Orbit Post Sitemap
From the 14th to the 19th, on days when SOL fell, trading volume decreased day by day, while on days when it rose, volume increased day by day. The price made a full circle back to around 105, and the direction of volume changed.
On the 15th, it closed at 105.44 with a volume of 2.85 million, the heaviest day of the week, and the price rose by over 1 point that day. On the 16th, it closed at 104.45 with a volume of 1.89 million. On the 17th, it closed at 103.47 with a volume of 987,000, the driest day of the week. The price retreated 2 points over two days, and volume dropped by two-thirds.
Volume shrank during the decline, indicating that buyers were withdrawing, but sellers did not flood the market. Forced selling by trapped holders usually brings volume, but no such signs appeared this week.
On the 18th, volume was 1.52 million, and on the 19th, 1.87 million, recovering over 80% of the decline in two days. In late September, SOL's daily average volume was still above 3 million, but this week the daily average was below 1.9 million, showing a step down in participation. Despite the price drop, there was no panic selling. The cost of volume contraction during the decline is that the rise is slow, relying only on existing funds won't push it far.
The intraday high on the 14th was 108.67, the low on the 18th was 100.43, an 8-point drop, of which more than half has now been recovered. The high on the 19th was 106, and the close on the 17th was 103, only 3 dollars apart, with four trading days of back-and-forth.
Watch the volume for the next two days; if SOL's volume stays above 1.5 million and the 104.9 level holds, there is still strength to test higher. The 987,000 volume on the 17th was the week's volume bottom, and it has only been two trading days since it started climbing from there. $SOL $APR is weak this week. The unlock on October 23 will release tokens equivalent to 47% of the current circulating supply, only three days away. We backtested similar large unlock events over the past two years; about three-quarters of these events underperformed the market seven days before the unlock, with consistent trends in the samples before and after. We are currently in this window. Yesterday's market also aligns with this. The price pulled back from 0.02357 to 0.02798, a volatility of over 30%, but long positions liquidated amounted to $410,000, nearly four times the short positions. Bulls trying to catch the rebound were repeatedly shaken out, while shorts were barely hurt. Contract open interest is very small; volatility mainly comes from spot trading, with those wanting to exit before the unlock continuously selling off. The chart shows progressively lower highs, bearish moving averages, RSI at 33, all pointing to supply pressure. Conditions to turn bullish: closing above 0.03142 before the unlock would indicate this batch of tokens has been digested in advance, invalidating the weak outlook. If 0.02357 does not hold, the decline this week will widen. There is no stable direction in backtests after the unlock day; this analysis only covers the three days before the unlock.#奈飞增长或放缓，广告业务成新看点 Viewpoint 1: Fundamentals/Long-term Investment Perspective (Somewhat Rationally Optimistic)
Core Logic: Focus on margin improvement and the second growth curve (advertising). Viewpoint: Netflix is currently in a critical transition from a "pure subscription" model to a dual-driven model of "subscription + advertising." Although the market worries that subscription user growth has hit a ceiling (i.e., "hitting the wall"), earnings forecasts show operating margin is expected to rise to 33.2% (higher than last year's 28.2%), indicating the company's cost reduction, efficiency improvements, and pricing power remain strong. Tonight's key focus is not whether revenue beats expectations, but on the monetization efficiency at the advertising level. If the advertising business shows strong growth momentum, it can not only offset concerns about subscription slowdown but also reshape Netflix's valuation logic. Short-term fluctuations are inevitable, but in the long run, the advertising business is the key to breaking through.$MUBARAK analyzed DNA last time, this time let's analyze this altcoin. What exactly is it doing? Clearly, the scheme is too deep "ETF hemorrhaged 590 million, but shorts are retreating"
Last week, the total net outflow of US Bitcoin spot ETFs was $228.4 million, with BlackRock's IBIT bleeding $228.6 million in a single week. But strangely, at the same time, Wall Street hedge funds reduced their net short positions in Bitcoin futures by nearly 15%, while arbitrage positions surged by 48%.
What happened? ETFs are pulling out funds, but the shorts are also running away — shorts are not increasing bearish bets but shifting to neutral hedging.
Why is this noteworthy? If institutions were truly bearish, they would increase short positions rather than withdraw them. The current signal is: funds are flowing out, but the position structure is "de-directionalizing," with both bulls and bears holding back and watching rather than betting one-sidedly.
Which observation is more supported? This looks more like defensive portfolio adjustment during range-bound oscillation rather than a trend bearish outlook. Considering the tech stock rebound that BTC did not follow and the cooling expectations for the "up month" in October, the market is waiting for an external variable to break the deadlock.
Next, focus on one key thing: when will the ETF outflow stop bleeding? Without a shift in capital flow, the MACD golden cross is just a technical repair.
The suspense remains: if ETF outflows continue and shorts keep retreating, who will defend the 80,000 level?
Feel free to discuss BTC morning report in the comments. $BTC $ETH $FIL going from $10 to $20 is not a matter of sentiment, but a matter of arithmetic. Based on the current circulating supply, $10 corresponds to about $8.3 billion market cap, and $20 about $16.6 billion — doubling means something, so understand the math before talking about faith. Behind this arithmetic problem lies a market-undervalued turning point: the fiercest early unlock peak of $FIL has passed, and inflation is converging. Marginal supply-side pressure is weakening, which is completely different from the story two years ago. On the demand side, the AI data storage narrative has given it a brand new entry point for imagination — decentralized storage has for the first time a possibility of being validated by real paid demand. But to turn "possibility" into "certainty," four conditions must be met simultaneously: $BTC and $ETH open upward space and risk appetite warms; token economics continue to improve, miners' willingness to lock tokens rises, and unlock selling pressure decreases; AI storage moves from concept to real paid orders; FVM and on-chain cloud ecosystem remain active with actual applications and user growth. Missing any one of these, the valuation cannot hold. There is a second layer of logic easily overlooked here: $FIL's market cap elasticity determines that it is naturally a liquidity-sensitive asset. When the market warms, its beta will be amplified; when the market cools, no matter how good the narrative, no one will take the baton. So the real signal is not how much FIL itself rises, but whether $BTC and $ETH first give direction — this is a trigger condition, not a prediction. Objectively speaking, $FIL holds cards: it is one of the largest projects in the decentralized storage track,U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen has repeatedly made it clear that the United States does not have, nor does it plan to sell, its gold reserves to repay debt. Regarding the $40 trillion U.S. debt, the market generally believes that the risk of a short-term "explosive" hard default is controllable, but the long-term resolution path is full of political and economic struggles. 🥇 Gold Reserves: No Selling, No Revaluation The U.S. Treasury currently holds about 261 million ounces (approximately 8,133 tons) of gold, valued at over $1 trillion at market prices, making it the largest official gold reserve in the world. · Clear No-Sale Policy: In response to market rumors about "selling gold to repay debt," Yellen has explicitly denied this, stating that the U.S. gold reserves are "not a penny less," with no plans to monetize or revalue them. · Strategic Positioning: Yellen emphasized that this gold is a strategic asset but no longer has a practical connection to the current value of the dollar. The U.S. ended the gold standard back in 1971, and the dollar's value has long been supported by national credit and systems like oil. · Difference Between "Revaluation" and "Sale": The market discussion of "using gold to offset debt" does not mean selling gold on the market but refers to adjusting the official accounting valuation of gold. Currently, the U.S. government still accounts for gold at the historical price of $42.22 per ounce as stipulated by the 1973 law. If revalued at market price, it could add about $990 billion in funds to the Treasury's books, but this is merely an accounting operation, not actual cash inflow, and could trigger inflation concerns, being seen as a disguised "money printing." · Hint of New Developments: Although the official stance denies "selling gold," Yellen has recently appointedContinue to track the fundamentals of $PONS
Currently, the PONS protocol has a daily trading volume of about 3 million USD, which may have already approached a short-term bottom.
