Orbit Post Sitemap
12,500 $ZEC long positions, many people would interpret this as a whale betting on a relay rally. This address had just closed a SOL short position earlier.
On the other hand, I think it's too early to treat this as a rotation signal. Closing a short position means removing bearish bets, but it doesn't mean funds have exited SOL; a new long position only represents one account, so it doesn't imply that market buying will follow.
If you believe in rotation, would you look for more addresses moving in the same direction, or changes in trading volume? Opposing views are welcome for debate.ETH
Long near 2290
Take profit at 2310
Stop loss at 2270
Short near 2325
Take profit at 2305
Stop loss at 2345
After the 30-minute downtrend divergence, there are three scenarios: ① expansion and extension around the last pivot, ② a larger consolidation at this or a higher level, ③ a counter-trend at this or a higher level. Regardless of the scenario, the internal movement must start from a smaller level. Currently, a three-buy has formed on the 5-minute chart. Focus on the upper edge of the 5-minute pivot at 2330; a breakout indicates scenario ③, while failure to break through indicates scenario ① Recently, some people asked me if old coins are still worth watching
$LTC's payment narrative is a bit old, but its market cap is stable, don't expect it to surge every day
$UNI I occasionally check governance and fee matters, don't just focus on TVL
$FIL has a big storage story, but how it actually performs still needs to be verified slowly
My own approach is to first ask how long I can hold
If I can't hold, I play with a small position
Buy in batches, don't go all in at once
Don't chase when it rises, don't rush to top up when it falls
Set a reminder, check groups less
The busier the group, the more cautious I am
Don't leverage when losing money, don't think you're too awesome when making money
Being able to stay in the game long-term is the real skill #非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？
#加密行业协同守护资产安全
#美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 In this message, what I noticed is the simultaneous presence of sentiment improvement and "still in panic" 👀 alternative.me's Fear & Greed Index today is 37, up 3 points from 34 the previous day; meanwhile, $BTC is reported at $78,326, up 0.81% in 24 hours.
This is somewhat interesting, but I think for small-cap coins it's more like a sentiment probe and can't yet be considered a general positive. The index is still in the panic zone, indicating risk appetite remains weak; Bitcoin's slight rise also doesn't prove that funds are willing to bear the volatility of small-cap coins. If sentiment continues to improve, high-volatility assets might amplify elasticity, which is my speculation; conversely, insufficient support can also easily amplify drawdowns.
I treat the index as background and focus on observing whether related sectors have sustained trading and whether the heat is concentrated only around a few targets, rather than labeling the entire sector based on a single reading. What sectors have you all been paying attention to recently? Under this kind of panic reading, what signals would you look for to judge if it truly has heat?BTC has returned above $78,000, and I am more concerned about whether this rebound can hold.
On November 2nd, Reuters reported that BTC returned above $78,000 after weekend recovery. The same report mentioned that after Binance resumed withdrawals, there was a net outflow of about $3.64 billion, with the platform stating that withdrawal volumes are stabilizing.
My judgment is: the price has rebounded first, but market confidence still needs time to recover. Funds flowing out of exchanges cannot be directly equated with selling coins; mentioning personal wallets and transfers to other platforms carries different implications, so conclusions cannot be drawn from just one number.
Next, I will use $78,000 as a short-term observation threshold and $80,000 as the upper round number resistance; both levels require confirmation from price action. If the price holds near $78,000 on a pullback and then pushes higher, the recovery will be more sustainable; if it falls back below and fails to reclaim that level for a long time, my short-term recovery judgment will be invalid.
At this point, chasing a single bullish candle is betting on continued positive sentiment. I prefer to wait for support after a pullback and place confirmation before impulse.BTC has rebounded above $78,000, ETH once touched $2,300, and overall market sentiment has somewhat recovered. The market warming has caused some of the profits from previous trend-following short positions to be given back; the unrealized gains on ETH and BTC shorts have narrowed simultaneously, but there remains a safe distance between the opening average price and the mark price, so structurally it has not fallen into a passive state. What really needs to be examined separately is BNB: the platform token has clearly underperformed the market after the Binance security incident, with its price falling back to around 718, less than 3% away from the estimated forced liquidation price of long positions, and BNB is facing a critical support test near $705. Binance has confirmed that core assets including BTC, ETH, BNB, and XRP all have 100% full reserve backing, with a complete reserve proof expected to be generated on November 3. The speed of reserve replenishment is not slow, but BNB's price action indicates that the market's risk pricing for the platform has not been simultaneously restored. #BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧 Siphoning scale — The U.S. population accounts for only 4% of the global total, yet it controls about 50% of the global stock market capitalization and nearly 40% of the bond market share. Foreign investors have over $20 trillion exposure to U.S. stocks, with a record high net capital inflow of $884 billion in a single year. The data shows a typical "top-heavy, bottom-light" pattern.
