复受制裁油轮运营 四分钟赚两百刀，我为什么反而先缩手了 你有没有过那种"再拿一会儿就能更多"的瞬间？ 刚平掉一笔CT的短单，持仓四分钟，收益已经超过我大多数拿四天的仓位。群里有人说别急着走，还能再吃一段。我盯着盘口想了几秒，还是收了。不是不贪，是那种垂直拉升后的衍生品结构，往往比K线本身更先发出警告。 最脆弱的一环从来不是价格，是杠杆堆出来的持仓意愿。短时间内急速拉升，尤其是十五分钟级别内就冲高二十个点以上的走势，很容易触发空头挤压，但挤压带来的买盘是消耗型的，不是承接型的。价格越陡，后面的平仓链条就越脆。我自己的经验是，拉升越急，回落越快，一分钟拉三十个点和十五分钟拉三十个点，性质完全不同，前者更像情绪脉冲，后者才有一点结构性买盘的味道。 这也是我选择快进快出的原因。时间窗口通常就压在拉升那十五分钟到半小时内，吃到一到三个点就撤，不恋战。因为一旦被反方向咬住，后面可能还有一波更猛的延续，未实现亏损会迅速放大，那时候考验的就不是判断，是保证金。 偏多的路径当然也存在。BTC在相对低位反复筑底，如果现货承接跟得上，衍生品这边的空头回补可以变成趋势的燃料，山寨也会跟着回暖，风险偏好从收缩转向扩散。但我更在意💻 I treat this message as a code review: The input is CME's newly launched BCH and UNI futures, with FalconX and GSR completing the first block trade, and CME's single crypto asset futures product line continuing to expand. The material doesn't provide the transaction amount, so don't imagine a huge influx of funds yet.
My judgment: This is a positive development at the institutional trading tool level, but directly translating it into a spot price boost has a logical flaw. Futures add risk management options but don't only serve bullish demand; they can also be used for shorting and hedging.
The logic behind this launch, as I understand it, is to provide more standardized trading tools for single assets. If institutions already have related exposure, the new futures might make hedging more convenient; but the first block trade only shows that trading has occurred, it doesn't prove sustained demand, nor can it replace subsequent liquidity tests.
If I were to revise this "positive narrative," I would set acceptance criteria as whether trading continues, whether open interest can accumulate, and whether the order book is deep enough, rather than just looking at the launch list. For ordinary users, these are more valuable references than "institutions have arrived." Please help me review: When judging the actual impact of this launch, would you prioritize trading volume, open interest, or bid-ask spread? Are there any flaws in my logic?Same day, same company.
BlackRock bought $665 million in Bitcoin ETFs and sold $95.4 million in Ethereum ETFs on the same day.
On that day, Bitcoin ETFs had a net inflow of $526.7 million, while Ethereum ETFs had a net outflow of $103.3 million, a difference of $630 million.
But excluding BlackRock's ETF, the other nine Bitcoin ETFs combined had a net outflow of $138.5 million.
This is not "funds moving from Ethereum to Bitcoin," but rather a single institution adjusting its portfolio.
Ethereum ETFs have had net outflows for 15 consecutive trading days, with only one positive day in that period.
Next, watch three things:
01 Whether ETHA's daily outflow can be kept below $50 million (a level not seen since the end of September)
02 October 22, the settlement date for several crypto-related ETF products
03 October 28 Federal Reserve meeting; inflation has already been ignited, so the upcoming decision will determine whether the fire is extinguished or not
Additionally, BlackRock filed for a new fund called PBIT on the same day—a Bitcoin ETF with "downside protection."
On one hand, increasing Bitcoin holdings; on the other, selling Ethereum, while also preparing a product to address "what if the price drops too much."
My view:
Don't interpret this day as funds abandoning Ethereum, nor as institutions collectively favoring Bitcoin again.
It looks more like the behavior of a single product on a single day—building positions, adding to positions, or hedging and closing positions could all look like this.
