Orbit Post Sitemap
The Q3 2026 earnings season is entering an intensive period, with the S&P 500 earnings growth forecast at about 29%, exceeding 25% for three consecutive quarters. This week, SpaceX, Netflix, Meta, and Tesla will disclose their results one after another. The market focus is on the return on AI capital expenditure and the sustainability of guidance, rather than simply beating expectations.
Crypto assets and tech stocks show a high correlation in risk appetite. If earnings reports confirm that AI investments can still translate into growth, risk sentiment will improve, making it easier for Bitcoin and Ethereum to gain funding support; if there are concerns about excessive spending with insufficient returns, adjustments in the tech sector are likely to spill over, putting pressure on crypto assets. Bitcoin is relatively resilient, while Ethereum, due to its stronger ties to the ecosystem and DeFi, usually experiences greater volatility.
Currently, BTC is oscillating above $80,000, and ETH is consolidating around $2,400, with ETF fund flows still unstable. The earnings season itself is not a direct catalyst but influences risk appetite through whether the "AI narrative continues to be validated." The real key lies in whether the overall capital expenditure narrative can continue to support high-beta asset valuations after validation. $BTC $ETH #奈飞财报在即，广告业务成新看点 The money from the world's largest bank is now running on Ethereum.
You still can't use it. And not a single dollar has moved.
JPMorgan Chase today announced the contract address of JPMD on the Ethereum mainnet.
I checked: 0 holders, 0 supply, 0 transfers.
The old contract on Base has 1,001,000 tokens, 2 holders, about 1 million USD.
JPMD is a bank deposit token, 1 token = 1 USD in a JPMorgan Chase account. It is not a stablecoin. Only institution clients approved by the bank can use it.
Previously it only ran on Base (L2), this time it moved directly to the mainnet.
Because JPMorgan Chase already has two funds on Ethereum, with the asset leg here, the cash leg also has to be here.
But they haven't disclosed circulation, transaction volume, or client list, nor is there an entry to subscribe or redeem funds using JPMD.
ETH was about 2394 USD at the time, down 1.15% in 24 hours. The price didn't react.
Moving it over and actually using it are two different things.
Do you think this is good news for Ethereum, or that Ethereum is becoming just a settlement channel?Strategy——The largest obvious long position in $BTC has started to slow down buying
The largest obvious long position has only bought 250 coins in the past week. Are you still waiting for it to provide support?
Strategy holds 848,250 BTC, accounting for 4.04% of the total supply, with an unrealized gain of about 8.15%. Saylor is still tweeting about "making room for oranges," but the actual action is: in the most recent disclosure week, only 250 coins were bought, about $21.5 million, marking the lowest single-week direct purchase this year.
Still shouting with words, but the hands have slowed.
The money has changed direction. The company used $192.4 million to repurchase STRC preferred shares, retaining a $5.5 billion liquidity buffer, shifting focus from "continuing to increase holdings" to "reducing dividend burden."
More trouble lies with MSTR itself. MNAV has dropped to 0.83 times, and the stock price is trading at a discount relative to the value of held coins; MSCI will decide on November 11 whether to remove it from the global benchmark index, with JPMorgan estimating a potential $2.8 billion passive fund outflow. MSTR's stock price once fell 9.56% last week to $136.83.
Strategy used to be the strongest buyer in the 2025 bull market. When its buying speed dropped from "thousands of coins per week" to "250 coins," while the market still expects it to provide support like before — that assumption itself is loosening.
It's not dangerous because the price fell; it's dangerous because the support withdrew first, then the price started to fall.
#ETF持续流出，BTC反弹能否延续？ 🔷 CryptoX-ray #4: $ZEC — upgrade is near, 22K coins at risk
Conflict:
29% of supply is hidden in shielded pools, and the price is -81% from ATH.
— NU7: 25-second block instead of 75, fees are temporarily withdrawn, not burned.
— Activation target is November 5, but this is a planned date, not a guarantee.
— ECC left in January, a red flag for governance.
Verdict: the network is operational, no income for holders. The news might already be priced in.
