Orbit Post Sitemap
Galaxy Digital says the phase bottom may have passed, but the ETF ledger gave a different answer on the same day
$BTC reported around $77,990, with a fear and greed index of 34, still in the fear zone. Galaxy Digital's head of research pointed out that BTC has reclaimed the 50-week moving average, the $80,000 level support is strong, positions are not crowded, and sovereign wealth funds and asset management institutions' participation is increasing. However, spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $643 million last Friday, IBIT attracted funds against the trend, with capital concentrating at the top; overall net outflow this week is about $202 million.
$ETH: around $2,267. Related products have seen capital outflow for 23 consecutive trading days, the longest record since listing, with over $1 billion lost in October; ETHA bore most of the pressure; but on-chain staking hit a new high, products are withdrawing while staking is locking.
$SOL: around $95.5, below the hundred-dollar mark. Related products have had capital outflow for 5 consecutive days, totaling about -$72 million in October; but the Solana Foundation and a consortium including Standard Chartered Hong Kong have agreed that HKD stablecoins will be put on-chain for payments. Issuing stablecoins does not equal buying SOL; that is usage, not buying.
On the macro side, midterm elections and non-farm payrolls fall in the same week, with December policy expectations still above 80%.
In short: Galaxy sees structure, ETFs see redemptions, SOL sees usage. Three ledgers await post-non-farm to see who turns first.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ About $6.3 billion was stolen, yet the price of Bitcoin only dropped by 5%. Previously, it was predicted that if Binance was hacked and $6 billion was stolen, the market would drop by 15-20%. In reality, the price of Bitcoin eventually fell to $76,400, indicating Bitcoin's strong resilience, as the decline was so small despite such a massive hack. However, panic among short-term holders reached extremely high levels, and even the Coinbase premium hit its lowest point since the 2022 FTX collapse. According to on-chain data, within 24 hours, 36,600 bitcoins were sent to exchanges by short-term holders at prices below their purchase price. Over the past seven days, short-term holders deposited a total of about 45,400 bitcoins into Binance. The prices of these deposited bitcoins were in a downtrend, with many already sold at a loss. Within 24 hours, the actual loss amounted to as much as $1.115 billion, far exceeding normal market levels. This indicates a huge volume of bitcoins deposited to exchanges and corresponding actual losses, which is exactly how the market reacts when facing black swan events or the formation of new lows.Binance's $6.3 billion theft pushed BTC down from 80,000 to 76,000, with a weekend hold at 78,000 marking the first rebound after the bearish sentiment was exhausted.
The US stock market also cooled off simultaneously, with the Nasdaq dropping 2% for the week, Intel down nearly 26%, Google down 12%, as AI spending scared off funds.
Both sides are actually being held down by the same macro factors: the Federal Reserve holding steady, over a 70% chance of a rate hike in December, and oil prices breaking 100 pushing up inflation expectations.
BTC is now stuck above the 200-day moving average at 73,000, but the 20 and 50-day moving averages are pressing above 80,000, so the rebound will first look at whether it can surpass 81,000.
In the short term, it looks more like a pullback within a downtrend rather than a reversal; ETFs are still seeing net outflows, waiting for Binance's reserve proof and Friday's nonfarm payrolls to provide answers.
$BTC $SPY $NVDA #加密行业协同守护资产安全 Only $OKB, which was opened yesterday, is profitable. I suspect a certain exchange lost faith and withdrew nearly 6 billion USD after enabling withdrawals.
Some users withdrew funds to OKX, buying $OKB or the market makers took this opportunity to pump the price.
After all, the market cap is too low, so it's easy to pump it up. Among so many exchanges, OKX has never been hacked, showing its technical strength.
Hold with peace of mind and confidence.
#OKX.ai：一个人就是一家世界级公司 How to build your own trading system#Palantir财报前瞻：高增长能否支撑高估值 Palantir's most dangerous moment may not be a crash, but rather that the better its performance, the harder it is for the stock price to rise! On November 2, Palantir is set to release its third-quarter results. The market expects revenue to reach around $2.18 billion, continuing its astonishing growth rate. But I want to say something that might not sound pleasant: for Palantir now, good performance is no longer enough; it must be better than anyone's imagination! Why? Because when a company's valuation is already high, the market is no longer buying how much it earns today, but how many miracles it can create in the next three, five, or even longer years. This is the real divide between bulls and bears on Palantir. Bulls believe that AI commercialization is just beginning. Palantir's true strength is not just telling an AI story, but embedding AI into the actual operations of enterprises and governments, turning technology into orders, revenue, and cash flow. If this capability continues to deliver, it has the chance to become a key infrastructure of the AI era. But bears also have their reasons: no matter how good the business model is, it cannot withstand infinite borrowing against the future. If the market has already priced in years of rapid growth, then even if this revenue beats expectations, as long as the management's future guidance is not strong enough, the stock price may still face pressure. This is the harshest part of the capital market: doing well is expected; if you are not as good as the market imagines, then you are... BTC rates have not turned negative yet, ETH whales and ETFs are completely opposed, ZAMA rises 8% while shorts are still paying fees
$BTC rotation, not exit
Volume shrinks and consolidates sideways. Funding rate remains +0.009%, longs are paying fees, deleveraging is not over. 76,000 is the bottom line, 78,000 is the first recovery target, if the rate does not turn negative, bottom fishing is just catching a falling knife.
$ETH ETF is running, whales are buying
ETH spot ETF has had net outflows for 23 consecutive trading days, the longest record since listing. Whales previously distributed about 160,000 tokens near 2,400. But 10 minutes ago, one address spent 34.69 million USDC on-chain to buy 15,216 ETH at an average price of 2,279. 2,200 is a psychological barrier; the opposition between ETFs and whales will eventually have one side concede.