Siphoning drivers — Two major engines drive this: first, the AI technology narrative; the "Seven Sisters" monopoly expectations attract 65% of global risk equity financing flows to the U.S. On the morning of November 2nd, oil prices plunged. Brent crude fell 1.59%, closing at $111.62. The reason sounds peaceful: Iran agreed to Qatar-mediated "two-day plan"—the first day the US complies, the second day the Strait of Hormuz reopens.
But on the same day, the US warned its Gulf allies: as early as November 4th, the day after the midterm elections, a new round of strikes against Iran could be launched. Netanyahu urged Trump over the phone to "immediately resume the war."
The market is pricing in peace. The military is preparing for war. Between them lies just one midterm election.
What is most people’s baseline scenario now? Post-election strikes.
Polymarket’s odds are straightforward: an 84.5% chance of no strike before November 3rd, but only a 23.5% chance of no strike before the end of the year. The market believes Trump has just pulled the trigger after the election.
This premium is embedded in oil prices. Brent is still above $116, while JPMorgan’s model calculates a "fair price" of $94. The $20+ difference is the war risk premium. BTC also reflects this discount: down 27% from its 52-week high, barely holding around 78,000, with a fear and greed index of only 34.
The consensus is very uniform. Uniform enough to be unsettling.
But the "two-day plan" is not a final ultimatum.
Iran’s list of conditions—unfreezing funds, lifting sanctions, oil export exemptions, ending regional wars—sounds harsh. But note one detail: this was originally a "seven-day plan," compressed to "two days" after Qatar’s mediation.
From seven days to two days, it’s not an escalation but a probe for a deal range.
Moreover, Trump himself said he does not want Israel to interfere with the negotiations, "let the talks fully unfold." Someone truly eager to fight wouldn’t publicly restrain an ally before the election.
The core structure of the "two-day plan" is verifiable: what the US does on day one, whether the strait opens on day two. This is not a statement demanding the other side surrender first; it is a sequential offer.
If the offer is accepted, how will assets move?
First layer: oil prices give back the premium. The war risk premium is not the "intrinsic value" of oil; it is a pricing of fear. Once the path to reopening the Strait of Hormuz becomes credible, Brent swinging back from 116 toward 94 is not a crash but a return.
Second layer: inflation expectations cool down. Oil prices are the most sensitive input to inflation. The logic chain in recent months has been: high oil prices → sticky inflation → Fed forced to hike → BTC and growth stocks under pressure. Reversing this chain means oil prices fall → inflation expectations ease → rate pressure lessens.
Third layer: the "geopolitical discount" on risk assets repairs. BTC’s current position is not pricing "digital gold safe haven," but pricing the dual suppression of "liquidity tightening + geopolitical fear." When this suppression lifts, prices don’t need new narratives, just the disappearance of old pressure.
BTC is consolidating around 78,000, with upward resistance at 84,000-85,000, which requires far less energy than breaking down below 74,000 again. Because the downward space has already been consumed by fear in advance, while the upward space is not yet priced by anyone.
What are those empty-handed waiting for a drop waiting for?
They are waiting for the "post-election strike" scenario, which has already been priced in with an 84.5% probability. If it really happens, you may not be able to calmly buy at a lower price than now, because that scenario is already in the price.
But what if after November 3rd, what comes is not missiles but a statement of US compliance?
The probability of "no strike before year-end" on Polymarket is only 23.5%. This means the peace path is an underdog in the odds. Underdog doesn’t mean it won’t happen, but that most people have no position if it does.
You don’t need to bet on peace landing now.