Status: watch.
Are you expecting growth on NU7 or is this a “sell the news” moment? 👇
#NU7UpgradeZECATH 100 ECONOMISTS. ZERO EXPECT A DECEMBER PAUSE.
A Reuters poll (Oct 16–20) found 94 of 100 expect the Fed to hold rates at 3.75–4.00% in October. All 100 expect a hike in December—up from fewer than half last month.
For crypto, October relief may coexist with tighter year-end liquidity.
A consensus forecast is not a Fed decision.
#Crypto #Fed #BTCTo pour some cold water first, the launch of new futures on CME does not mean institutions are starting to be bullish on the spot market. CME announced that FalconX and GSR have completed the first block trades of the newly launched Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and Uniswap (UNI) futures. My judgment: this is a positive for expanding trading tools, but directly treating it as a bullish signal for coin prices is likely an overread.
I am mainly stuck on two points. First, futures can be used for long, short, and hedging positions, so new trading entries do not equal new spot buying demand; for participants with hedging needs, the tool's value might be greater than any directional signal. Second, the "first block trade" indicates there is participation in the contract, but it does not disclose the trade size, position direction, or subsequent activity. I tend to look for missing evidence first, and this news alone does not support the inference of "institutions continuously increasing positions."
Of course, the bulls might be right. If subsequent trading and positions remain active, and spot demand shows observable strengthening, I will change my view and admit it might shift from tool expansion to demand catalyst. For now, I prefer to see it as infrastructure progress and not get excited too quickly.
With the launch of BCH and UNI futures this time, are you bullish or bearish? State your reasons: do you value the expansion of compliant trading access more, or worry about increased channels for hedging and shorting?Still dare to hype the safe-haven attribute of BTC in this market? Brent crude oil has surged to $111, yet BTC is still grinding below 82,000, and ETH can't even hold above 2,400. In my view, this is not a buildup for a rally at all, but rather that macro risks haven't dissipated and buying interest is lacking! The Iran situation and the risk in the Strait of Hormuz have pushed oil prices up. The market fears not just war, but that high oil prices will reignite inflation expectations. How can interest rates still go down? The 10-year US Treasury yield has recently fallen back, but the market still doesn't buy it! On October 19, BTC spot ETF net inflows were about $527 million, yet today BTC is still hovering around 81,400, unable to hold even 82,000 in the short term. Meanwhile, ETH ETF net outflows were about $103 million in the same period. Do you think ETF inflows mean the bulls have won? My judgment is that BTC can't hold 82,000 for long, and there's a risk of being smashed again at 80,000. You can find suitable positions to short, and if there is obvious support, you can take a quick nibble and run. Preserving your capital first is best!#芯片股终结八连跌，AI行情能否持续？
After eight consecutive days of decline, chip stocks finally saw a rebound today.
The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumped 1.6%, and the Nasdaq followed suit. Storage giants like SanDisk, Micron, and Hynix are all recovering. But look at the comment from that guy in the comments section—it's heartbreaking: over these eight days, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index lost 2.3 trillion in market value, yet short sellers only made 32 billion.
What does this mean? It means this drop wasn’t caused by short sellers attacking; it was purely bulls scaring themselves and causing a stampede. After rising too much, everyone panicked, and at the slightest disturbance, they ran faster than dogs. So don’t rush to call today’s red market a "bull comeback"—it’s just a technical rebound after a sharp drop.
What’s the impact?
First, sentiment can finally catch a breath. Recently, tech stocks were getting hammered daily, dragging the crypto market into turmoil as well. Now that U.S. semiconductor stocks have stabilized, they won’t continue to be dragged down by external panic.
Second, the AI sector is still viable, but people are starting to scrutinize the numbers. AI infrastructure was heavily criticized recently, but now funds are returning to buy the dip, indicating demand still exists. However, money is now very cautious and no longer blindly paying for high valuations; it depends on who can truly turn orders into profits. Crypto projects that only issue whitepapers to ride the hype will eventually fail without knowing why, as funds flow toward places with real computing power.