$ZAMA price rises, shorts are still paying
ZAMA is around 0.0698, up 8.3% in 24 hours, open interest increased from 3.49 million to 4.2 million tokens, a 20% increase. Abnormally, the long-short ratio dropped from 1.6 to 0.88, price rises while retail investors are topping out and shorting, funding rate has been negative for 8 consecutive periods, latest -0.0090%, shorts are paying longs. The short squeeze structure is not finished, but with small market cap and thin liquidity, pullbacks can be irrational.
Summary: For BTC, watch when the funding rate turns negative; for ETH, watch 2,200 and the sincerity of whale buying; for ZAMA, watch if shorts will stampede under negative funding rate
#加密行业协同守护资产安全 Where is the bottom for $AKE???
A large group of people in the square say it's the bottom, but Old Liu clearly stated that it is not the bottom yet, so no one has really bottomed out, right??
The market does not show signs of the main players pushing the price up; what we see is just a small rebound brought by bottom-fishing funds.
Overall, the market remains bearish in the short term because the unlock date is at the end of the month, so speculation is unlikely to happen so quickly. Moreover, smart money sees that the long positions above have not been fully digested yet, and there is still bottom-fishing sentiment. The main players will not choose to #加密行业协同守护资产安全 at this time 今天最值得警惕的信号不是Ripple又解锁了一批$XRP，而是XRP Ledger链上支付量在解锁前就已跌到1.195亿枚，远低于月均水平。机构正在用RLUSD替代XRP做结算——这动摇了“支付叙事必然推升XRP需求”的底层假设，而市场几乎没人认真定价这件事。 链上支付萎缩与6只Ripple ETF的持仓结构形成刺眼对照：这些ETF合计持有11.9亿枚$XRP，账面浮亏已达5.03亿美元。MACD转负，1.28美元支撑岌岌可危，下方看向1.24。这不是普通回调，而是“机构建仓成本线”与“链上真实使用量”同时失守——当支付场景被自家稳定币分流，ETF的被动买盘就失去了基本面锚点。空头逻辑在这里比多头更自洽：若1.28确认跌破，止损盘会与ETF浮亏形成负反馈。 $SOL的处境更微妙。$SOL ETF累计净流入14.69亿美元，净资产却只剩13.99亿，70万美元的缺口意味着全体持有人处于纸面亏损状态。RSI仅35.16，7日、20日、30日均线分别压在99.01、102.47、106.57，昨日低点95.15已被击穿。更关键的是成交量：3960万美元仅为7日均值的一半。这是典型的“无人接盘#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $BTC 是否迎来转机？
The non-farm payrolls are coming, will the December rate hike expectations change? Will $BTC see a turning point?
The non-farm data is very unlikely to reverse the expectation of a December rate hike; instead, it may reinforce tightening pricing. This means BTC is unlikely to truly "turn around" in the short term and is more likely to continue a volatile pattern.
Currently, the market pricing for a 25 basis point rate hike in December is about 72% to 85%. Two members within the Federal Reserve have already advocated for a rate hike, indicating growing hawkish divergence. The October non-farm payrolls are expected to increase by about 65,000. If the data meets or slightly exceeds expectations, the US dollar and US Treasury yields will be supported, putting pressure on risk assets like BTC. BTC is currently hovering around $77,000 to $78,000. After previously falling below $80,000, market sentiment has been cautious.
The real variable to watch is a significant deviation in the data: if employment cools noticeably and wages fall back, the market may reprice easing expectations, giving BTC a chance to rebound; but if the unemployment rate rises rapidly at the same time, recession fears will suppress risk appetite. Additionally, spot BTC ETFs have recently recorded a net outflow of about $643 million. If the rebound lacks spot fund support, its sustainability is questionable. In short, non-farm payrolls act more like a catalyst for BTC's short-term volatility rather than a sufficient condition for a trend reversal.Calculating, ETHA had a net outflow of $391 million last week, which is about 90.5% of the total net outflow of $432 million from Ethereum spot ETFs. I am more concerned about this concentration rather than just focusing on the "five consecutive weeks of net outflow" to draw conclusions about the entire sector.
① Other products combined had a net outflow of about $41 million, which is significantly less than the net outflow of ETHA alone. My understanding is that this time the capital pressure is highly concentrated, and the total figure should not be interpreted as all products retreating at the same rate.
② ETHA's historical cumulative net inflow is $11.87 billion, and last week's net outflow accounts for about 3.3% of that. This is not a proportion of asset shrinkage, but when compared to accumulated capital, I think it is not enough to prove that the long-term allocation logic has reversed.
③ The overall net outflow has continued for five consecutive weeks, indicating that the negative capital flow did not just appear for one week. If the outflow continues, I will be more concerned about capital absorption; this is my speculation and cannot be used to judge the reason for selling based on this message alone.
My judgment is that the short-term capital outlook is bearish, but "concentrated outflow" and "complete withdrawal" should be considered separately. I will not directly treat ETF flow as the price direction indicator. Going forward, I want to see whether the outflow continues to be concentrated in ETHA or spreads to more products. When I see this message, my first thought is: With the withdrawal of funds, has the price provided enough risk compensation? According to Farside Investors data, the US Ethereum spot ETF had net outflows for five consecutive trading days last week, totaling about $431 million.
My judgment is that this is bearish in the short term, but it cannot yet be directly concluded as bearish in the long term. Continuous outflows make me more cautious than single-day fluctuations; at least this ETF channel has not provided net incremental buying; however, it does not represent the direction of funds in the entire Ethereum market. Taking local data as the whole picture can easily overestimate the probability of a decline.