The protocol currently generates about 50,000 USD in daily revenue. If the trading volume remains at this level, the expected daily burn amount could reach around 100,000 tokens.
Looking at Robinhood Chain, under the current market environment, I believe the on-chain trading volume still has the potential to maintain around 80 million USD.
The latest on-chain trading data for PONS also shows a recovery:
Trading volume: from 3 million USD to 3.7 million USD (+15.6%)
Platform fees: from 269,000 USD to 457,000 USD (+67.3%)
Protocol revenue: from 36,000 USD to 68,000 USD, now averaging about 50,000 USD daily (+88.9%)
Newly minted tokens: from 1,100 per day to 1,800 per day (+54.5%)
If this data rebound can be sustained, the fundamentals of PONS may be stabilizing. Referring to the 2023 $ORDI and $PEPE exchange listings that saw an 85% plunge, PONS is either at the bottom or not far from it currently.
#Strive大额增持，Strategy回购规模超买币 79821 is the real hunting ground for BTC.
$BTC is around 81900, with 24-hour short positions liquidated by 71.7%. The shorts have just been squeezed out, and leveraged longs have re-entered. Bitfinex marks 79821 as a potential forced liquidation trigger: after last week's short squeeze, leveraged longs with 6%–9% annualized fees replaced them, almost replicating the conditions before the two October liquidations. The 77600–80400 range below is an accumulation zone, but liquidation must be endured first.
ETF outflows dropped from 678.9 million to 228.4 million, slowing by 66.4%, yet the 30-day net apparent demand remains negative 50,000 BTC. On-chain: addresses holding 100–1000 BTC are net accumulating, 1000–10000 BTC addresses are neutral, and whales holding over 10,000 BTC are net negative. Exchange reserves rose from 2.67 million to 2.68 million; low reserves do not equal supply contraction.
The strategy should only respond to: a break below 79821 with a daily close triggers liquidation—do not catch falling knives, wait for volume-driven stabilization in the 77600–80400 range; holding 81000–82000 and reclaiming 84400 is needed before targeting 86000–88000; avoid 82000–84000, as it is the worst odds zone for leveraged rebuilding.
Will you place your order below 79821 to wait for liquidation, or above 84400 to wait for confirmation? [Citibank Painted a Big Picture, How Much Can AAVE Benefit?]
Citibank has elevated the positioning of $AAVE: in the future, it may not only be a crypto lending platform but also become a financing gateway for tokenized assets. After assets like government bonds and money market funds are tokenized on-chain, mere trading is not enough; whether they can be used as collateral or borrowed against will determine how far capital efficiency can go.
This logic already has practical examples. As of October 19, Aave's Horizon market size was about $376 million, while Aave's total TVL is around $18 billion. Institutional assets entering on-chain financing are indeed no longer just a PPT concept.
But don’t rush to directly convert Citibank’s endorsement into AAVE’s price increase. Protocol growth does not automatically mean token holders earn more. Horizon still needs to address asset onboarding, liquidity, and risk management, and AAVE’s own value capture depends on the actual mechanisms.
The key focus can be on whether the scale of institutional collateral can continue to grow and whether protocol revenue can truly translate into token value. If only TVL grows but token earnings lag behind, this big picture has yet to land in the hands of token holders. CORE 8.31 Incident Revelation: Why "Non-Custodial" Can't Save a Failing Token Economy
Core has been strongly promoting the narrative of non-custodial BTC staking: BTC stays on the Bitcoin mainnet, private keys are self-held, no cross-chain, no third-party custody, solving the pain points of coin theft and custodial exit scams. But the 8.31 incident revealed a critical truth: principal security does not equal the economic security of the reward tokens.
The vulnerability was in the CORE reward contract, where a few validators repeatedly claimed rewards, resulting in excessive token minting. Even though users' BTC remained completely intact, the CORE inflation curve collapsed directly. The project team hard-forked to burn 186 million illicit tokens, yet 69 million tokens escaped into circulation, continuously diluting the rights of all token holders.
Non-custodial only protects the BTC asset baseline but cannot control the issuance, rewards, and governance rules of the upper-layer native tokens. Bitcoin's hash power protects the BTC ledger but cannot constrain the EVM layer's reward logic; asset self-custody is one part of security, not the whole.
This sounds a warning bell for BTCFi investors: many treat "non-custodial" as a universal insurance, overlooking token release, contract vulnerabilities, and node governance risks. No matter how good the principal security solution is, if the token economic model and reward mechanism have flaws, holders still bear losses from inflation dilution and selling pressure-driven price drops. 帮主有话说 CoreWeave昨天获高盛升评，从“中性”上调至“买入”。但仔细看，目标价从139美元下调到了106美元。摩根大通也维持增持，说市场可能高估了债务和现金消耗风险。 市场买账吗？盘中一度涨7%，收盘还是跌了0.44%。这说明分歧很大。高盛上调评级，但下调目标价，本质上还是对估值有顾虑。评论区有人点得准，创始人IPO以来套现33亿美元，债务和租赁负债约520亿，债券收益率破15%。基本面压力摆在这，评级上调改变不了高负债的现实。 对加密是间接影响。AI基建公司融资压力不减，风险偏好收缩，大饼也承压。但大饼主要矛盾还是宏观。 今天直播三单全拿下，82800空单到80200，82500空单接近翻倍，以太2395多单到2420。现在空仓。看8万关口能不能守住，守住就是震荡，跌破看更深回调。上方压力84000到85000。不追涨不杀跌，单子挂好止损。$BTC Saylor finally admitted one thing: relying solely on Bitcoin to back it up simply can't sustain his 12% annual preferred stock dividend.
Creditors want cash, not coins.
After STRC dropped below par to 75, MicroStrategy still spent $1.5 billion on buybacks and even set aside three years' worth of cash to pay interest.
He was forced to spill the real truth himself:
"Creditors would rather see three years of dollars than thirty years of Bitcoin."