But you need to ask yourself: if you wake up on the morning of November 4th and the headline is "Hormuz reopens," is your first reaction to chase or to keep waiting for a pullback?
If you would chase that morning, then the current 78,000 level is your entry point to chase high, several thousand dollars lower than others.
When the market prices war, peace is the biggest expectation gap.
Not to make you bet on peace. To make you not mistake "consensus" for "certainty." Consensus is already priced in. The expectation gap is not.
$BTC $XAU $BZ SOL's funding rate is 0.0013% per hour, which actually makes me uneasy. To pour some cold water first: the coin price is still falling, yet the bulls still have to pay fees; this is not what I see as a confirmation of a rebound. As for the rest of the market in one sentence: BTC and ETH are slightly up, contract prices are mixed, and sentiment remains in the panic zone. My bearish stance is not on the entire market, but on the expectation that "when mainstream coins rise, other coins will follow."
I care about two points. First, a positive funding rate only means that the current bulls are paying the bears; it does not mean that spot buyers are willing to support the price. Treating it as a bullish vote can easily lead to misreading. Second, if SOL continues to weaken, then bulls will have to bear both price pullbacks and holding costs simultaneously. This is my risk assessment, not a statement that liquidation is imminent. Looking only at this funding rate, I wouldn't insist that leverage is overheated yet, but the price and fee direction being at odds is enough to make me raise a question.
Of course, bulls might also be right. If SOL can stop falling and then rise without a significant increase in the funding rate, I would be more willing to believe in the buying power rather than continue to explain everything as a "rebound trap." I tend to look for loopholes first but also allow the market to refute me. Regarding this combination of "price falling, funding rate positive" for SOL, are you bullish or bearish? Share your reasons: do you think this is a bottoming before support, or are the bulls still holding on stubbornly?The BTCPay Server hot wallet has encountered an issue. The official account issued an alert on X, advising all instance operators to immediately shut down their servers and wait for the investigation to conclude before going back online. The official statement said, "Reports have been received that the hot wallets of multiple instances are being emptied by unauthorized attackers." However, the alert did not specify the affected versions, did not provide confirmed loss amounts, nor released a patch. The shutdown order applies across all versions indiscriminately. This "shut down first, investigate later" approach itself signals that until the attack vector is understood, it is impossible to determine which configurations are safe. The reason BTCPay's hot wallet is central to this incident is directly related to its design. The hot wallet feature stores the seed on the server and uses it to sign transactions locally without requiring external hardware devices. The advantage is automation and convenience, but the cost is that if the server is compromised, the seed is exposed and funds can be directly stolen. BTCPay itself is self-hosted software; whether to shut down and when is ultimately decided by each server operator, with the official only able to advise. This also means the scope of this security incident largely depends on how quickly operators respond to the alert. There is a timeline worth highlighting. On October 29, BTCPay Server released emergency update 2.4.7, fixing a critical vulnerability and several medium-risk vulnerabilities. Then from November 1 to 2, reports of hot wallet theft began to appear. The official has not stated whether this incident is related to 10Capital Tide Reversal: All Three Major ETF Types Turn Positive Simultaneously—Is It Genuine Stabilization or a False Move?
This morning, I reviewed the ETF data. BTC had a net inflow of 40.8 million yesterday, ending a streak of continuous outflows. The market price is 78,529, with the ETF buying cost zone around 78,425, basically at break-even.
My trading framework is straightforward:
🔹 $BTC: 85,000 is the "falsification line" for this rebound. If it breaks above with volume, it's not too late to follow on the right side; if it doesn't, the 78,000-79,000 range will be a frustrating consolidation zone, so no chasing highs.
🔹 $ETH: At a price of 2,296, capital inflow is a good sign, but a 680 million net outflow over 30 days means there are many positions to be freed near 2,500 above. If it can't break 2,500, treat it as range-bound consolidation without a clear pattern.
🔹 $SOL: Around 95 is the most awkward. Before breaking 110, all rebounds should be treated as "bull traps" and not chased lightly.
At this stage, missing out won't lose money; chasing highs will. Wait for the interest rate decision to land, and the direction will naturally become clear.
The above is only my personal trading thought record and does not constitute investment advice.