According to my analysis, if the outflows continue and the price does not sufficiently absorb the pressure, the odds are not favorable; if the outflows converge and the price no longer reacts sensitively to bad news, then it is worth reevaluating. For me, negative headlines are not the conclusion; what matters next is how funds and prices verify each other.To start with a dose of cold water, I'm not very convinced by the narrative that "adding one more asset means the entire sector should be revalued." When I see such news, I usually separate product progress from market benefits: it's true that the shelf is becoming richer, but whether funds will flow in because of this is another matter.
According to Odaily, MSX announced that on November 2, 2026 (UTC+8), it launched DOCN (DigitalOcean) US stock token spot trading. My judgment is that this belongs to product supply expansion and is not enough to be considered a general positive for the crypto market. There are two reasons: the new listing only proves that there is a trading asset; the information does not provide data on user demand or new funds, so supply cannot be directly equated with demand; even if it attracts attention, that attention may only be for the corresponding US stock asset. If users are just switching to a new entry point to access US stock exposure, then I speculate this may not translate into demand for other crypto assets.
Of course, the bullish side might also be right. I won't deny the value of a new entry point just because I tend to be bearish. If later we see sustained usage, genuinely new users, and evidence that demand extends to other on-chain services, I will adjust my judgment. For now, I consider this a new listing and will not prematurely label it as an "incremental capital entry."On November 2, Goldman Sachs gave a figure: the probability of the Democrats winning the House majority exceeds 90%. The figure itself is not new; what is new is the timeline attached to it.
The spending authorization expires on December 11, and the debt ceiling for 2027 immediately becomes a legislative bargaining point. From now until the end of the year, the U.S. Treasury has to pass through two checkpoints. Goldman Sachs also expects that if the Democrats win, spending in 2027 will exceed about 0.25% of GDP — which sounds like fiscal expansion and is somewhat favorable to risk assets.
Looking at tariffs again. The report judges that after the Trump election, it is highly likely that the results of the Section 301 investigation will be announced and new tariffs imposed, with the effective tariff rate net increase slightly below 2 percentage points. The significance is often not in the tariff rate itself, but in that it brings inflation expectations back to the forefront, suppressing the pace of rate cuts.
The AI front is easily overlooked. Congress is focusing on AI regulation, and if the Democrats take either chamber, investigations into large tech companies are expected. When the risk premium on tech stocks moves, the correlation with $BTC and $ETH will return.
So $BTC is currently mixed with two different types of factors: fiscal expansion is the water, tariffs and regulation are the drain. They are in opposite directions and have different rhythms.
The market usually trades "who wins" first, then "what the winner will do." This time, the winner is almost priced in; the remaining space lies entirely in "how those two fiscal checkpoints after winning will be passed." High beta like $SOL will feel the switch first.If I were to write a strategy for $ZEC, I would set a rule: if the same address buys spot and opens leveraged long positions simultaneously, it should be put on a watchlist but not directly trigger a directional judgment. Newcomers learning quantitative trading should impose this restriction on themselves to avoid mistaking "big players taking action" for "the answer revealed" 🤖
According to PANews citing Lookonchain monitoring, whale t1JJnA bought 3,052 ZEC spot, worth $3.8 million; at the same time, established a corresponding 8,000 ZEC, worth $10.16 million, 2x leveraged long position.
My judgment is that this has more observational value than follow-up value for $ZEC. Spot buying indeed brings buying pressure and carries more information than a mere stance; however, since the spot and leveraged positions come from the same address, they cannot be treated as two independent bullish evidences, otherwise the strategy risks double counting.
The loophole in the rule is also obvious: leveraged positions are more constrained by price volatility, and if the market moves against the position, the pressure to reduce holdings may amplify volatility, which is my speculation. The data also does not fully disclose the entire position and hedging situation, so actions from a single address are insufficient to conclude a sector-wide strengthening.
Therefore, I prefer to observe whether there is continued accumulation or if there are reverse operations, rather than scoring signals based on the amount. If you were to write this condition, would you require "continuous accumulation" or "multiple independent addresses acting simultaneously" to upgrade it into an effective signal? $DOGE $BTC $ZEC
ZEC 1279, it is the red one in this sea of green today. On the same day, BTC spot ETF saw a net outflow of 203 million, ETH has been flowing out for five consecutive weeks, yet it still clings to the 24-hour high of 1284.
There was a quick news flash this morning that was scanned too fast: a certain whale opened a $10.16 million ZEC long position and also bought 3,052 coins spot. Contracts and spot moving together, this kind of move doesn't look like a rebound grab.
Contract open interest is $154 million, funding rate 0.01%, not crowded at all. If it were a sentiment-driven market, the rate would have soared long ago. The current structure is someone slowly adding positions.
My inclination is that it’s not over yet, but I won’t chase above 1280. Such liquidity can wash out half the positions with a single spike; I’ll see if anyone steps in around 1210 on the pullback. If no one holds, I’ll consider my judgment wrong.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ When I saw this message, my first reaction was to separate the two names and look at them individually. Both are called stablecoin shrinkage, but "shrinking together" VS "mainly one party shrinking" represent two different alarms to me; you can't treat the absence of sound as the same thing.
DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $298.5 billion, with a daily decrease of $463 million and a weekly decrease of $4.457 billion. Among them, USDT is about $179.3 billion, down $3 billion weekly; USDC is about $71.6 billion, down $55.95 million weekly.
My judgment: This is a bearish liquidity signal, but more attention should be paid to the capital changes related to USDT rather than labeling all stablecoins the same way. USDT accounts for about two-thirds of the network's net weekly decrease this time, with changes clearly concentrated on this side.
Looking at relative magnitude, USDT shrank about 1.7% weekly, while USDC less than 0.1%. The difference in scale means that just comparing the dollar amount reduced can be misleading; converting to percentages, the difference remains obvious. However, circulating supply only tells me the balance changed; it doesn't tell me the reason for redemption, nor can it be used to conclude that USDC absorbed the funds.