What’s your take?
$BTC #特斯拉交付超预期后盈利修复成焦点
Tomorrow night (after market close on October 21), Tesla will release its Q3 earnings report. According to the market data predicted in the chart, 69% of people are betting that the stock price will rise after the earnings, showing very high expectations.
First, let's look at the known facts. Q3 deliveries reached 486,500 vehicles, which indeed exceeded expectations, but it still represents a 2.1% year-over-year decline. This really tests how the market will interpret it. No matter how many cars are sold, it’s all for nothing if there’s no profit.
So, don’t just focus on delivery volume in this earnings report; the core is to look at two things.
First is whether the automotive business’s gross margin and cash flow can recover. With the price war so fierce now, if the gross margin keeps dropping, the fundamental business is in trouble. Second is whether there is substantial progress in AI businesses like Robotaxi and Optimus. Elon Musk has painted many grand visions, but the market now wants to see real results. Without a concrete commercialization timeline, relying solely on car sales can’t support the current high valuation.
The 69% probability betting on a rise is actually quite risky. The macro environment is unfriendly to tech stocks, financing costs are high, and the margin for error is extremely low. If gross margin recovery falls short of expectations or AI business continues to be delayed, the rally on the day of the earnings release will most likely turn into a sell-the-news event.
This also has implications for the crypto space. Tesla is a sentiment barometer for US tech stocks. If the earnings beat expectations, risk appetite for tech stocks will warm up, and BTC can catch a breather; if the earnings disappoint and drag down the Nasdaq, the crypto market won’t be able to avoid liquidity drain either. $TSLA $xTSLA Overnight Market: The Base Supports, Each of the Four Layers Calculates Its Own Account 🧭
$BTC is reported at 81471, slightly up 0.15%, still the “base” 🧱. No new funds came in overnight; existing limit orders are supporting the price; long-term locked positions above 81000 make the lower side solid, but the short-term lack of buying pressure makes it hard to rally. The sense of direction is temporarily weak, and the other three layers are all hanging on this base.
$ENA is reported at 0.18554, down 1.94%, belonging to the “interest-bearing layer” 💧. USDe synthetic dollar relies on collateral yield to scale, and the market still has concerns about extreme de-pegging; currently, it is retreating along with the stablecoin concept, more like valuation pressure rather than a rejection of the model.
$ASTER is reported at 0.7015, up 0.24%, representing the “contract layer” 📈. One of the few to rise against the trend, decentralized perpetuals rely on trading depth; there are still limit orders in thin volume, indicating funds have not left but just moved to pools with trading activity, unlike dormant small coins.
$SPCX is reported at 144.25, down 0.85%, in the “rocket layer” 🚀. SpaceX’s first full quarterly report after listing has landed, on-chain shares are recalculated near 144, with launch costs, Starlink revenue, and profits compared item by item; US stock market is not open yet, so the price looks more like a placeholder, waiting for the open to provide a real anchor.
In short: The base is stable, digestion is layered, don’t mistake the placeholder price for the answer 👀
This article is for market analysis only and does not constitute investment advice. #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 To be honest, I used to easily interpret "institutional entry" as "someone coming to pump the market," thinking that when a new contract launches, the market has a strong backing. Later, I realized that having more trading tools and prices definitely going up are two completely different things.
This time, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Group (CME) launched BCH and UNI futures, and FalconX and GSR have completed the first block trade. This reminded me of the old atmosphere where whenever there was institutional news, everyone rushed to find the "next main theme."
My judgment is: it's positive for trading channels but you can't directly conclude it will affect prices. Futures can be used for long positions, short positions, and hedging; having more tools doesn't mean more buying pressure. The first block trade shows the product is being used, but it’s not enough to prove how strong the subsequent demand will be. The biggest pitfall for ordinary people is treating a product launch as continuous capital inflow.
Now I set two rules for myself: when I see institutional news, first distinguish whether it changes the trading channel or actual demand; don’t increase leverage temporarily just because of one piece of news without thinking through how much volatility you can bear, so just don’t act. Work is already busy enough; there’s no need to give yourself a night shift watching the market.