"98% Bitcoin + 2% cash will collapse; 70% Bitcoin + 30% cash is like stainless steel."
In recent weeks, MicroStrategy has spent more on buybacks than on buying new coins.
Even the biggest totem in the crypto world has bowed: relying on faith alone, you really can't borrow money.Brother Xiao's Battle Royale journey, let's see how long I can hold on
Season 1 Tesla: Will Tesla's earnings report this season exceed expectations?
My answer is YES, Tesla's earnings report will exceed expectations
1. Delivery volume has already given the first positive signal
Tesla Q3 actual deliveries were 486,532 vehicles, higher than analysts' previous consensus estimate of about 461,974 vehicles, exceeding by about 5.3%
2. Energy storage business may become a hidden surprise in the earnings report
Energy storage deployment reached 13.7 GWh, a year-on-year increase of about 9.6%
Energy storage has become an important growth source outside Tesla's automotive business. If energy storage revenue and gross margin perform better than expected, it could offset some pressure on the automotive business
3. The market has lowered profit expectations, which actually leaves room for earnings surprises
According to the latest market data, Zacks' adjusted EPS estimate for Q3 is about $0.44, down about 12% year-on-year; revenue estimate is about $27.8 billion, down about 1.1% year-on-year
This means the market did not expect a particularly strong quarter
If actual profits exceed $0.44, revenue exceeds $27.8 billion, and automotive gross margin does not significantly deteriorate, then even if profits decline year-on-year, it could still be a positive surprise relative to expectations
This is the bullish logic I find most worth anticipating, not simply because I like Tesla
#OKX US Stock Earnings Season 我的核心判断是：当季业绩大概率轻松超预期，但现金流与资本开支将引发多空剧烈博弈，我选Yes 1. 广告印钞机稳保营收 Beat：不同于靠卖云算力回本的巨头，Meta 是全美股唯一将 AI 直接转化为“当季广告印钞机”的公司。算法对 Reels 停留时长和广告转化率的微幅提升，就能直接推高广告单价，顶线营收属于“开卷考试” 2. 最大雷区是自由现金流被抽干：上季度高达 310 亿美元的 CapEx 已将自由现金流压榨至仅剩 7.8 亿美元。更致命的是，亚马逊买卡能收租金，而 Meta 买卡是 100% 内部消耗。以扎克伯格不计代价豪赌的性格，电话会上大概率会抛出一个让华尔街倒吸凉气的 2027 年 CapEx 新高指引 3. Muse 预期透支与推理成本反噬：9 月因爆款应用 Muse 登顶，股价已暴涨 27% 提前透支利好。但 C 端 AI 爆发初期的推理电费与折旧是纯流血的，Q3 利润率极可能因此承压 4. 回购托底能力削弱：高利率环境下，市场审美已转向“保现金流”。现金流吃紧意味着股票回购弹药缩水，财报夜波动率将大幅放大 $META Macro Market Overview:
1. South Korean Stock Market Plummets
The Korean stock market opened with a sharp 2% drop, with core semiconductor heavyweights like Samsung and Hynix collectively under pressure. The Korean stock market is highly tied to memory chips, and the market is once again worried that AI infrastructure capital expenditures may not yield expected returns.
2. Global Chip Sector Weakens in Advance
Last week, US memory chip stocks (SNDK, MU) were already sold off early by investors, raising doubts in the market:
Can the heavily invested AI infrastructure deliver the expected profits?
3. Korean Capital Links to Crypto Market
South Korea is a core hub for global crypto retail investors. The sharp pullback in Korean stocks → rising risk aversion sentiment directly suppresses BTC and other risk assets.
The cross-market sentiment sell-off in the Asia-Pacific region is sudden and highly unfavorable for contract positions in the short term.
Key Changes in BTC Market
Key Support Turns into Resistance
$BTC surged to 83000 but failed to hold, quickly falling back to around 81700.
83000 has officially turned from support into strong resistance.
Spot Market Support Continues to Weaken
Last week, the US Bitcoin spot ETF saw a net outflow of $593 million, indicating insufficient buying support and heavy selling pressure at high levels.
Key Chip Range Consolidation
Strong resistance above: 84000–85000 (heavy chip concentration zone)
Short-term defense below: 81000
Institutions remain bullish long-term but focus on two short-term signals:
1. Whether it can regain and hold above 83000
2. Whether ETF funds return to net inflows Lacking incremental expansion of stablecoins combined with continuous net inflows from ETFs, this round of rebound is essentially a pulse driven by short covering rather than new funds actively entering the market. With no new external funds, existing funds are internally competing and rotating, making this rally's sustainability relatively weak, and there remains a risk of pullback after the surge. 【Macro Environment + Market Analysis】 The current market prices in an 87.3% probability that the Federal Reserve will keep rates unchanged in October, but expectations for rate cuts have basically disappeared, making it difficult to see liquidity easing benefits in the short term. BTC pulled back after hitting 83,000 and is currently oscillating around 82,000, with core support observed at last week's low of 80,112. Holding this level maintains a consolidation and bottoming pattern; a decisive break below will trigger a deeper level of correction. ETH has seen a cumulative net outflow of 228 million from ETFs over the past 5 days, with short-term funds continuously exiting, though long-term institutional holdings have not significantly reduced. 【Priority for Rebound After Stabilization】 If the market stabilizes and stops falling, BTC will be the preferred target for capital to return to, given its strong institutional allocation attributes and clear deep liquidity advantages. ETH is relatively weak in the short term and requires close monitoring of whether the ETH/BTC exchange rate has stopped falling before it can catch up with the rebound momentum. #Continuous ETF outflows, can BTC's rebound continue? #SpaceX's first full quarterly report after listing will be revealed #Netflix growth may slow, advertising business becomes a new focus $BTC $ETH #Meta巨额AI投入进入回报检验期
Core contradictions of Meta AI ROI
✅ Advantages (supporting return realization)
1. Shortest monetization path: other companies' large models need to find enterprise clients or do subscriptions; Meta directly feeds back to advertising, creating a very short loop;
2. Massive user scenarios and data, naturally advantageous for training recommendation AI;
3. Llama open-source ecosystem reduces industry promotion costs and attracts developers;
❌ Risks (dragging down ROI, lengthening payback period)
1. Bottomless pit of computing power arms race: continuous huge investments in GPUs and data centers, capital expenditures remain high; as long as AI competition continues, investments are hard to reduce;
2. General large model product competitiveness still lags behind the top tier, uncertain if Muse can become a hit;
3. Regulatory risks, antitrust, privacy constraints limit AI recommendations and user data usage;
4. Investment structure differentiation: advertising AI makes money, general large models keep burning cash, the two offset each other, lowering the overall AI comprehensive ROI at the group level.Wang Duanniao's $OKB holdings, the big players aren't stupid either; expecting a big short-term gain is unrealistic, especially after moving towards a compliance route, it becomes even harder.