Therefore, I will use "concentrated shrinkage VS synchronized shrinkage" as a framework for further observation. If USDC also shows significant shrinkage next period, I will be more cautious about shrinkage spreading. Which side do you lean toward: is this mainly a change in USDT itself, or a prelude to a market-wide capital outflow? $ZEC 📅 November 2 · Shorts have stopped on BTC, while longs are bleeding on altcoins
🚨 $44.91 million liquidated across the entire network in the past 24 hours. The total number doesn't seem scary, but breaking it down is quite interesting.
BTC liquidations total $16.33 million, with shorts accounting for $9.86 million — shorts actively closed positions near 77,000 to take profits and secure gains. Ethereum is more balanced, with longs and shorts roughly equal.
But looking down at altcoins, the picture changes dramatically. SOL liquidations are $4.13 million, with longs making up 92%; ZEC liquidations are $3.25 million, with longs at 90%; DOGE longs account for 94%. When prices fall, altcoin longs don't even get a chance to escape.
BTC shorts already feel the drop is enough, while altcoin longs are still being pressed and bleeding. The same market, two completely different positions telling two different stories.
Are your positions the type where shorts have already stopped, or the type where longs are still bleeding? 🐷🐷🐷
@dylanyu88 $BTC $DOGE $ETH Observation: Today it rose a bit more than BTC but is stuck below the 200-day moving average at 2313
ETH is now at 2295, up 1.25% in 24 hours, while BTC only rose 0.81% in the same period, with a trading volume of $194 million
The intraday high reached 2317.98, but it was pushed back right after touching the 200-day EMA near 2313; above that is the 100-day EMA at 2353
This rebound is mainly due to funds flowing back after exchanges resumed ETH and stablecoin withdrawals, combined with short covering; spot buying has not clearly returned yet
At 11 PM tonight, the US October ISM Manufacturing PMI will be released, and on Wednesday there is the Treasury quarterly refinancing announcement; when long bond supply changes, risk assets all fluctuate accordingly
If it really falls back, the next decent support is around 1823, more than 20% away from the current price, and my position can't withstand such a distance. In this round of rally, the liquidations of BTC and ETH mainly came from shorts, while CORE showed a different liquidation structure. The original text interprets this as a concentrated clearing of short positions, but the data shows that the short-term performance of the three coins is not entirely consistent. BTC's short liquidations dominate across all time windows: 1h liquidations at 1.5358 million, with longs at 13,200 and shorts at 1.5226 million; 4h liquidations at 17.6064 million, with longs at 302,800 and shorts at 17.3035 million; 12h liquidations at 29.9581 million, with longs at 3.9635 million and shorts at 25.9946 million; 24h liquidations at 40.4321 million, with longs at 6.6956 million and shorts at 33.7366 million. ETH's 4h liquidations are 19.0564 million, with longs at 1.6293 million and shorts at 17.4271 million; 12h liquidations at 28.4396 million, with longs at 6.8881 million and shorts at 21.5515 million. The 1h window is the opposite, with liquidations at 294,400, longs at 200,800 and shorts at 93,600. The 24h liquidations are 34.8735 million, with no breakdown of long and short amounts in the original text. CORE's 1h liquidations are 2.3128 million, all longs, shorts at zero; 4h liquidations at 5,826.5, with longs at 3,882.78 and shorts at 1,943.72. It has both short liquidations and long pressure, with volatility resembling a two-way squeeze. My view: The data for BTC and ETH supports the judgment of concentrated short exits, but the liquidation scale only reflects the changes in leveraged positions that have already occurred,$ZEC $ZEC The ZEC community is actually proposing to shut down the development fund of over 300 million dollars early.
They want to directly split the granary and leave, so no one will maintain the code afterward.
This coin's consensus has always relied entirely on technological iteration, and the core team is clearly planning to withdraw now.
There are still funds stubbornly supporting the market.
The rice bowl is about to be smashed; buying at this position is purely paying for the exit fee.
#ZEC
$ZEC
👇$IMX
Gaming adoption in crypto is a different challenge from attracting DeFi traders. Players generally care about gameplay, ownership, transaction costs, and convenience rather than token narratives. Immutable focuses on blockchain infrastructure for gaming, positioning itself in a sector with considerable potential but demanding competition. Sustainable game launches and returning players matter more than temporary ecosystem excitement.$TRUMP A single 12% green candle, is it a reversal firework or a signal light for those exiting? With this kind of pulse, is your first reaction to chase or to see who's selling on the other side? I've been watching $TRUMP's rhythm these past two days, and it feels more like an "event repricing" rather than a trend start: after months of silence, it surged double digits within an hour, but don't forget it has already retraced over 97% from its high. The price is repairing sentiment, not valuation. RSI is already near 97, a reading that usually indicates short-term buying has been completely exhausted at once, and follow-up requires new funds to take over, rather than the same group repeatedly igniting it. The derivatives perspective is even more critical. Rapid rallies often come with a sharp increase in open interest and funding rates turning positive or even overheated, meaning longs are paying to maintain positions. Once spot buying can't keep up, and price stalls or slightly pulls back, high-leverage longs become the most vulnerable crowded trade, triggering forced deleveraging and forming a short-cycle structure of "pump—squeeze—giveback." The overall altcoin risk appetite will also be affected by this pulse, but the transmission is brief; the stability of BTC and ETH is the foundation determining whether this wave can spread. There is also a bullish path: if after the rally open interest moderately declines, funding rates return to neutral, and price holds the mid-range gains without breaking, it indicates turnover rather than pure speculation, and the narrative might regain some attention. But the potential risk is, how much of this rally has already been priced in? One green candle can't change the facts of long-term dilution and fading attention; chasing highs easily makes you the exit counterparty for others. My own rhythm Tomorrow is the U.S. midterm election, so I won't be adding positions this week.