Have you ever treated "futures launch" as a one-sided positive only to later realize it was an oversimplification? Would you be willing to share one rule you follow when you see institutional entry news?No time to look closely during the day at work, but at night when I open up the news and scroll to this Liquid update, the drowsiness I just had disappears 🌙. What keeps me awake is not the word "recovery," but whether the channel can smoothly complete the redemption when the pegged assets are actually redeemed.
Liquid Network officially states that the network recovery has entered its final stage, focusing on strengthening security mechanisms, conducting independent audits, and gradually resuming pegged asset redemptions. The network will first coordinate with participating service providers to gradually open semi-automated BTC and LBTC exchanges, with no protocol-level transaction volume limits on the service itself.
My judgment is: this is a relatively positive repair signal, but it cannot yet be equated with a full return to normal. For those with exchange needs, actual usability is more important than the headline; "gradual opening" means it cannot be directly understood that all demands can be immediately processed.
There are two more points I will continue to watch: the semi-automated service requires cooperation from service providers, and no protocol-level limit does not mean there are no actual processing bottlenecks; security enhancements and independent audits also depend on subsequent disclosures, and "initiating" cannot be taken as "already passed." I believe restoring confidence in the $BTC-related ecosystem depends on these details being fulfilled.
A reminder to myself: don’t take the recovery progress bar as proof that risks have been eliminated. Who else is still awake at this hour, watching which part of Liquid’s recovery progress? Are you more concerned about whether exchanges are smooth or the results of the independent audit?SOL's current trouble is not technical but narrative. SkyAI, this SOL treasury company, announced it has liquidated all its SOL holdings and simultaneously launched a $201 million buyback. The impact of this news is much greater than a 1.5% price drop because it breaks the assumption that "SOL treasury companies will keep buying." This is the same type of event as Strategy selling coins; both dismantle the corporate buying narrative that has supported the price over the past two years. Technically, 100 is the lifeline; it is both an integer threshold and a psychological defense line. Breaking below 100 will trigger a chain of stop-losses, with resistance between 108 and 112 above. SOL's relative resilience in this round did not show today; if 100 does not hold, it may experience a catch-up drop, which should be watched carefully.
XRP is exactly stuck at the 1.30 integer threshold, a very delicate position. Evernorth has completed its SPAC merger, and the positive catalyst of XRPN's Nasdaq listing on October 8 has been fully realized. There are currently no new catalysts. Although the US spot XRP ETF has seen small inflows, when compared with BlackRock's application for a third Bitcoin ETF that bypassed SOL and XRP, it is clear that institutional interest in XRP is limited. Technically, if 1.30 breaks, the next targets are 1.25 or even 1.20; only a rebound above 1.35 can signal a halt to the decline. XRP's current problem is simple: the story is over, and the funds have not followed.[Malaysia Moves Bonds Onto the Blockchain, Traditional Finance Is Taking Real Action This Time]
On October 20, Malaysia's central bank officially launched SSDS+, supporting the issuance, custody, and transfer of tokenized bonds and Islamic bonds Sukuk, and integrated with RENTAS+ to enable round-the-clock payment settlement. Note, this is not another crypto project issuing tokens, but the central bank integrating distributed ledger technology into traditional financial infrastructure.
This initiative has a solid business foundation. The Malaysian bond and Sukuk market size was about $575.6 billion as of the end of June 2026. Even if only part of the issuance and settlement processes gradually migrate, the potential application space is considerable.