$OKB mostly oscillates, then slowly rises, followed by a sudden wave of downward volatility that scares off some chips, and half a month later it returns to its original position.
$OKB no longer relies on short-term continuous surges to break out like before. Lao Xu firmly follows the compliance path, proving he is not a short-termist.
Additionally, Lao Xu compares OKB and BTC on a time dimension, indirectly indicating that OKB will not take a short-term approach.
For OKB to strengthen, the Xlayer ecosystem needs to develop; otherwise, shifting from a platform token to a public chain token, given the current struggling state of public chains, will most likely fail. $LPT ✅1. Core Business Fundamentals Livepeer is essentially a distributed GPU scheduling network: node operators (Orchestrators) provide GPU computing power to handle video transcoding, AI video generation, and real-time AI inference; to receive network tasks, nodes must stake LPT, and the higher the staking weight, the more tasks they get and the more service fees they earn. - Business transformation: Initially focused on ordinary video transcoding; now over 60% of revenue comes from AI inference, which is the core narrative driver. In Q1 2026, the network processed 134 million minutes, a 72% quarter-over-quarter increase; protocol fees hit a record high of $257,300, up 34% QoQ. - Weakness: Although business volume surged, the fee per unit of computing power is declining due to client price pressure, so revenue growth has not scaled proportionally with computing power growth, representing a "volume without profit" scenario, a key point of bearish criticism. - Network cap: Only the top 100 nodes by staking rank are eligible to receive orders, resulting in high node concentration; it is not a fully permissionless open network. ✅2. Tokenomics (most critical, determines LPT's mid-to-long-term trend) 1. Current dynamic inflation model Inflation adjusts automatically: target staking rate is 50%; if staking rate > 50%, inflation automatically decreases; if staking rate < 50%, inflation increases. - Approximately 30,000 new LPT are minted daily, resulting in relatively high annual inflation; holders who do not stake are continuously diluted. - Rewards are distributed to node operators and delegated stakers; users who stake can receive inflation rewards Meta's earnings report will be released the day after tomorrow after market close. I saw this market on OKX Prophet, and the overall trend leans toward exceeding expectations, currently steady at about 70%.
I personally lean toward Yes, but what I want to talk about is not how the market is pricing it now, but whether the advertising baseline is still stable and whether AI advertising continues to help push both volume and price upward.
In the past few quarters, revenue mostly landed at the upper end of guidance, and this quarter's guidance range is not narrow either, with consensus basically in the middle.
Advertising has always been core, and AI advertising is helping push both unit price and volume up. As long as this part continues to accelerate, the numbers are likely to surpass expectations. There will be some noise on the EPS side due to legal provisions, and the numbers might be pulled down by one-time expenses, but if core operations remain stable, the market usually focuses on revenue and advertising trends. Muse just launched, attracting high attention, but its short-term impact on numbers is limited.
There are risks too. It is a mature company; if advertising only meets expectations and guidance is not aggressive enough, the stock price might not rise. The Yes price on the page is not low, which itself indicates the market thinks the possibility of exceeding expectations is greater, but it's not guaranteed.
I tend to think it will exceed. What really needs to be watched is whether advertising continues to grow beyond expectations, whether user engagement remains stable, and what management says about future capital expenditures and AI investments. If the numbers only meet expectations, the market may not buy it; if they exceed a bit, the reaction could be different.
#Meta巨额AI投入进入回报检验期 OP dropped 11.9% in one day, making it the only one among 20 major coins with a negative funding rate.
The funding rate is −1.16bp, meaning shorts have to pay longs every 8 hours.
But the price keeps falling, hardly stopping since the high of 0.1625.
At the same time, the long-to-short ratio is 1.97, with 66% of accounts still long.
Money is betting short, people are betting long—this is the divergence between institutions and retail.
TIA also dropped 14.9%, but its funding rate remains positive at 0.39bp.
APT fell 11.1%, with a funding rate close to zero.
Only OP has a negative funding rate.
This indicates OP’s drop is driven by capital, not sentiment.
Institutions are shorting with contracts, while retail is still bottom-fishing.
When the funding rate turns negative, shorts pay a cost.
If the price keeps falling, this cost will persist.
But if it rebounds, shorts will be forced to cover.
This mismatch won’t last long.
Either retail gives up and the long-to-short ratio drops; or institutions take profits and the funding rate rebounds.
Both scenarios point to increased volatility.
I think OP is currently not at a sentiment bottom, but a capital bottom.
Wait for the funding rate to turn positive, signaling shorts are retreating—that’s the real signal.
Would you rather wait for the funding rate to turn positive before entering, or see the negative funding rate itself as an oversold signal?
$OP
#MoneyBettingShortPeopleBettingLongBTC has a resistance level at 84350 on the 14th, and the resistance level for yesterday's rebound was 83150; these two points form a short-term pressure line. It also found support at 79725 on the 15th during the drop, and the support point for the sharp drop early yesterday was 80600; these two points form a short-term support line. The triangular area formed by these two lines will be broken within the next two days. I believe the direction after the breakout will be upward. Because last week there were bearish factors like "high interest rates, ETF net outflows, high inflation," most RSI indicators were oversold but the coin price remained stable, indicating the decline has stalled. For example, $ETH is in a tough spot; the spot ETF has had net outflows for three consecutive weeks, RSI is only 29, but the price still holds firm at the 2300 strong support level. I think there is a probability of a volume-driven recovery to the 2450 level. $SOL is also a good target dragged down by the overall market. The mainnet launches tomorrow, and RWA has grown sevenfold in a year to a scale of 4.3 billion, definitely one of the main narratives for the next bull market. This month it was completely dragged down by the overall market, which caused it to break below the 111 USD 20-day moving average.Which yields more from RWAization, $NEAR or $ENA?
If we focus solely on the trend of "RWA market expansion," ENA's benefit elasticity is much greater than NEAR's.
ENA: RWA is a direct "revenue engine"
Ethena's core business USDe is essentially a "yield machine" that seeks various interest-bearing assets.
• Directly broadening revenue sources: As traditional basis trading yields weaken, Ethena is expanding its strategies to include RWA, institutional lending, and tokenized stock/stock index basis trading.
• Clear buyback-triggered flywheel: The influx of RWA assets can increase sUSDe's yield (recently rebounded from 3.8% to 5.0%), attracting more capital to mint USDe, thereby accelerating the buyback trigger.
• Potential elasticity: Currently, RWA accounts for about 11.2% of USDe's collateral composition. If RWA perpetual contracts exceed crypto assets in 1-2 years, it will bring considerable incremental revenue space to Ethena.
NEAR: RWA is a type of asset in the "cross-chain channel"
NEAR's core narrative is "AI + cross-chain finance."
• Revenue mainly depends on transaction volume: The Intents protocol currently contributes about 85% of NEAR's protocol revenue (REV).