The real criterion is whether this pattern can continue. 周一 #Bitcoin ETF 数据公布，资金净流入与 #BTC 价格走势出现背离，加密资金在离场？ 周一的ETF数据让我非常惊讶，单日净流入5.267亿资金，金额超出5亿属于单日强劲的资金净流入， #ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ 其中IBIT 为净流入单一资金来源，资金净流入高达6.652亿，但是FBTC GBTC 却依旧保持净流出 但是回归 $BTC 价格走势来看，盘面涨幅并不大，并且遭遇关键阻力也并未出现实质性突破导致价格回落 那么短期来看，ETF 资金流向与BTC价格出现背离，资金支持价格走强，但是BTC走势却很弱，唯一的解释就是加密市场本土资金在离场。 在看一下加密市场数据，截至目前对比周一情况出现最大变化就是资金总量在减少，整体净流出8亿左右 其中USDT 净流出4.88亿，USDC净流出1.73亿，很显然这份数据印证了为何ETF 大额净流入但是BTC价格却在下跌 根据两边数据的比对目前很明显得出一个结论，机构型投资者与加密本土投资者在买卖上出现明显差异化，资金型用户更以长期时间来判断买卖，目前ETF净流入意味着趋势上看好 而加密本土用户，更多的是短期换仓换手昨天纳斯达克上涨约 1.1%，半导体板块集体反弹。但今天盘前，AI 股票再次承压，油价明显上涨，市场风险偏好重新下降。 今日优先级：AMD ＞ QQQ ＞ SNDK。 这次不沿用昨天的多单计划，而是根据最新宏观环境和个股相对强弱，重新调整交易方向。 ———————————— 一、今日宏观环境 1、油价上涨，通胀压力重新升温 今天盘前 WTI 原油一度升至 106–108 美元附近，布伦特原油超过 110 美元。 中东能源供应风险仍是主要推动因素。 油价上涨可能增加通胀压力，进一步限制美联储的政策宽松空间。 2、科技股重新承压 纳斯达克 100 期货：约 -0.6% 标普 500 期货：约 -0.2% 10 年期美债收益率：约 5.1% BTC：约 81,400 美元 以上为今天开盘前不同时间点的市场参考报价，并非同一时刻的实时行情。 3、8:30 ET 经济数据：美国房地产走弱 9 月新屋开工：约 122.1 万套 市场预期：约 130 万套 独栋住宅开工环比：-4.6% 独栋住宅建筑许可环比：-4.0% 高房贷利率正在抑制住宅投资。经济数据偏弱可能缓解部分利率压力，但油价上涨同时增加#CoreWeave获升评，市场买账吗？ $CRWV
Goldman Sachs upgraded the rating to Buy while cutting the target price by 24%.
▪️ 10/19 Report: Rating upgraded from Neutral to Buy
▪️ 12-month target price lowered from $139 to $106
▪️ Implies 73% upside based on the closing price of $61.39 on 10/16
▪️ Stock price fell 25.21% last week, down 43% since the Q2 report on 8/11
▪️ Goldman Sachs rationale: market overestimates financing costs and underestimates computing power profitability
▪️ Same week: Nebius −25.1%, Applied Digital −23.78%
The disagreement is not about whether it’s worth $106, but that the "Buy" rating corresponds to a lower price than when it was "Neutral."
Ratings reflect relative ranking, target prices reflect absolute levels; these can diverge: a stock can shift from underperforming peers to outperforming peers while acknowledging the sector’s ceiling is lowering. So seeing an upgrade in rating and adding to positions might just mean it’s falling faster than peers.
The direction suggests "rating recovery precedes price recovery" — conditions: hold above $61.39 for two weeks; invalidation: break below last week’s low.#贝莱德推出比特币风险缓冲ETF新方案 $BTC
BlackRock has filed three products for the same coin, each more conservative than the last.
▪️ On 10/19, submitted iShares Bitcoin Managed Protection ETF, ticker PBIT
▪️ This is BlackRock's third Bitcoin ETF application
▪️ The first, IBIT (January 2024), was pure exposure; the second sold options to collect premiums
▪️ PBIT uses an options portfolio to buy downside protection while leaving upside potential
▪️ Timing of application: BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $228.4 million in one week
▪️ According to Bloomberg: the product line still only covers BTC and ETH
The disagreement is not about whether BlackRock is bullish on Bitcoin, but which segment of risk it is selling.