#闪迪业绩超预期并宣布拆股，股价跌逾13%
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？
#Meta信用展望转负，AI投资信用风险受关注 Within the same 48 hours, Iran talks about "opening," while Israel prepares for "war."
And the BTC in your hands is pricing in two completely opposite outcomes simultaneously.
Iran has presented a "two-day plan"
On November 1, Iranian Foreign Minister Araghchi made it very clear: on the first day, the US complies; on the second day, the Strait of Hormuz opens, and traffic returns to normal.
A long list of conditions was laid out: new shipping routes, unfrozen funds, end of the Lebanon war, lifting of maritime blockades, oil export exemptions, removal of new sanctions.
To translate: whether the strait opens or not depends not on Iran, but on whether the US acts on the first day.
Iran has kicked the ball to Washington.
Israel’s clock is running on a different timeline
On the same day, The Jerusalem Post reported: the Israeli military is ready to join forces with the US to strike Iran, just waiting for Trump’s nod after the November 3 midterm elections.
Netanyahu’s calculation is straightforward: once the elections end, immediately resume the war with Iran.
Over the past week, more than 10 US military transport planes have landed at bases in southern Israel. Air defense systems and interceptors are being deployed to the area.
On one side is "opening on the second day," on the other is "war after the elections." Two countdowns running simultaneously.
The market’s reaction is more honest than you
On November 2 at market open, oil prices plunged. Brent crude fell 1.59% to $111.62; US crude dropped 1.73%.
Gold returned to $3,900, rising nearly $20 intraday.
Bitcoin stood at $78,000 but only rose 0.7% intraday.
It rose, but very restrained.
This is not the behavior of "confirmed positive news." If the market truly believed the strait would open, oil wouldn’t fall just 1.59%, and BTC wouldn’t rise only 0.7%.
The market is pricing in "cautious optimism" about the negotiations, not "confirmed optimism."
More painful data lies in sentiment
The Crypto Fear & Greed Index was 34 yesterday, 37 today, still stuck in the "fear" zone.
BTC stands at 78,000, yet sentiment remains fearful.
What does this mean? It means no one dares to heavily bet on either side at this point.
Those betting on the strait opening fear Israel’s bombs. Those betting on war escalation fear negotiations suddenly succeeding.
Both sides are afraid, so neither dares to go all in.
One overlooked detail
While negotiations advance, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard announced: two oil tankers struck mines and exploded unauthorized while passing through the Strait of Hormuz, one of which was a supertanker.
The strait is no longer a binary choice of "open" or "closed." It is a gray zone where a spark could ignite at any moment.
At the negotiation table, they talk about "opening on the second day," while oil tankers explode at sea. Both happen simultaneously without contradiction.
So what exactly is being traded now?
Not "peace," nor "war."
It’s trading "uncertainty itself."
Oil prices fall because Iran offered a plan. Gold rises because Israel hasn’t withdrawn. BTC rises slightly because liquidity remains but no one dares to chase.
Three assets, three pricing, the same paradox.
The Strait of Hormuz is now the world’s largest Schrödinger’s switch—both open and closed before you open the news.
Iran says open on the second day, Israel says war after the elections, tankers explode in the strait.
BTC at 78,000 is not pricing in opening, nor war. It’s pricing in "you don’t know which one you’ll wake up to tomorrow."
$BTC $XAU $BZ Nonfarm payrolls will be released this Friday at 21:30, and the knife for the December rate hike is already at the neck.
According to the latest CME data, the probability of a 25 basis point rate hike in December is 72%, while the chance of no change is only 28%.
September's nonfarm payrolls only increased by 29,000, which is pitifully weak. The market now expects a rebound to 65,000 in October, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.2%.
Why is this data so crucial❓ It is the first and most significant employment report before the December 9 FOMC meeting.
September CPI has already returned to 3.7%. Inflation hasn't come down, and if employment signals "a strong economy" again, it would be hard to argue against a Fed rate hike in December.
But strong employment doesn't necessarily mean a rate hike will happen, and weak employment doesn't necessarily mean $BTC will rise.
If U.S. Treasury yields and the dollar both push higher, $BTC will come under pressure. Conversely, if the data disappoints with only 30,000 to 40,000 jobs added, that is a short-term positive, but if it’s weak enough to make the market start pricing in a recession, $BTC will still weaken.