According to the prediction market prices now, the Democrats have about a 94% to 95% chance of taking the House and around 72% for the Senate. If they really take both chambers, the crypto legislation will likely slow down.
My reasoning:
In September, the Senate voted on advancing the CLARITY Act, but it failed 49 to 50, with all the attending Democratic senators voting against it. If legislation continues to stall, the recently hyped compliance narrative will cool off.
Of course, the market has already priced in some of this. The Fear and Greed Index is currently at 37, so sentiment is already somewhat fearful; if the results come out as expected, the drop might not be as severe as imagined.
For ordinary people, don't bet on the election results to open leverage this week. Wait until the results are out and the direction is clear before making moves; it's not too late.
What do you think will happen to BTC when the election results come out—will it rise first or fall first?
#半导体板块集中抛售，韩国KOSPI跌超6%
(Personal opinion, not investment advice)
#BTC #美国中期选举I was wondering why $INTC dropped so much last Friday, turns out the big players were collectively running away.
Goldman Sachs data shows hedge funds have been net selling global AI stocks for 5 consecutive trading days,
returning all the AI positions bought since early 2025, which is a collective deleveraging, not much related to one or two earnings reports.
Last Friday, $INTC fell nearly 29% in a single day,
marking the worst day since 1974.
During such deleveraging, both good and bad stocks are sold together, who can hold on?
I won’t add to my $INTC for now, I’ll wait until they finish selling.😭$BTC continues to face pressure, with a clear divergence between capital flow and market trends. Recently, the price has repeatedly contested the $80,000 level, dipping multiple times near 79k or even lower, overall still in a recovery phase with about a 35% retracement from the October 2025 peak.
The Federal Reserve's maintained tight stance, high oil prices, capital siphoning effect in the AI sector, and risk-averse sentiment ahead of the midterm elections have led to insufficient price elasticity. However, capital flow and price show divergence.
Spot ETFs are not continuously experiencing net outflows; some trading days still record net inflows of hundreds of millions of dollars, but the scale and continuity are insufficient, mostly concentrated in leading products like IBIT, with limited contribution from others. On-chain and position data show that earlier basis arbitrage and macro fast money (some hedge funds and bank trading desks) have significantly reduced positions, CME asset management net longs and leveraged fund shorts have both been cut by more than half from their peaks, and open interest has noticeably contracted.
Meanwhile, wealth management platforms, sovereign funds, and long-term allocation players are absorbing chips, with large holders continuously increasing net positions. This "weak price, core capital intact" structure indicates that current selling pressure mainly comes from short-term and sentiment-driven sources rather than institutional systemic withdrawal. ETF capital flow tends to follow price rather than lead it, confirming the "buy high, sell low" characteristic. #BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧 In the futures market, when a major player runs into trouble, risk control usually traces down through the capital and collateral relationships, rather than just looking at how much the market has dropped. I see this message follows the same logic: investigating whether risks might spill over.
The Bank of Korea is currently investigating 31 financial institutions to understand how the closure of large cryptocurrency exchanges, prolonged market downturns, or losses suffered by other companies might impact their operations. The crypto market differs from traditional futures in that exchanges often also involve asset custody, so closures cannot be understood solely based on market fluctuations.
My judgment is that this issue is more important for financial institutions' risk management than for short-term sentiment: closures test the availability of funds, and prolonged downturns test the resilience for sustained operations; these two pressures should not be conflated. As for whether business will be tightened, I think that depends on the investigation results; we cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the central bank. For friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets, would you consider exchange closures or prolonged downturns as the more severe stress scenario?To start with the conclusion, Yun Jie is quite bullish. I am optimistic about SNDK, not just because of the AI concept, but because its fundamentals are undergoing substantial changes. First, the data center business is becoming a new growth engine, with related revenue reaching $4.8 billion this quarter, a 61% quarter-over-quarter increase, and shipment share rising from about 12% previously to 38%. As AI inference scales up and data storage demand continues to grow, SanDisk, as a pure NAND and SSD player, is expected to benefit continuously. Second, the company has signed long-term supply agreements with 8 customers, locking in part of the shipments for the coming years in advance. The contracts also include deposits and other financial guarantees, significantly improving the visibility of future revenue. Meanwhile, NAND prices are still expected to rise, enterprise-level SSD demand is especially strong, and industry capacity is unlikely to be quickly released in the short term. Additionally, SanDisk is sharing factory construction costs with Kioxia, keeping capital expenditure pressure relatively manageable; the BiCS series continues to upgrade, and HBF high-bandwidth flash memory is also being positioned for the AI inference market. The company has ample cash reserves, low debt pressure, and continues to repurchase shares, further enhancing its long-term competitiveness. If HBF is successfully commercialized in the future, it could open new growth opportunities, but there are still technical and market validation risks at present. Looking at the K-line, the stock price previously fell from $1421 to a low of $1117, then stabilized around $1150, and has now rebounded to $1194. A short-term recovery signal has appeared, with $1200–$1220 as a key resistance zone. If it breaks through with volume, it is likely to continue challenging higher levels If I were to write a strategy, I would set a rule: if the same address buys spot and opens leveraged long positions simultaneously, it should be added to a watchlist but not directly trigger a directional judgment. Newcomers learning quant should first impose a restriction on themselves to avoid mistaking "big players taking action" for "the answer revealed" 🤖
According to PANews citing Lookonchain monitoring, whale t1JJnA bought 3,052 ZEC spot, worth $3.8 million; at the same time, established a corresponding 8,000 ZEC, $10.16 million 2x leveraged long position.
My judgment is that this has more observational value for $ZEC than follow-up value. Spot buying indeed brings buying pressure and carries more information than a mere statement of intent; but since spot and leveraged positions come from the same address, they cannot be treated as two independent bullish evidences, otherwise the strategy risks double counting.