For the same asset, three approaches: naked exposure, selling volatility, buying protection. The order is not random — naked exposure is launched first when it's easy to sell, selling premiums when volatility is high, and protection products when funds start to withdraw. The sequence of product launches reflects the flow of capital.
The direction points to "an increase in the proportion of protection-oriented products" — conditions: PBIT is approved and has positive net inflow in the first month; failure: application is rejected or scale is less than $100 million. If even converting cryptocurrency into stablecoins is taxable, then doing crypto trading in France in the future might require calculating risk avoidance costs first.
When the market is rising, everyone thinks about how to make money; when the market is falling, the first reaction is usually to preserve the principal. If every portfolio adjustment could incur tax costs, many people would reconsider their trading frequency or even reduce their operations.
This issue affects not only how much tax individuals pay but could also change the way the market trades.
One major feature of the crypto market is the flexibility of asset conversion. If you don't want to hold BTC, you can switch to ETH; if you want to avoid volatility, you can switch to USDT; if you want to wait for a better opportunity, you can stay in stablecoins first.
If the conversion step also incurs tax costs, quantitative trading, high-frequency strategies, and ordinary investors' asset allocations could all be affected. Some trades might become unprofitable, and funds might choose different trading platforms or jurisdictions.
Of course, whether these impacts actually happen depends on how the final rules are formulated and enforced. Regarding France's 31.4% tax measure, it is also necessary to verify the official legal texts to confirm its effective status, applicable groups, and specific tax scope.
The tax rate determines how much you pay, and the taxation stage determines whether you dare to trade frequently.This guy has gone berserk!
In the past 24 hours, this big shot has smashed over 30 million dollars, desperately adding to his long positions in WTI and Brent crude oil. Now his total holdings in the two oils are nearly 37 million dollars, making him the largest crude oil long on-chain without a doubt. The most outrageous part is that his margin usage rate has actually soared to 100.07%! This is a complete all-in, leaving himself no room to retreat.
Let's look at his cost: the average price for $CL is around 98.6, and Brent is around 106.2. Currently, the unrealized profit on the books is about 600,000 dollars. Although he's making money, considering this is almost a 1:1 margin, a slight sharp drop could cause an immediate liquidation on the spot.
This move, I can only say, either he has insider information or he's a pure gambler. To dare to go all-in long at this position, is he confident that the Middle East will make a big move and crude oil will surge again?Bearish on Tesla's 2026 Q3 earnings report
The core issue is not the delivery exceeding expectations, but growth relying on price cuts, profit erosion, and valuation still sky-high. Q3 deliveries were 486,500 vehicles, down 2.1% year-over-year, continuing a two-year contraction without reversal; deliveries in China for the first seven months dropped 12.4% year-over-year, with price cuts resumed to defend market share, facing encirclement from BYD and Xiaomi in the 200,000-300,000 yuan range. Demand weakened after the $7,500 tax credit was canceled in the U.S., and new California policies excluding high-priced models further squeezed profits. Market expectations for Q3 revenue are about $27.8-28.1 billion, flat or slightly down year-over-year; net profit around $923 million, down 32.8% year-over-year, with operating profit decline possibly exceeding 40%. Price cuts, tariffs, and new product launches combined make automotive gross margins hard to return to the midpoint. The biggest contradiction is valuation: TTM P/E ratio about 340x, forward still 175x, while revenue shrinks and profits worsen. Even optimistic scenario discounted valuations for energy storage, Robotaxi, and Optimus struggle to support the current price. When sales rely on price cuts and profits are eroded, yet the stock price pays an extreme premium for an unfulfilled narrative, the earnings report is unlikely to be an upward catalyst.
#特斯拉交付超预期后盈利修复成焦点 Switzerland opened the "retail door" for Bitcoin today.
FINMA announced on Tuesday: approval of the country's first $BTC ETF aimed at retail investors. This is a risk product under Swiss fund law classified as "other alternative investment funds," allowing retail investors to directly gain exposure to spot Bitcoin for the first time.