In the few minutes after the data release, the main players will likely use the news to spike the market and blow out those who have already taken positions early. Don't become cannon fodder under that spike.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ "Profit wiped out, digging a golden pit? The true bottom colors of ETH/SOL/OKB"
This market sell-off has completely erased the profits of $ETH holders. But remember: this is often not the start of a crash, but the final clearing of profit-taking.
$ETH: The high Beta abandoned by institutions
Currently holding firm at 2200, capped tightly by the 20-day moving average (2424) and negative MACD. The key indicator NUPL is close to breakeven, a typical bottom zone signal. But don’t rush to buy; it must strongly reclaim 2300 for the signal to truly take effect.
$SOL: Digging a golden pit, waiting for the wind
Price is stuck at the lower edge of the November range between 90-125. The good news is SkyAI treasury has fully liquidated, removing the looming selling pressure; Alpenglow has upgraded to live evaluation. More hardcore is that on-chain active addresses reached 1.88 million, hitting a new high. This shows the drop is purely macro-driven, fundamentals remain intact. As long as risk appetite recovers, it will be the strongest rebound candidate.
$OKB: Volume collapse, the most awkward position
This is currently the most painful asset. 24-hour trading volume is only 3.11 million, just 0.35 times the 7-day average, the worst in the pool. Position-wise, the 7-day moving average (110.86) is right below, while the 20-day, 30-day, and 60-day moving averages are all pressing down overhead. Although the 7-day gain is +2.91%, that is all from last week’s accumulated capital; no profit was made this week.
Summary:
ETH is seeing profit-taking clearance and right-side stabilization, SOL’s fundamentals are resilient while waiting for the wind.Monday Asian Session: BTC Rebounds but Funds Hesitate, Platform Tokens and Altcoins Face Their Own Challenges
On Monday morning in Asia, $BTC rebounded from $76,300 to $78,145, with futures rising 1.5% in sync. After Binance reopened withdrawals, a net outflow of $3.64 billion occurred, yet the market did not experience panic selling, indicating decent support. The key lies in whether Asian funds will continue to follow through at the $78,000 level; clues will emerge in the first half of today.
$OKB is quoted at $111, declining for three consecutive days (down from $113.69). News of OKX collaborating with ICE and Trade.xyz to advance perpetual contracts failed to boost sentiment. Platform tokens are moving independently of BTC, but the Binance incident has dragged down the entire exchange sector.
$RE is at $0.37, an on-chain insurance protocol with daily trading volume of only $530,000, showing the weakest liquidity. The Binance hack should have been positive for the on-chain insurance narrative, but funds completely reject it, indicating extremely low risk appetite for small and mid-cap projects.
$WLD is at $0.42, with World App user growth not translating into token price gains. Unresolved bioinformatics privacy regulations distinguish it from pure concept altcoins—it has a real user base, but policy risks suppress its valuation.
Overall, the rebound has support but lacks willingness to chase higher. Platform tokens and altcoins are each trapped by their own independent logics, making it difficult to form a combined momentum in the short term.
This article is for market analysis only and does not constitute investment advice.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ Calculating, the difference between the longest and shortest waiting times is 58 days. This margin of error makes it difficult for me to consider it a precise signal in practical judgment. My first reaction after reading is: the election date is very clear, but the bottom may not have the same scale.
① According to PANews quoting Coin Bureau's analysis, the bottoms of Bitcoin's past three cycles all appeared shortly after the US midterm elections, with a 71-day gap in 2014. This provides an observational coordinate, but "happening afterward" does not explain why the bottom forms.
② The interval in 2018 was 39 days, 32 days shorter than in 2014. Quantifying from another angle, the same direction does not equal a stable rhythm. Using a fixed waiting period, I think the basis is insufficient.
③ The interval in 2022 further shortened to 13 days, with only three samples listed in the material. I am more concerned whether the sample size is enough to support the inference; if the continued shortening is just a coincidence, then using this clue to set expectations easily leads to overemphasizing the calendar.
The analysis mentions the next midterm election on November 3 and lists late 2026 to early 2027 as a possible bottom window. My judgment is: this information is useful for observing rhythm but overestimates the weight for confirming the bottom. I will first note the window and then check whether the market performance at that time supports it, without prematurely endorsing historical patterns.Boss Eleven's Positions｜
This is a complex contract portfolio with both long and short hedging, simultaneously holding short positions, small-cap long positions, and high-leverage trial long positions, with clear profit and loss differentiation, using profitable positions to hedge losing ones.