The loophole in the rule is also obvious: leveraged positions are more constrained by price volatility, and if the market moves against the position, the pressure to reduce holdings may amplify volatility—this is my speculation. The data also does not fully disclose the entire position and hedging situation, so actions from a single address are insufficient to conclude a sector-wide strengthening.
Therefore, I prefer to observe whether there is continued accumulation or any reverse operations afterward, rather than scoring signals based on amount size. If you were to write this condition, would you require "continuous accumulation" or "multiple independent addresses acting simultaneously" to upgrade it into an effective signal? #Palantir Earnings Preview: Can High Growth Support a High Valuation Can a true public chain also go to zero? CORE fell from 6.47 to 0.018, what is hidden behind the 99.7% crash?
As of November 2, CORE was priced at about $0.014, down more than 99% from its all-time high of about $6.14, with a market cap of only about $13.9 million, having fallen into the small-cap high-risk zone.
The crash of CORE is not simply due to a bear market drag. In March 2026, the ecological lending protocol Colend triggered a massive liquidation cascade, combined with a hard fork that temporarily unlinked some tokens from mining power, causing concentrated selling pressure and a single-day drop of over 50%. Since then, issues such as low ecological TVL, lack of hit applications, continuous token unlocking, and weak liquidity have continued to suppress rebounds.
Currently, CORE is still in a bearish trend and under technical pressure. If the BTCFi narrative fails to materialize, and buybacks and ecological implementation fall short of expectations, the price still faces downside risk. This serves as a reminder to all investors: no matter how attractive the public chain narrative is, it cannot withstand liquidity exhaustion and ecological hemorrhage.
Do you think CORE still has a chance to turn around? Share your judgment in the comments.$BTC is still under pressure, but the signals from capital and the market are no longer quite the same. The price keeps hovering around the 80,000 mark, and every rally is quickly pushed back down, looking weak with short-term bulls lacking confidence. The macro environment is indeed unfavorable: interest rate hike expectations persist, oil prices are high, AI stocks have absorbed a lot of risk appetite capital, and with the uncertainty before the elections, capital prefers to wait and see.
The divergence lies in the fact that not all money is running away. Some days, ETFs still see net inflows, though the scale is small and the continuity poor, and the price doesn't cooperate; but the real fast money (those doing basis trading and macro speculation) has basically withdrawn, with positions significantly reduced. What remains more are relatively stable allocation funds slowly stepping in. On-chain data also shows large holders increasing positions rather than selling off together. This indicates that the current pressure is more about short-term sentiment and leverage clearing, rather than a collective institutional sell-off.
In practice, this kind of divergence phase is most prone to whipsaws on both sides. Chasing longs can easily get shaken out, while chasing shorts might be suddenly hit by inflows pushing prices back up. It is recommended to control position sizes more tightly and focus on volume and ETF flow changes during key support tests, rather than rushing to bet on direction. Before macro events unfold, first observe whether capital is truly willing to continue buying at low levels, rather than just watching price movements. Patiently waiting for signals of divergence convergence is more reliable than guessing now. #BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧 Hmm, currently 50 companies have opposed ICE-OKX's tokenized stock plan, whereas a week ago, the number reported by Ajian was still 22. Keep in mind the original proposal only covered 62 companies in total. You see, the biggest resistance to tokenized stocks isn't the SEC that we always criticize, but rather the listed companies themselves. The larger the company, the more concerned they are that tokenized shares might bypass transfer agents, affect vote counting, and weaken the company's control over the shareholder register.
They're all a bunch of clever monkeys. The RWA path is still too difficult. At this stage, the expansion speed of tokenized stocks is no longer determined by "how many exchanges are doing it," but by how many companies are willing to be tokenized The license deadline has arrived. Among 150 to 200 Brazilian crypto companies, only about 40 have submitted applications.
The application deadline set by the Central Bank of Brazil for Virtual Asset Service Providers (VASP) was October 30. Those who have submitted can continue operating during the review period, while those who have not must orderly liquidate and exit within one month after the deadline. Starting November 6, banks will block transactions related to unlicensed crypto companies, directly cutting off their fiat currency channels, and the central bank's review period can last up to 2 years.
This is generally negative for local unlicensed platforms in Brazil. Fiat on/off ramps will concentrate among a few compliant players, benefiting leading exchanges, while small and medium platforms face clearance; the direct impact on BTC and other major coins is limited because local trading is mostly done through international platforms and OTC channels, but attention should be paid to slower and stricter local fiat on/off ramps.
Two scenarios to watch: first, which platforms can obtain licenses; second, after banks start blocking on November 6, whether OTC and P2P premiums will rise.
Are you more concerned about the license list or premium changes?
Source: PANews$BTC The Federal Reserve resumed rate hikes on September 16, and it has been 47 days since then. Surprisingly, BTC has been the best performer.
OKX Closing prices on the rate hike day → today at noon:
BTC +3.1%
S&P 500 +0.4%
Nasdaq 100 -1.6%
ETH -4.7%
Gold -8.9%
Silver -20.9%
The saying "Rate hikes = the end of crypto" did not come true this time. But don’t celebrate too early: BTC surged to 86,617 intraday before giving it all back. The closing price on the rate hike day was 76,201, almost the same as the October low of 76,265.
Now some officials are calling for "at least two more hikes," and CME FedWatch shows about a 70% chance of a rate hike in December. Most of the negative impact is already priced in. The real risk is an upside surprise: if this Friday’s nonfarm payrolls are strong, pushing the probability to 90%, the 76,200 level will be the true test.
The rate hike itself is not scary; what’s scary is hiking more than expected.