The most interesting part is the "exception" logic: it directly exempts the risk diversification rule, citing Bitcoin's long trading history and large trading volume. But exception does not mean free pass: custody and operational controls must comply with FINMA's guidelines issued in January this year, and the fund documents must clearly disclose the risks.
Correction of misunderstanding: Swiss people have not just started buying Bitcoin today. SIX listed Amun's crypto ETP back in 2018; in 2021, it also approved a crypto fund limited to qualified investors. ETPs are collateralized debt certificates, not mutual funds under fund law.
Issuer, fees, ticker, and trading hours have not been announced—only confirmed that "the fund exists," but it is not yet available for purchase.
I think the significance as a barometer outweighs the actual capital impact: FINMA's exemption rationale effectively categorizes Bitcoin and other crypto assets officially, with Bitcoin as a major asset class eligible for single-asset exposure, while other coins are not. The US spot $BTC ETF is still seeing net inflows.
Would you buy the Swiss version of the $BTC ETF, or hold $BTC directly?
$BTC
#SwitzerlandApprovesFirstBitcoinETF
#ETF #BTCStaring at these two names on the screen, I suddenly feel like laughing.
OpenAI and Anthropic, the IPO race is heating up.📈
Sounds like a major tech boom era, right?
But if you think about it carefully, this is actually the death knell for the "AI narrative" in our crypto circle.
It's like the village is going to build a road, and the big families have hired all the village's construction teams and cement.
OpenAI is going public, Anthropic is ringing the bell, once these two "money-eating beasts" land on the secondary market, global tech hot money will rush in like mad dogs.
Wall Street giants, pension funds, retail investors' money—all will go to buy their common stocks.
Who would still come to the crypto circle to buy those "decentralized AI computing power" air coins that haven't even run the code properly?
This isn't just pumping, it's bloodletting.
Look at the current big coin, hovering around 82,000, with options volatility hitting a five-year low.
Why so lifeless?
Because the liquidity has long dried up.
US Treasuries at 5.6% are attracting money, AI giants going public are attracting money, even retail investors in the market are being shaken out back and forth.
This kind of low-volume deadlock can't be pulled even if a god comes.
The giants are ringing the bell, so let's just cover our ears for now.
#OpenAI与Anthropic上市竞赛升温
$OPENAI 💻 After reading this, I want to break down the input by code review: According to Cointelegraph, the RWA platform Tx has launched the USD stablecoin USTX for its wallet and the planned tokenized stock market. Users can mint it using $USDC from 8 chains including Ethereum, Solana, Base, and can also redeem it back to USDC.
My judgment: The demand is reasonable, but it feels more like a product update on the platform settlement layer, not yet a major breakthrough in the tokenized stock market track. Supporting multiple chains is about the number of interfaces; the core logic is whether users can exit smoothly.
From the design perspective, multi-chain fund entry could reduce the steps for users to move money; unified settlement assets might also facilitate the connection between wallets and the stock market. But the latter is still in planning, so launching the interface cannot be equated with the business being fully operational.
A potential bug is: if users originally hold USDC, why add another layer? If redemption fees, arrival time, or usability are not friendly enough, this layer of wrapping might actually increase friction. This is my speculation; the material hasn't provided these details yet.
If it were me, I would prioritize clarifying the minting, redemption rules, and exception handling before discussing expanded scenarios. Please help review: To use the tokenized stock market, can you accept an extra layer of stablecoin conversion? Did I miss any key requirements in my judgment?What makes Papertrade most frustrating this time is not whether the PAPER price has dropped, but that users originally thought they were accumulating an asset with the potential to be liquidated, only to find that there is no clear expectation for the transfer time.
Tokens obtained from trading losses, whether they can continue to generate dividends after staking, and whether they can be sold in the future—these three things are all indispensable. As long as the circulation time is uncertain, the amount of PAPER accumulated on the books is difficult to directly equate to actual earnings.
More importantly, the money users lose does not equal the money the protocol earns, let alone the money available for future dividends. If PAPER can be continuously issued in line with qualifying losses but the protocol's real income does not grow accordingly, the earnings share of existing holders may be diluted.