• Buyback mechanism has started but scale depends on overall transaction volume: If RWA trading becomes more frequent, it will indeed increase Intents' fee income and bring indirect benefits, but this transmission path is relatively long. This time, I'm going with a Yes on Meta's earnings report. Although the market already assigns a fairly high probability to an upside surprise, I still think it's worth looking forward to.
The two main things to watch for Meta now are its advertising business and whether its AI investments can actually translate into real revenue. After all, AI spending is no small amount these days. If they just keep ramping up investment without seeing clear returns, the market will definitely have concerns. But from another perspective, if AI can help Meta improve the precision of ad targeting, allowing advertisers to get better results for the same spend, that would be a tangible boost to its revenue.
Also, I think we shouldn't assume that big AI investments will necessarily drag down the earnings. The key is whether the advertising business can maintain growth and whether management's outlook on future business brings any surprises.
So this time, I'm still choosing Yes. Personally, I feel Meta's business fundamentals are intact, and demand for advertising hasn't suddenly disappeared. If ad revenue performs well this quarter, combined with some better-than-expected progress on AI, the earnings report could still surprise the market.
Of course, predictions are predictions; in the end, we have to see the actual data. I'm placing a Yes bet first and let's see if I can guess right this time 😂#CoreWeave获升评，市场买账吗？
The boss has something to say
CoreWeave was upgraded by Goldman Sachs yesterday, raised from "Neutral" to "Buy." But looking closely, the target price was lowered from $139 to $106. JPMorgan also maintained an overweight rating, saying the market might be overestimating the risks of debt and cash burn.
Does the market buy it? The stock rose as much as 7% intraday but closed down 0.44%. This shows there is significant disagreement. Goldman Sachs upgraded the rating but lowered the target price, essentially still having concerns about valuation. Some comments hit the mark: the founder cashed out $3.3 billion since the IPO, debt and lease liabilities are about 52 billion, and bond yields exceed 15%. The fundamental pressure is clear, and the rating upgrade does not change the reality of high debt.
Indirect impact on crypto. AI infrastructure companies' financing pressure remains, risk appetite shrinks, and Bitcoin also faces pressure. But Bitcoin's main conflict is still macroeconomic.
Today's live trades all hit targets: short at 82,800 to 80,200, short at 82,500 nearly doubled, long on ETH from 2,395 to 2,420. Currently flat. Watching if the 80,000 level can hold; if it holds, expect consolidation; if broken, deeper pullback likely. Resistance above at 84,000 to 85,000. No chasing highs or panic selling, set stop losses properly.
The above analysis is time-sensitive; stop losses must be set. Good luck. $BTC $ETH $ZEC Both BTC and ETH are recovering, but ETF funds have not yet turned around together
BTC returned to around $82,000 in early trading, and ETH is hovering around $2,400. It looks like both have stabilized a bit, but I don't want to call this small rebound a reversal just yet.
Looking at the most recent full trading week (October 12–16), the US spot BTC ETF saw a net outflow of about $228.4 million, and the ETH ETF had a net outflow of about $320.1 million. The direction is the same—outflows; the intensity differs, with ETH outflows exceeding BTC by about $91.7 million. At least for now, there’s no sign that "institutions have come back to buy," it seems more like prices have stopped falling first while funds remain cautious. ETF flows don’t represent the entire market’s capital, but they are an important buying force in this rally and can’t be ignored.
I will watch two things: whether BTC can hold $82,000 and reclaim $83,000, and whether ETH can get back above $2,450; then see if ETFs turn to continuous net inflows. Price recovery followed by capital inflow makes the rebound more credible. Otherwise, I’d rather do less and not mistake a stop in the decline for a market reversal.
Do you think the buying has returned first this time, or that the bears have just taken a breather?
$BTC $ETH #ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ The core reason is: people with formal education tend to fall into their own cognitive traps. I also have a formal education background, even considered among the relatively highly educated in the conventional sense, and on top of that, I studied economics and finance at the graduate level. So let me share my perspective! $BTC is a new type of investment and application model that is revolutionary. Treating it as stock investment is inappropriate because, from the perspective of formally trained people, it lacks tangible backing. For example, I would buy stocks with low PE ratios in the highly capital-rotating A-share market in advance and wait for the sector to start! Low PE means low price, following my pricing system. In the US stock market, I always buy the most cutting-edge technology stocks because there is no concept of cyclical sector rotation in the US market. All of the above is based on the market having tangible backing, at least the concept of price-to-earnings ratio. In any case, based on my learning and understanding, I basically do not lose money. But in the crypto world, $BTC does not generate profits for any company itself; it is a unique currency, orIn the next day or two, I remain cautious about $BTC, but not because the ETF launch means the rebound won't go far. In the past 24 hours, BTC surged above $83,000, then fell back below $82,000; it has dropped about 2% in the past 7 days, while ETH has fallen about 4.5%. This shows BTC is relatively resilient, but the price hasn't firmly held the rebound yet.
Capital data must also be viewed separately. According to Farside, BTC ETF net outflow on October 19 was about $138.5 million, but the IBIT column has no figures yet, so this is not a full-day value. For the previous full five trading days that can be fully verified, BTC ETF net outflow totaled $228.4 million, with only two days of net inflow. This indicates institutional channels were weak the previous week but cannot directly represent intraday buying and selling changes today.
ETH ETF net outflow during the same period was $320.1 million, a larger amount. However, the two types of funds differ in scale, so the amount alone cannot prove institutions favor BTC more or are bearish on ETH. ETF data only covers US spot products and cannot prove that outflows caused this pullback.
So I will first watch two things: whether BTC can retake above $83,000, and whether subsequent complete ETF data narrows net outflows to continuous net inflows. If the price doesn't hold and capital doesn't improve, this rebound still lacks confirmation; if both improve, I will raise my assessment of it.
#BTC #ETFCapitalFlow #BitcoinRebound Altcoins are bleeding heavily! Don't rush to bottom-fish; the current market is specially designed to punish all kinds of disobedience! BTC ETH $ZEC
Brothers, keep an eye on the market late at night. Bitcoin is oscillating around 81,000, short positions are steadily profiting, but the altcoin market is basically a "chopping machine for retail traders." Let's dig into the details:
First, liquidity is drying up, the bloodsucking is too intense! The on-exchange funds are battling; Bitcoin dips slightly while altcoins crash violently, 90% of coins are in a persistent downtrend—a typical "pump-and-dump" market. Second, fatal divergence. Only mainstream consensus coins like ETH and SOL rebound quickly; ZEC is strongly pulled up by the NU7 upgrade and privacy narrative, but the risk of high-level spikes is greatly increased, retail investors chasing highs are easily left holding the bag; "three-no old coins" without ecosystems fall and can fall further—don't catch falling knives!