Not investment advice | Data sources: OKX, Federal Reserve, CME FedWatch #NonfarmIncoming, will December rate hike plans change? USDC only decreased by $55.95 million in one week, such a relatively small change makes it impossible for me to take "collective capital withdrawal" as a ready-made conclusion. In this set of data from DefiLlama, the total amount of stablecoins across the network declined, with USDT's contraction being more obvious, but $USDC did not show a change of the same scale.
I run a small company, and when I see this kind of report, I would first adjust the growth budget rather than immediately assume that all old customers have left. My judgment is: this news is somewhat negative for narratives relying on new capital to realize expectations, but the impact on the entire market cannot be generalized. The inconsistent changes among different stablecoins at least indicate that you cannot explain all capital behavior with a single total.
Doing business is about input and output; expansion depends on cash flow, not on imagined orders. If new capital continues to lag, then optimistic expectations supported by subsequent follow-up are even harder to realize, which is my speculation. But circulation volume is not a transaction ledger; whether existing funds are willing to trade and how frequently they trade is not revealed by this information.
I would treat this kind of data as a reminder to check risk reserves rather than immediately drawing conclusions. Having money on the books and being able to confidently expand investment are two different things; next, I want to see whether the contraction will shift from localized differences to a widespread phenomenon.Using prediction markets to gauge sentiment on Bitcoin, I always want to ask first: can this market depth handle the money? If the order book is thin, then a slight move by big players can change the odds, making it look like everyone suddenly changed their mind, but in reality, it might just be that few are willing to take the other side. When trading coins normally, if the depth is poor, you can switch to another trading pair, but for the same prediction event, there might not be alternatives elsewhere. The odds on the screen are quite clear, but when you really want to exit, is there still someone on the other side?$PEPE is hanging with a zero-cost PEPE worth twenty million dollars on its head.
No one dares to really push this market up.
The hacker has only sold 25% of that batch, the big chunk is still being watched closely above.
Any buying that tries to gather some funds for a rebound is immediately cashed out and drained.
In the face of absolute no-cost selling pressure, using moving averages to draw support levels is pure nonsense.
#PEPE
$PEPE
👇Google announced yesterday that satellites in orbit ran Gemma4 using TPU and even sent back a space haiku to the ground. Four TPUs, with a maximum power output of 1 kilowatt, can only fully power one at a time and run for just 20 minutes. Why send computing power to space? Is it still about electricity? The solar panels in orbit generate about 8 times the power compared to those on the ground. Miners on the ground are competing with AI for electricity, while data centers are already being deployed in space. It's truly mining in the sky #谷歌财报后股价大跌，AI投资回报受关注 $GOOGL To pour some cold water first, I don't directly take a sharp increase in open interest as bullish news. The $ZEC contract open interest rose from about $571 million to $662 million in 4 hours, an increase of 15.95%; during the same period, the price rose from $1241 to $1278. Even though both price and open interest increased, it cannot be directly concluded that bulls are controlling the market.
I am cautious for two reasons: open interest only indicates an increase in open contracts and cannot alone determine which side is stronger; the funding rate is 0.0047% per hour, which annualizes to about 42% at the current rate, meaning long positions have a cost. My speculation is that if buying pressure doesn't keep up, the added leverage might actually amplify the pullback rather than support the price.
Of course, those bullish might disagree. If subsequent trading volume continues to expand, the price stabilizes, and the funding rate cools down, I will reduce my bearish bias. Are you bullish or bearish on this increase in open interest? Share your reasons, especially how you view the relationship between open interest expansion and funding costs.Patricio Worthalter 10 小时前在链上抛售 2000 $ETH 换为 453 万枚 USDC，均价 $2269，随后他将 USDC 中转至 0x95A…C2C7f，即此前标记过的 ICO 远古巨鲸I always thought tokenized stocks were a benefit for retail investors, but it turns out the companies themselves were the first to block it.
By November 1st, 50 US-listed companies publicly opposed it, including Nvidia, Nike, and Costco. OKX teamed up with the NYSE parent company ICE to try it, covering over 60 companies, but before all votes were cast, the opposition had already piled up.
Later I realized: the companies don’t get a penny. Third parties package the stocks into tokens to sell, the platform earns fees, but the companies get no financing.
Being able to trade anytime doesn’t mean there’s always a buyer. Market makers are off duty when the market is closed, and when spreads widen, it can’t compare to the depth of something like $BTC.BITCOIN AND THE US MIDTERMS : WHAT HAPPENED LAST 3 TIMES
Midterms are Nov 3, Here is how $BTC behaved around 2014, 2018 and 2022 :
Q4 of the midterm year :
2014: ~-17%
2018: ~-42%
2022: ~-15%
The 12 months after the election :
2014: ~+24%
2018: ~+45%
2022: ~+92%
In each cycle, the major low came within 71 days of the vote
Three data points are not a pattern, and each cycle had its own driver (bear markets, FTX in 2022)
But traders will be watchingA recent strange phenomenon in the crypto space: projects are getting better at storytelling, while those that can actually show verifiable progress are less discussed. Tonight, let's talk about three coins I haven't covered before. ALGO is betting on "security in the quantum era." On October 27, Algorand officially reiterated its post-quantum cryptography roadmap: Falcon-1024 accounts entered the mainnet in August this year, but old accounts still need to migrate themselves. This is solid technical progress, but there is still a way to go before the entire network is fully quantum-resistant. Leading in technology does not mean ALGO will immediately rise. What caught my attention about APT is its supply. The official dashboard on November 1 showed about 170,000 APT burned in the past 30 days, while approximately 1.5 million were issued monthly through staking during the same period. Burning does exist, but it is still far from net deflation. Whether trading activity can boost burn volume is more important than slogans. ENA is exploring institutional funds. On October 29, the Ethena governance forum released an institutional lending framework, listing counterparty qualifications, collateral, and daily verification requirements; this indicates that expansion is starting to emphasize risk control. But no matter how good the system is, it cannot eliminate the risk of collateral price crashes and defaults. I like this kind of progress that can be checked item by item: ALGO looks at usage, APT looks at net issuance, ENA looks at risk exposure. Which path do you think is more likely to yield real value? #ALGO #APT #ENA Not investment advice. A matter that seems good for everyone has been jointly suppressed by 50 companies.