What I value more is that traditional financial institutions are starting to use tokenization for real securities, not just for concept demonstrations. However, platform launch does not mean large-scale funds are already on-chain, nor does it imply funds will flow into public chain tokens like $BTC, $ETH, etc. For the crypto market, this signals the continued advancement of real asset tokenization, but it is too early to say which coin will directly benefit. What to watch next are the actual issuance scale, institutional participation, and whether trading and settlement costs truly decrease.📉 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 Switzerland approved an ETF today, but the market remains completely still: tonight, all eyes are on whether 81,200 holds. Three and a half hours have passed, BTC has barely moved: at 17:00 it was 81,423, now 81,466, down 1.28% in 24 hours, with the low point right at 81,200. This is not stabilization; it's being pressed down and rubbed on the ground. ETH is at 2,394 (-1.08%), SOL at 104.4 (-0.76%), the entire market is down, no one dares to break out independently. The most worth watching tonight is still the funding rates. BTC funding rate is 0.0022%, ETH 0.0024%, SOL 0.0051%. Yesterday BTC was still at 0.0087%, today it’s basically zero. In plain terms, bulls are too lazy to even pay interest; bullish sentiment is lying flat. BTC open interest is 30,700 coins, $2.5 billion, down tens of millions from yesterday, bulls are quietly reducing positions. The only new variable on the market is Switzerland: FINMA approved the first public ETF directly investing in spot BTC today. Sounds positive, but two points to note: the announcement lacks issuer and listing date, so no money comes in today; the US spot ETF saw a net inflow of $527 million today, but IBIT alone accounted for $665 million, while ETH saw a net outflow of $103 million. Money is diverging, not celebrating. So my judgment: from tonight until tomorrow morning’s open, watch 81,200. If it breaks and does not recover within four hours, short#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 This quarter's financial report, why am I betting Yes? Reasons to be bullish👇 1️⃣ Advertising business remains strong Meta's most profitable business is still advertising. The AI recommendation systems behind Facebook, Instagram, and Reels now directly impact ad revenue. Last quarter, Meta's ad impressions grew by 14%, and the average ad price rose by 12%. These two figures are more important than pure user growth. The simultaneous growth in ad impressions and unit price indicates that Meta not only retains users but also encourages advertisers to spend more. If this trend continues into Q3, the probability of ad revenue exceeding expectations is high. 2️⃣ Wall Street's expectations still have room for upward revision Currently, the market expects Meta's Q3 revenue to be over $63 billion, a year-on-year increase of nearly 24%. This expectation is actually not low, but last quarter Meta's revenue grew 28% year-on-year, indicating that the advertising business is still growing rapidly. Meta's execution over the past few quarters has been solid, especially on the advertising side. As long as ad impressions and unit prices continue to grow, actual revenue has a chance to exceed market consensus. 3️⃣ AI has already started making money for Meta This is also a point I am optimistic about Meta. Many tech companies are pouring money into AI, but not many can directly convert AI into revenue. Meta is different. AI recommendation sysFrance 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? From 2023 to 2024, the entire crypto community has been celebrating Ethereum scaling: L2, high throughput, low gas fees, second-level confirmations. Over more than a year, more than ten L2 public chains have launched one after another, with the four star projects $OP, $ARB, $STRK, and $ZK each telling different technical stories—the first two betting on optimistic rollups and fraud proofs, the latter two using zero-knowledge proofs to entrust security to mathematics. The technical narratives are almost flawless. But here is a crack collectively overlooked: advanced technology is one thing, whether token holders can make money is another. There is no necessary causal link between these two. I admit that the on-chain experience of $ARB, $OP, and $ZK is indeed smooth, fast, and low-cost, but good product execution and token price appreciation have always been two independent curves. Currently, the governance tokens of these four major L2s continue to decline, with prices nearly approaching zero, while their network data is not bad. This divergence itself is the most honest market signal. Zooming out, this is not an isolated case for L2s but a structural disease of the entire crypto industry: the vast majority of projects and their governance tokens follow two separate logics. Projects can be very successful, have real revenue, and cash flow, but as long as the protocol does not buy back tokens, the price can keep falling. Tokens here are more like a narrative ticket rather than a claim on cash flow. The project teams tell stories, and the baton is passed to newcomers in the secondary market who think they are "early investors." The truly scarce example