Trading strategy: This is definitely not the time to be bullish on altcoins. Take profits quickly when you have them; if stuck, reduce positions during rebounds. Absolutely avoid using high leverage to bottom-fish altcoins (like 200X in the chart), one spike and you get liquidated. $BTC $ETH $ZEC DDOG bounced 5.4% in one day but is still below its 20-day average trading price.
Its 20-day average trading price is 269.3, and it closed at 260.4 on October 19, down 3.3%.
On October 16, it dropped to 243.6, and after a weekend, it bounced back to 260.4 in one day on Monday.
That’s a 6.9% bounce from the low, equivalent to 63% of the 5-day decline.
But what it recovered is not profit, it’s cost.
269.3 is the average cost for buyers this month; bouncing to 260.4 only reached the doorstep.
There are several other cloud security stocks that also bounced.
WDC bounced 6.1%, but is still 14.1% away from the average price.
NET only bounced 0.4%, still 12.9% away from the average price.
CRWD barely moved, 11.4% away from the average price.
DDOG is the closest to the cost zone among this group.
A bigger bounce doesn’t mean strength.
DDOG bounced 5.4% but is only 3.3% away from the cost zone, indicating real buying, not short covering.
WDC bounced 6.1% but is still in deep water, more likely to be pushed back near the average price.
One bounce is back to the doorstep, the other is from the basement to the first floor.
Between the doorstep and the first floor, which is more likely to keep going?
Would you rather chase one that has already bounced to the doorstep of the cost zone, or one still in deep water?
$DDOG
#BounceQualityU.S. oil reserves have fallen back to levels not seen in 44 years!
Strategic petroleum reserves are down to only 282.7 million barrels!
This marks the lowest level since October 1982.
Another ticking time bomb has been added to the global energy market.
If oil prices surge again, the Federal Reserve could face even more headaches!
According to the latest data released by the U.S. Department of Energy, the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve dropped to 282.7 million barrels last week, the lowest level since October 1982. The strategic petroleum reserve is mainly used to respond to major energy supply disruptions. The persistently low inventory means the U.S. has relatively limited emergency buffer capacity in the event of sudden oil supply shocks.
What truly deserves attention is that energy supply risks may further impact global inflation expectations. If tensions escalate in the Middle East or major oil-producing countries face supply disruptions, oil prices could regain upward momentum, pushing up transportation and production costs, thereby putting pressure on expectations for Federal Reserve rate cuts. However, the decline in reserves itself does not necessarily mean oil prices will rise; the market still needs to observe global crude supply and demand, commercial inventories, and subsequent U.S. replenishment policies.
The lower the oil reserves, the more cautious we should be about the potential risks brought by energy supply shocks.
If oil prices accelerate upward again, U.S. stocks, gold, and BTC could all face a new round of macro volatility!
$BTC $CL $XAU
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ Don't rush to bottom-fish in the early session: the bulls haven't been fully shaken out yet
Overnight, US stocks didn't rally as expected, and the crypto market first experienced a round of slow decline. BTC is currently at 81900, down from 83149, hitting a low of 81682 in the early morning; the 4-hour long-short ratio is about 1.60, bulls are still present but losing momentum, and open interest hasn't increased significantly, indicating that funds are mostly on the sidelines, lacking support.
ETH is currently at 2406, after dipping to 2383 overnight but barely holding above 2400; the 4-hour long-short ratio is 2.45, retail bulls remain crowded, the slow decline hasn't effectively cleansed positions, and there's a considerable risk of another short-term dip.
SOL is currently at 105, rebounding after a low of 103.4, showing relative resilience, but with a 4-hour long-short ratio of 2.29 and high open interest, if BTC continues to weaken, the probability of a catch-up drop increases.
Overall, the early session is weak and volatile, retail bullish sentiment remains strong, and the shakeout is not complete. The strategy is not to rush to cut losses or impulsively bottom-fish; wait for high-leverage positions to clear before looking for opportunities. Watch BTC at 81.6K/80K, ETH at 2380, and SOL at 103.
$BTC $ETH $SOL
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ $BTC short position update
The market remains very volatile
Oscillating back and forth within a range.
50x full position short
Opening average price 82968
Current mark price 81574.9
Unrealized profit has reached +2786.2U.
Looking at whale data
It’s clear there is huge market divergence
The long-short battle is very intense.
In this kind of volatile market, the biggest taboo is blind positioning; a single spike can quickly wipe out profits.
Multiple attempts to break above have failed, so the short-term strategy remains unchanged: take profits when you can.
$ETH $SNDK
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？
#10月FOMC临近，美联储暂停加息还有哪些变数？ 【Short liquidations exceed 100 million, but price only moved half a step】
Overnight, the entire network saw $183 million liquidated, with shorts accounting for $107 million. Normally, such short liquidations should push the price up significantly, but $BTC stalled at 81,351 and the rebound fizzled out between 81,600—81,800.
First, let's look at the transmission chain: shorts borrow coins to sell; when the price rises, they are forced to buy back, and the buying sweeps the next batch of shorts. The chain itself is fine; the problem lies at the end—selling pressure around 81,600 is heavier than the liquidation buying.
Compared to previous liquidations of similar scale, this weak rally itself is a signal: it's not that there aren't enough shorts, but that the buying support is insufficient.
ETF funds are also wavering. On the 16th, $82.39 million flowed out, and the next day $175.7 million flowed back in; institutions themselves have no clear direction. Without sustained incremental support, liquidation rebounds can only be pulses, not trends.
The next batch of shorts is hanging around $ETH 2,450—2,480. If swept away, it means funds are willing to push up; if not, it remains a mutual exhaustion in a choppy market.
Liquidation data looks good, but the price doesn't confirm it. This divergence is easily misread. Don't mistake liquidation for a reversal; wait for ETH in that range to give the answer.
$BTC $ETH $SOL
#交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 Last night while watching the market, I saw BTC hovering back and forth around 80K, but the ETF side had net outflows for several consecutive days, creating quite a disjointed picture. This kind of "price not crashing, but funds withdrawing first" mismatch—who exactly is absorbing it? - From the 12th to the 16th of the month, BTC and ETH ETFs had combined net outflows of about 228 million and 320 million USD respectively. At first glance, it’s easy to feel a sinking heart, but what I care more about is the shape of the outflows: they are concentrated in a few institutional products, not a collective shift in risk appetite across the entire network. Meanwhile, corporate buying has cooled down, but whale addresses are slowly accumulating during the pullback. The spot market’s absorption strength looks steadier than sentiment, which is also key to BTC not being smashed below 80K. Adding a layer from the derivatives perspective: what really determines the short-term rhythm is not the ETF numbers themselves, but the open interest and funding rates. If the price holds steady, funding rates remain positive, and open interest does not decline, it means the bulls are still holding on, and the squeeze risk is lurking; conversely, if funding rates turn neutral or slightly negative and open interest shrinks, then this wave of outflows looks more like passive deleveraging, which actually leaves room for subsequent recovery. What I currently see leans more toward the latter, but it’s not yet time to breathe easy. Sector strength is also telling: BTC is relatively resistant to decline, ETH follows but doesn’t collapse, and altcoins have not experienced widespread panic selling, indicating risk appetite is contracting rather than dispersing. The bullish path is whale accumulation combined with institutional selling pressure dulling, and once funding rates cool down, prices tend to recover ahead of sentiment; the potential risk lies in the illusion of "looking stable," if open interest lingers too longStrive’s 4,045 BTC addition lifted its reserves to 36,818, but the more revealing target is BTC per share. Treasury accumulation can strengthen that metric only if financing dilution and carrying costs stay contained. Strategy’s preferred buybacks underline the same constraint: reserve growth must still translate into durable shareholder value.