The team is concerned about short selling and liquidity pool attacks after token circulation, and this concern is not entirely unfounded. But from the perspective of early users, trading losses have already occurred, the rules changed during participation, and there is no clear expectation for circulation time, so the risks borne are naturally different from the original assumptions.
FCoin and ZKFair have both tried trading mining. The recurring historical problem is that incentives can bring trading volume but cannot guarantee that these trades generate sustainable real income.ETH is schooling the bulls again!
It couldn't hold after the surge; the counterattack around 2390, how long can it last?
Ladies, ETH's trend is really interesting!
It barely managed to reach 2446 earlier, and the bulls thought a new rally was coming, but what happened?
The high point couldn't break through further, the price has been falling all the way down, and now it's fluctuating around 2393 again.
Looking at the chart, $ETH fell back from 2446, and the rebound strength is clearly weaker than before. Although the price has returned to around 2393, resistance above remains.
Short-term moving averages are converging, and the price is temporarily above the moving averages, indicating there is still rebound momentum here, but we can't yet confirm the bulls have reversed.
Looking at the MACD, DIF is -0.32, DEA is -2.14, and the histogram turned positive at 3.64, showing signs of short-term recovery.
So I don't recommend blindly shorting at 2393; it's more important to watch if the rebound can reach the resistance zone and then weaken again.
My trading idea is clear: if ETH rebounds to around 2405–2420 and shows signs of a failed surge and inability to hold, consider gradually building short positions.
If the price falls back below 2385 and further probes 2370, then focus on whether the bears can continue.
$BTC
$ZEC
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ Let's start with a reality check: don't directly equate stock tokenization with traditional finance as a straightforward source of new growth for the crypto market. According to CoinDesk, seven companies including Microsoft, Alphabet, and Goldman Sachs oppose the trading of tokenized versions of their stocks on the OKXICE platform planned by OKX and ICE. The number of publicly disclosed opposing issuers has risen to 16. My judgment is that this is somewhat bearish for the stock tokenization narrative, but it doesn't necessarily mean the platform is blocked.
I am cautious for two reasons. First, issuer opposition shows that the platform's intentions and issuer approval are not the same; if the market interprets their cooperation as the companies' endorsement, it overestimates the consensus behind this business. Second, having a trading gateway does not equal asset rights; ordinary users should ask: what rights do the tokens represent, and how can they be redeemed? This news does not answer those questions, and I won't substitute "tradability" for a judgment on these issues.
However, the bulls might be right: opposition does not equal veto power, and the material does not say the launch plan has been canceled because of this. If a clear compliance path, holder rights, and redemption mechanisms can be established later, and issuer opposition does not affect actual operations, I would lower my risk assessment. For now, I remain cautious and not eager to get excited. Regarding the stock tokenization track, are you bullish or bearish? Share your reasons: do you value trading convenience more, or issuer attitude and rights protection?#霍尔木兹重开方案仍有效，油价能否继续回落？
Iran's Foreign Minister confirmed on October 18 that the "seven-day plan" is still on the negotiation table. The U.S. side has responded, and Iran is evaluating it. If the U.S. accepts the conditions, the Strait could reopen on the sixth day and negotiations resume on the seventh day. Iran's conditions include lifting the port blockade, removing oil export sanctions, unfreezing overseas assets, and stopping hostile actions in the region.
The plan once boosted expectations for reopening, with Brent crude falling 1.9% intraday to $107.76. But whether oil prices can continue to fall depends on the hedge between two forces.
Short-term suppression comes from sentiment. The plan's validity means the diplomatic window is not closed, allowing room for a reduction in geopolitical risk premium.
However, medium-term support factors are also strong. The volume passing through the Strait is still about 3 million barrels/day lower than in early October. The IEA's accelerated release of reserves has limited impact on oil prices, with Brent still holding high between $106-$110. OPEC+ has paused production increases for the second consecutive month, with no additional supply increments.