As of November 1, 50 US-listed companies publicly opposed the tokenization of their own stocks, including Nvidia, Nike, Costco, and Reddit. OKX's cooperation with ICE, the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, aims to cover more than 60 US companies. Both supply and demand exist, but the business cannot move forward.
The apparent logic is that all three parties win, but the third party's gains are illusory: when stocks are put on-chain, the listed companies do not receive a penny. Platforms package stocks into tokens and sell them, with fees going to the platform; financing does not benefit the company, and the company cannot control issuance or circulation. It's equivalent to others creating a market with your stocks that you cannot enter.
The conflict is not just about money. Token prices may deviate from traditional markets during market closures; the same company's stocks are scattered in multiple places, fragmenting liquidity; whether token holders count as shareholders and can vote remains undecided.
An easily overlooked judgment is: being able to trade 24 hours and being able to execute trades anytime are two different things. During market closures, market makers decrease and spreads widen; the depth like $BTC has been built over more than a decade.
But the demand is real. Binance disclosed on October 15 that the bStocks ecosystem of $BNB reached over $1 billion in scale within four months, with about 42% of trading occurring outside normal US stock market hours as of August 2026. The SEC only provides an innovation exemption, not a free pass.Four midterm elections, four major crashes, tonight it's the fifth time!
Americans vote tomorrow, but crypto veterans are watching not the election results tonight, but the calendar.
After the past four midterm elections, Bitcoin's drops were 72%, 65%, 52%, and 27%, each time less severe but never avoided; in the fourth quarter of election years, Bitcoin closed down three out of four times with declines of -16.7%, -42.2%, and -14.8%; the fastest bottom appeared 13 days after voting, the slowest took 71 days.
However, CoinDesk's data analysis gave a reversal: tech stocks don't have this problem, their bottoming times align perfectly with the halving cycle. So the real curse is most likely the cycle, with elections just being the punctual scapegoat every year.
This time the variable is institutions exiting first: on October 30, Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $643 million in one day, polls show Democrats leading 47% to 36%, and the bill's prospects remain uncertain.
The day before the election, the biggest gainer was TRUMP, rising 10% intraday—voters haven't cast ballots yet, but gamblers already have. The Fear & Greed Index is 37, the market has bled a bit but positions are holding at the door.
BTC is now at $78,300, just climbed back from $76,300. I only watch one line: $73,000, the average cost of short-term holders. Hold above it, and this year's script rewrites; break below, don't rush to sell, survive the election week first.
$BTC #中期选举btc
In terms of capital flow, institutional funds have shown a significant withdrawal. The US spot BTC ETF had a net inflow of about $441 million over four consecutive trading days from October 26 to 29, but on October 30, it suddenly turned into a net outflow of about $643 million, with a significant expansion in single-day outflow scale. Among them, BlackRock IBIT outflowed about $234 million, Fidelity FBTC outflowed about $201 million, and ARKB outflowed about $130 million. The buying power accumulated from continuous inflows was basically interrupted by a one-time shock. It is worth noting that the ETF fund outflow occurred in the same time window as the Binance security incident, indicating that institutional funds currently prefer to reduce risk exposure rather than buy the dip.
From a technical perspective, BTC is currently in a narrow range around $77,000. On November 1, the price was about $77,725, with an intraday high-low fluctuation of only about $656, which is a relatively low volatility level recently. This trend indicates that bulls and bears are temporarily in balance, but after a rapid decline, low volatility does not necessarily mean the bottom has been formed; rather, it may be waiting for new news to stimulate. In the short term, focus on the support around $76,300; if it breaks down effectively, it may further test $75,000. On the upside, pay attention to the resistance area between $78,000 and $80,000. Only by stabilizing above $80,000 again can the short-term structure be initially improved. $BTC price broke below the trendline, the rebound did not create a new high, and it broke below the secondary high's low point again, which aligns with Dow Theory's 123 rule. A double divergence appeared on the 15-minute chart, indicating insufficient bullish momentum. The bullish positions below show that bulls exerted the greatest effort at the highest point but failed to produce results—effort without effect. This indicates that bears have taken short-term control of the market. Finally, a 15-minute candlestick closed below 78444, confirming the bears' entry. Stop loss is set at the previous high, and there are two take-profit levels: the first at the low point of this short-term trend, and the second at the daily 120 EMA. The final risk-reward ratio is about 3.5. The market may not always follow expectations, so be ready to take profits early on short positions.The U.S. midterm elections are coming!
Prediction markets show the Democrats have about a 93% chance of taking the House, around 70% for the Senate, and about a 70% chance of sweeping both chambers.
Three things related to the crypto space:
First, the CLARITY Act failed in the Senate on September 15, and with Congress changing hands, the legislative pace will likely be reset;
Second, the market worries that the U.S. might take action against Iran again after the election, which would push oil prices up and raise expectations for interest rate hikes;
Third, prediction markets Kalshi and Polymarket both hit record trading volumes in October, and election week will only get crazier.
On top of that, some voices at the Fed are calling for rate hikes,
Binance was hacked last week,
and this week $BTC is caught between politics, interest rates, and negative news, so it might be a bit difficult for it to have an independent rally.$FIL
Decentralized storage has a compelling proposition, but convincing customers to move beyond traditional cloud providers is not an easy task. Filecoin's long-term opportunity depends on practical storage demand, retrieval performance, pricing competitiveness, and reliable service providers. The technology addresses a genuine infrastructure challenge. However, sustainable customer activity will be a more meaningful indicator than network capacity alone.