#StriveBoostsBTCHoldings Brothers, ETH has retaken the 2400 level. But don’t rush to pop the champagne yet; short-term pressure remains!
Looking at the 15-minute chart, the bulls face two major hurdles: SuperTrend resistance at 2410.87 and the upper Bollinger Band resistance at 2417. The current price has just touched above the middle Bollinger Band (2401), and the KDJ indicator (K74/D67) is already in the high overbought zone, so a pullback is likely at any time. The short-term support below is around 2394.
Trading strategy:
1. Breakout players: Only if there is a strong breakout above 2411 with volume and it holds can the upward space open, targeting the previous high at 2446.
2. Defensive players: If it fails to break through for a while, it will likely pull back to the 2390-2400 range for consolidation; be sure to set stop losses.
Looking longer term, it has dropped 4.47% in 7 days and 8% in 30 days; the overall trend remains weak and this is only an oversold rebound. Fans should avoid blindly chasing highs in the short term; those who haven’t entered should patiently wait for a pullback, and those already in should take profits near resistance. Keep a close eye on the 2400 watershed—don’t be the bag holder! $BTC $ETH #ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ Stopping the bleeding is not a reversal; the BTC 80,000 defense battle is not over yet.
After BTC dipped to 80,000, it pulled back near 81,790. ETH held at 2,400 but is clearly weaker than BTC; XRP is relatively resistant around 1.30. It looks comfortable but is actually a recovery after a sharp drop.
The pressure remains unchanged. Both CPI and PPI exceeded expectations, US Treasury yields surged briefly, ETFs have seen outflows for the second consecutive week, with BTC net outflows around $228 million and ETH about $320 million, indicating weakening institutional buying. Warsh did not signal a rate hike in October; the probability dropped to about 15%, but this does not mean relief, just that concerns are postponed.
My view is straightforward: BTC will oscillate between 80,000 and 83,000 in the short term. Only if it stabilizes above 82,500 can we talk about challenging higher levels; otherwise, a rise in US Treasury yields or ETF outflows will pull it back. ETH’s 2,400 is a key support; breaking it could see 2,350, with strong resistance between 2,450 and 2,500 above. XRP has support at 1.30, but breaking 1.35 depends on overall risk appetite rising; otherwise, it’s likely to fall along with the market.
Operationally, there’s no rush to heavily buy the dip. At least wait for three signals to align: US Treasury yields peak and fall, BTC firmly above 83,000, and ETF inflows. Chasing the rally now is gambling on a rebound, not trend confirmation, so keep some position flexibility.
Do you think BTC can hold 82,500 this week?
$BTC $ETH $XRP
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ On October 2nd, 86% of SEI's contract accounts were long.
After that day, it dropped 15.6%, and now only 61% are long.
The long-short ratio is the number of long accounts divided by the number of short accounts.
On that day, SEI's ratio was 6.11, now it is 1.58.
This counts accounts, not money.
One person can open ten accounts, while an institution has only one.
So it measures retail sentiment, not the direction of funds.
Funding rates look at money, the number ratio looks at people.
I calculated this for 20 coins.
The highest long ratios are XRP 78.1%, ONDO 76.8%, DOGE 76.7%.
The lowest are INJ 50.5%, ARB 51.7%, NEAR 53.7%.
It's the same market, but the difference is 28 percentage points.
I think this number is more useful than price.
When 86% are long, the remaining buy side is only 14%.
With no one to take the other side, the price can only go down.
Now that it has dropped to 61%, there is new room.
So a cleanup isn't all bad.
A coin's true bottom often appears when no one wants to go long,
not when everyone is shouting to buy the dip.
SEI is now at 61%, still some way from 50%.
Would you rather wait for it to drop near 50%, or think 61% is enough?
$SEI
#HowManyPeopleHaventEnteredYet Exclusive Market Analysis for October 20
In the past two trading days, Bitcoin attempted to break above $83000 twice but failed both times, then retreated to around $82000.
A more critical structural change occurred at the weekly level: the $82500–$82800 range has officially shifted from support to resistance.
1. On-Chain Capital Flow
ETF funds continue to flow out. Last week, the US spot Bitcoin ETF saw a net outflow of $228.6 million. Extending to two weeks, the cumulative net outflow of the spot Bitcoin ETF reached $907.4 million.
Currently, selling pressure is easing, but new demand for spot and ETF has not returned.
2. Coinbase Premium Index Turns Negative
A key signal: the Coinbase premium index dropped to -0.141 on October 18, marking the lowest since June 30.
This indicator remaining negative usually points to relatively weak US institutional and high-net-worth buying, signaling short-term correction pressure.
3. Key Technical Levels Analysis
Strong resistance: $83000, the point of two failed breakouts, concentrated real selling pressure zone.
Current resistance range: $82500–$82800, support turned resistance after weekly breakdown.
First support level: $80900, 4H Bollinger Band lower band, first line of defense.
Key support level: $80000, an important psychological market defense line; a valid break below this will trigger a chain reaction. Advanced technology is one thing; whether investors can make money from it is another. These are two completely different matters. We need to demystify the technology, especially the technical boasts from crypto project teams, and be clear in our minds. Just know that they are telling stories and fooling us retail investors into taking the risk.
From 2023 to 2024, the entire crypto space has been talking about Ethereum scaling, relying on L2s for high throughput, low gas fees, and fast speeds. At least a dozen L2 public chains have emerged, with the four star L2s mainly being OP, ARB, STRK, and ZK. OP and ARB use optimistic rollups with fraud proof mechanisms, while STRK and ZK use zero-knowledge proofs guaranteed by mathematics.
All the boasting aside, technology is one thing, but the coin price is a completely different matter. I admit that ARB, OP, and ZK public chains offer a good user experience, fast speeds, and low fees. But doing a good project and having the coin price rise are two separate things. The governance tokens of these four kings have been declining all the way, looking like they are heading to zero.
Even now, the entire crypto space is like this: most projects and their governance tokens are two different things. Even if a small number of projects succeed and have cash flow, as long as they don’t buy back their tokens, the coin price may keep falling. Projects like Hyperliquid, which actually use real money earned from fees to buy back their circulating tokens on the secondary market, are extremely rare.MicroStrategy has been shouting "more orange" all week, and this is the result?