The plan is a "possibility," the passage volume is the "reality." Before the U.S. formally accepts the conditions and the Strait truly reopens, any oil price decline is more likely a pulse-like sentiment correction rather than a trend downward.
BTC is currently around 81,500, with resistance at 83,000 and support at 80,700. Positions should set stop-loss below 79,500; short positions should wait for a pullback to 80,700 with reduced volume and stabilization before entering again. Do not chase highs during the rebound. $BTC $ETH $ZEC Quantum computing does not have such a big negative impact on Bitcoin. Even if we take a step back and say quantum computing can really crack it, the primary targets would be traditional finance, like banks and insurance institutions—that's the real big prize. Bitcoin is only considered impressive within our crypto community; its market value is not on the same level as traditional finance.
I believe that for every step forward, there is a counter step. If quantum computing is really that powerful, Bitcoin's quantum-resistant technology will also upgrade accordingly, so there’s no problem. Every once in a while, the threat of quantum computing comes up, and I've heard it many times. If it were truly such a big threat, the people in traditional finance would have been actively discussing it long ago, but we haven't seen much talk about it.
When Bitcoin falls, it's all bad news. When it rises, it's all good news—nothing surprising anymore. Don’t just take rumors at face value; maintaining your own independent thinking and judgment is extremely important for investing, rather than blindly following the crowd and being misled. The $CORE project team should have stopped operating! It's just that the servers are still idling!
The CoreDAO-Docs on Github, as the name suggests, is the official documentation repository for Core DAO. The bottom of the screenshot shows that whether it's .github/workflows (automated build processes) or docs (source files for documentation), the most recent update was indeed 8 months ago.
Although this is just a "documentation repository," documentation usually serves the product or code. Documentation not updated for 8 months often strongly implies the following issues:
1. Core business stagnation: There may have been no new features or technical changes released in 8 months that require user explanation.
2. Maintenance team resource exhaustion: The team lacks the capacity to even keep basic documentation synchronized.
3. Ecosystem development slowdown: Without new developers or user demand, there is naturally no need to update the documentation.
This is indeed a very dangerous signal, confirming that the project has entered an extremely negative or stagnant state in terms of technical iteration or market promotion.
Therefore, the project's technical maintenance and ecosystem development have most likely substantially stopped, and currently, it is very likely that only the servers are still idling. #10月FOMC临近，美联储暂停加息还有哪些变数？ 10月27—28日，美联储将召开新一轮FOMC会议。市场目前更关注的，不只是本次是否暂停加息，而是暂停之后，12月会不会继续收紧政策。 目前有三个关键变数： 1. 通胀是否继续升温 9月美国CPI同比上涨3.7%，高于8月的3.4%。如果通胀持续走高，美联储就很难轻易释放宽松信号。  2. 暂停不等于结束加息 路透社10月20日的经济学家调查显示，100位受访者中有94位预计美联储10月维持利率不变，但受访者普遍预计12月可能再次加息25个基点。需要注意，这是调查预期，并非美联储已经作出的决定。  3. 鲍威尔之后，市场更关注沃什的政策信号 新任美联储主席凯文·沃什近期没有明确承诺下一步利率方向。他强调减少对未来政策的提前指引，意味着市场可能更依赖通胀、就业等数据来判断政策路径。  对市场意味着什么？ 如果美联储暂停加息，但同时暗示12月仍可能加息，市场未必会把它当成利好。 美元和美债收益率若继续走强，BTC、ETH及高估值科技股可能承压；如果通胀降温、加息预期回落，风险资产才更有机会获得支撑。 我的看法是：这次会议真正的变数#ETF continuous outflow, can BTC rebound continue? BTC spot ETF funds continue to experience net outflows, indicating that institutional funds are still exiting the market. This is the biggest constraint on the current rebound. The short-term rebound is more of a technical correction and it is difficult to directly start a trend of sustained growth.
From the perspective of fund structure, ETFs represent the allocation behavior of large institutions. Continuous outflows indicate that institutions currently have no intention of significantly increasing their positions. The rebound relies more on short-term funds and whales' swing bottom-fishing, resulting in a weak capital base. Once the market surges, it is easy to face selling pressure for profit-taking.