is Hyperliquid behind $HYPE: it earns from trading feesBitcoin 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 Making two hundred dollars in four minutes, why did I actually pull back first? Have you ever had that moment of "just a little longer and I can get more"? I just closed a short CT position; I held it for four minutes, and the profit already exceeded most of my positions held for four days. Someone in the group said not to rush to exit, that I could still gain more. I stared at the order book for a few seconds and still closed it. It's not about greed; it's that the derivative structure after a vertical surge often gives warnings earlier than the candlestick itself. The most fragile link is never the price, but the leveraged position willingness. A rapid surge in a short time, especially a move that jumps more than twenty points within fifteen minutes, can easily trigger a short squeeze, but the buying pressure from the squeeze is consumptive, not supportive. The steeper the price, the more fragile the subsequent liquidation chain. From my experience, the sharper the surge, the faster the pullback. A thirty-point surge in one minute and a thirty-point surge in fifteen minutes are completely different in nature; the former is more like an emotional pulse, while the latter has a bit of structural buying. This is also why I choose to enter and exit quickly. The time window is usually compressed within that fifteen minutes to half an hour of the surge, taking one to three points and then withdrawing, not lingering. Because once caught in the opposite direction, there might be an even stronger continuation wave, and unrealized losses will quickly amplify. At that time, the test is not judgment but margin. Of course, a bullish path also exists. BTC repeatedly builds a bottom at relatively low levels; if spot support keeps up, the short covering on the derivatives side can become fuel for the trend, altcoins will also warm up, and risk appetite will shift from contraction to expansion. But what I care about more is 💻 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. On Monday, #Bitcoin ETF data was released, showing a divergence between net capital inflows and #BTC price trends. Is crypto capital exiting the market? Monday's ETF data surprised me greatly, with a single-day net inflow of 526.7 million, an amount exceeding 500 million, which counts as a strong single-day net capital inflow. #ETF continues to see outflows; can BTC's rebound sustain? Among them, IBIT was the sole source of net inflow, with capital inflows reaching as high as 665.2 million, but FBTC and GBTC still maintained net outflows. However, looking back at the $BTC price trend, the market's gains were not significant, and it faced key resistance without a substantial breakthrough, causing the price to retreat. In the short term, ETF capital flow and BTC price show divergence; capital supports price strength, but BTC's trend is weak. The only explanation is that local crypto market capital is exiting. Looking further at crypto market data, the biggest change compared to Monday is a decrease in total capital, with an overall net outflow of about 800 million. Among this, USDT saw a net outflow of 488 million, and USDC a net outflow of 173 million. Clearly, this data explains why despite large ETF net inflows, BTC prices are falling. Comparing data from both sides, it is evident that institutional investors and local crypto investors show clear differences in buying and selling behavior. Capital investors tend to judge buy/sell decisions over the long term; currently, ETF net inflows indicate a positive trend. Meanwhile, local crypto users are more focused on short-term portfolio rotation and turnover. Yesterday, the Nasdaq rose about 1.1%, with the semiconductor sector collectively rebounding. But this morning before the market opened, AI stocks came under pressure again, oil prices rose significantly, and market risk appetite declined once more. Today's priorities: AMD ＞ QQQ ＞ SNDK. This time, we are not following yesterday's long position plan but are adjusting the trading direction based on the latest macro environment and the relative strength of individual stocks. ———————————— 1. Today's Macro Environment 1. Oil prices rise, inflationary pressures heat up again Before the market opened today, WTI crude briefly rose to around $106–108, Brent crude exceeded $110. Middle East energy supply risks remain the main driving factor. Rising oil prices may increase inflationary pressures, further limiting the Federal Reserve's policy easing space. 2. Tech stocks come under pressure again Nasdaq 100 futures: about -0.6% S&P 500 futures: about -0.2% 10-year US Treasury yield: about 5.1% BTC: about $81,400 The above are market reference quotes at different times before today's open, not real-time quotes at the same moment. 3. 8:30 ET Economic Data: US housing weakens September new home starts: about 1.221 million Market expectation: about 1.3 million Single-family home starts MoM: -4.6% Single-family home building permits MoM: -4.0% High mortgage rates are suppressing residential investment. Weak economic data may ease some interest rate pressures, but rising oil prices simultaneously increase #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