Last week, Strategy only bought 267 $BTC, spending about $22 million, at an average price of $82,900, bringing the total holdings to 848,517.
In the same week, it spent $193 million to repurchase its own STRC preferred shares, nearly 9 times the amount spent on buying coins, and the repurchase limit was increased from $2 billion straight up to $3 billion.
It seems MicroStrategy now wants to protect not the coin price, but the price of $STRC. But buying is always better than selling, right? #奈飞增长或放缓，广告业务成新看点 Bearish Looking at SanDisk (SNDK) now, my feeling is: it has dropped too hard, someone is bottom-fishing, so it bounced a bit, but this is called a "rebound," not yet a "reversal." It's like a person who fell down, bounced up and sat down, but hasn't stood up and walked steadily yet.
It has dropped nearly 30% around, RSI is below 30, selling pressure has paused; on October 19 it rose more than 5 points, but the trading volume was only a quarter of usual, so the bounce had no follow-through. Holding steady at 1350–1400 would count as an upgraded rebound; breaking below 1276 might mean further decline. The downtrend channel hasn't been broken, the bears haven't conceded.
Fundamentals: The performance is really strong, last quarter revenue was 8.965 billion, up 372% year-over-year, gross margin 84.6%, next quarter guidance is still accelerating, AI data centers are the engine, Goldman Sachs has a buy target of 2200. There is real substance supporting it, not just pure hype.
Risks: The market already knew about the good performance, after the August earnings report it actually dropped 11.8% in two days, a lot of expectations have been priced in; the old problem of the storage cycle remains, whether the 84.6% gross margin can be maintained is uncertain.
Summary: Short-term oversold rebound, no confirmed mid-term reversal. The October 29 earnings report is key; before that, 1276–1454 is a battleground between bulls and bears, suitable for watching, not for rushing in. If you have a position, don't get carried away by a single bullish candle; if you are out, don't rush to chase. On October 19, 2026, according to Crypto Briefing, USDC issuer Circle disclosed that in the first half of 2026, the company retained only 7 cents of net profit for every 1 dollar of revenue earned. Meanwhile, OUSD attempts to attract enterprises through mechanisms such as reserve yield sharing, free minting and redemption, and partner participation in governance. Although the two models differ, they both point to the same issue... 1. Circle's Profit Distribution According to data published on Circle's official website, in the first half of 2026, the on-chain transaction settlement volume of USDC exceeded 36 trillion dollars. Circle issued and redeemed over 315 billion USDC, averaging about 1.7 billion dollars per day (including weekends and holidays). In the first half of 2026, Circle's revenue was approximately 1.4 billion dollars, of which about 819 million dollars were paid to USDC distribution partners and transaction fees. For every 1 dollar of revenue, about 59 cents flowed to global partners who enable USDC to be used in wallets, exchanges, banks, fintech companies, enterprises, and payment networks worldwide. Circle reinvested the vast majority of the remaining funds into network development. Circle spent about 473 million dollars (approximately 34 cents of every 1 dollar of revenue) on license applications, bank relationship maintenance, settlement liquidity construction, compliance projects, new product investments, and blockchain integration, all of which enable USDC to becomeNo leverage, the worst outcome for ETH is being "trapped," not "zeroed out." The difference between these two is like heaven and earth in the crypto world.
With leveraged ETH, the death is "instant liquidation."
If you use leverage, ETH's volatility is your death sentence. A 10% market fluctuation is common in crypto, but with 50x leverage, a 10% adverse move equals a 500% loss, directly wiping out your principal and triggering a forced liquidation. Even if you are right about the long-term direction, a single spike can wipe out your position. My buddy used 25x leverage to go long on ETH, peaked with unrealized profits of $44 million, but a sudden crash triggered a chain of liquidations, nearly wiping out his $15 million principal in 47 days, leaving only $1,718 in the account. The essence of leveraged trading is using limited capital to fight against unlimited market volatility; given enough time, one mistake means you're out.
Unleveraged ETH, the death is "endurance."
If you avoid leverage and only hold spot, no matter how badly ETH falls, you still hold real ETH. Some players lost money on ETH but because they didn't use leverage, their attitude was, "Spot has no leverage, so I’m not afraid of liquidation; I’ll just hold and wait six months or even a year if needed." Another person who endured a 50% ETH correction in the 2018 bear market without leverage refused to cut losses and waited for a recovery opportunity. Reflecting on it, he was scared: "If I had used leverage this time, I would have been wiped out for sure, with no chance to recover." #Netflix growth may slow, advertising business becomes new focus BTC contributes nearly half of the new spot trading volume, can ETH and SOL keep up?
Currently, market trading heat continues to concentrate on BTC.
In the past 24 hours, the total spot trading volume across the market was $15.984 billion, an increase of 14.92%. BTC spot trading volume was $4.404 billion, up 28.24%.
The total spot trading volume increased by about $2.075 billion compared to the previous period, of which BTC increased by about $970 million, contributing approximately 46.7% of the increment.
BTC accounts for 27.55% of the total spot trading volume but contributes nearly half of the new trading volume. Excluding BTC, the combined trading volume of other coins increased by about 10.6%. The market is heating up, but the heat is not evenly distributed.
1. BTC: Spot trading heats up faster
The active trading is supported by data; next, the focus is on whether the price can strengthen synchronously and if the pullbacks have support. Increased volume alone does not prove buyer dominance.
2. ETH: The relay depends on its own buying power
Focus on whether spot trading volume can continue to increase and whether ETH/BTC can strengthen. Active BTC trading cannot be directly equated to increased ETH buying power.
3. SOL: Beyond gains, focus on sustainability
Rising prices must be followed by trading volume, pullbacks must have support, and relative strength against BTC must be maintained to support relay judgment.
BTC spot trading heat is already clear; whether ETH and SOL can take over still requires confirmation of their own volume and price.
Market-wide volume increase does not mean a full-scale altcoin rally has started.#Meta巨额AI投入进入回报检验期 Zuckerberg openly admitted that Meta had to commit $100 billion to $200 billion in infrastructure before the model was even validated, and at that time even the AI lead Alexandr Wang couldn't guarantee success. The CFO repeatedly warned that failure would be disastrous.
But they went ahead anyway.
This is not "we saw it coming early," but rather "if we don't build computing power in advance, it will be too late once validation is done."
The harsh reality of AI is this—the infrastructure cycle is too long, so you have to bet your fortune when things are still uncertain.
Now the model is finally out, claiming it can compete with ChatGPT and Claude, and they've also launched a personal AI agent called Muse. But Zuckerberg himself said whether consumers will actually buy into it remains to be seen.
BTW, Zuckerberg is also a straightforward guy~
Free cash flow dropped to a multi-year low last quarter. The money has been spent, the story has been told, now it depends on whether users are willing to actually use it and pay for it