Of course, there is also supporting logic: if the macro environment sees a weakening of the US dollar and US Treasury yields, and market risk appetite warms up, it will temporarily offset the pressure from ETF outflows, allowing BTC to maintain range-bound oscillation. But as long as ETFs do not shift from outflows to net inflows, the rebound height will be limited.
Key signals to track going forward: whether ETF funds stop outflow and turn positive, and the strength of the US dollar index. Before ETF funds return, treat the rebound with a short-term mindset; it is not suitable to heavily chase the upside.
$BTC $ETH $SNDK #Visa partners with Mesh to expand stablecoin payments to 175 million merchants $USDC
175 million merchants "support" crypto payments, with merchants having nothing to do.
▪️ Visa and Mesh collaborate to allow wallet balances to be paid directly to 175 million merchants
▪️ Users pay with over a hundred types of crypto assets, merchants receive stablecoins or fiat
▪️ Conversion happens instantly during the transaction, merchants do not handle coin prices
▪️ 175 million is the total number of merchants on the Visa network, not newly added this time
▪️ Mesh completed a $75 million Series C round in January this year, valued over $1 billion
▪️ On the day of the news, USDC +0.03%, USDT +0.01%
The disagreement is not whether merchants want to accept it; once the coin is paid out, it belongs to no one.
Merchants require zero modification and zero risk; the cost is an additional layer of conversion on this path: coins come out of the wallet, are converted in the middle to stablecoins or fiat, and then merchants receive the money. So 175 million refers to coverage breadth, not demand depth. The two stablecoins barely moved that day, which indicates this channel consumes existing supply without generating new purchases.
The direction is "coverage first, usage later" — conditions: disclose monthly conversion volume; invalid if transaction data is still not broken down by country or merchant.The 80,000 threshold grinds people down with frustration, but the more it grinds, the more it shows that neither bulls nor bears have confidence.
Yesterday's surge to 83k didn't hold, and the pullback was decisive. This rebound is essentially driven by short covering, not new money entering the market, so the volume is weak.
On the ETF side, overall outflows dominate, spot buying hasn't kept up, and funds are waiting for a signal.
$BTC
• 83k above is short-term resistance; don't chase if it can't break through
• 80,000 below is critical; previously holding it ≠ stabilization
• If it effectively breaks below 80,000 and fails to recover → space opens, target 78k
• Strategy: If rebound to 82,500-83,000 fails to hold, try a small short position with stop loss above 83,500; don't short hard if it doesn't break 80,000
$ETH
Daily chart is weaker than BTC, rebound lacks strength, back in the lower range of the box.
2,350-2,300 is short-term support; if BTC drops again, ETH will look worse, breaking 2,300 targets 2,250.
Today's outlook: continue to oscillate, biased downward but no sharp drop.
Before a trend change, the worst is to prematurely bet on direction; wait for 80,000 or 83k to move first, then follow. $ZEC
#SpaceX上市后首份完整季度财报将揭晓 #摩根大通JPMCoin上线以太坊主网 $ETH
Banks have moved deposits onto the most open chain, but access remains the most closed system.
▪️ JPM Coin represents customers' USD deposits at JPMorgan Chase, not a stablecoin
▪️ Launching first on Coinbase's Base in November 2025, expanding to Ethereum mainnet this week
▪️ Limited to whitelisted institutional clients, used for collateral management and margin payments
▪️ 7×24, second-level settlement, replacing bank clearing hours
▪️ Issued by the bank itself, interest belongs to depositors, not the token issuer
▪️ On launch day, ETH −1.33%
The disagreement is not about whether banks issue coins, but whose liabilities change after it goes on-chain.
Stablecoins are IOUs issued by the issuer outside the banking system, with interest going to the issuer; deposit tokens are simply bank deposits recorded differently, with interest still belonging to depositors. So not a single cent on this chain is new money — the USD originally sitting in accounts now has a 24/7 channel. ETH not rising is also here: there are many channels, not demand.
The direction points to "bank on-chain clearing before retail payments" — conditions: access for non-whitelisted clients; failure: still only serving institutional own fund transfers.