First group of short positions
1. $BTC full short position
Opening average price 75272.5, current mark price 77854.6, unrealized loss 21173.84U, return rate -10.29%. BTC price is rising, short position is trapped. Maintenance margin ratio is 326.23%, no immediate liquidation risk, but if BTC continues to rise, unrealized loss will keep expanding.
2. $SOL full short position
Opening average price 111.34, current price 94.32, unrealized profit 49332.97U, return rate +45.83%. This is the profit core of the entire account. SOL continues to weaken, shorts realize large profits, which are used to cover losses from BTC short positions.
Second group of long positions
1. SKHYNIXUSDT full 10x long
Opening average price 1074.1, current price 1060.4, unrealized loss 30312.52U, return rate -12.82%. Small-cap long position is trapped, 10x leverage, concentrated chips, highly volatile market; if it continues to fall, losses will further increase.
2. BTCUSDT full 30x long
0.01 BTC very small position testing long, unrealized profit 4.47U, return rate +17.34%. Position size is very small, a trial order for short-term rebound speculation, but 30x high leverage carries very high risk in volatile spikes.
3. $ETH full 30x long
1 ETH position, unrealized profit 48.36U, return rate +65.49%, also a small position high-leverage long for quick short-term gains.
Overall market logic and risk breakdown
Overall strategy: mainly short positions paired with long positions for hedging, profits and losses offset each other.
Account status: Profits from $SOL shorts cover losses from $BTC shorts and hedge unrealized losses from SKHYNIX small-cap longs. Small BTC and $ETH high-leverage longs aim for short-term rebound profits.
Core risks:
1. Coin trend divergence risk: If BTC keeps rising, BTC short losses increase; if $SOL bottoms and rebounds, large unrealized profits on $SOL will quickly evaporate, negating the hedge and causing dual losses.
2. Small-cap coin risk: SKHYNIX is a niche coin with poor liquidity, prone to sharp drops and spikes; 10x leverage bears heavy drawdown pressure.
3. Ultra-high leverage risk: 30x full long positions on BTC and $ETH, though small in size, are highly vulnerable to liquidation from brief spikes.
The current market is in a squeeze oscillation pattern, with heavy liquidation chips stacked both up and down, frequent stop-loss sweeps are normal. This long-short hedge is not risk-free, it just splits one-sided risk into a two-way market game.
Operation reference: Prioritize locking in partial profits on $SOL shorts to protect account gains; prepare to add to or stop loss on $BTC shorts; set strict stop loss on SKHYNIX small-cap longs to control drawdown.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？
#加密行业协同守护资产安全
#美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 $UNI constantly boasting about UNI buyback and burn
Who has actually done the math that it actually increases net supply by 8 million tokens annually
The burn is purely for show to appease retail investors
The most absurd thing is the current contract market
The long-short ratio has been forced up to 2.48
Positions keep piling up
All are leveraged longs throwing money in
The load is too heavy
If the market softens even a little
These long positions will immediately stampede and become easy prey
#UNI
$UNI
👇I prefer to treat the “post-midterm election bottom” as an observation calendar rather than a bottom-fishing alarm. Odaily cited Coin Bureau's analysis: Bitcoin's bottoms in the past three cycles appeared after the U.S. midterm elections—71 days in 2014, 39 days in 2018, and 13 days in 2022; if the pattern repeats, the next window might be from the end of 2026 to early 2027.
The greatest value of this information to me is to remind myself to pay attention to the time window, rather than believing the bottom has already been pre-booked. Three samples can provide clues but cannot support the causal judgment that “the market should bottom right after the election ends.”
Moreover, the intervals of 71 days, 39 days, and 13 days seem to be decreasing, which easily tempts one to find a pattern. But the intervals themselves are unstable, and compressing them into a precise date actually goes further than the original analysis.
I would also ask: what exactly did the election change? If policy expectations, funding environment, and market selling pressure do not improve simultaneously, then simply flipping the calendar page may not support the price. This is my speculation and historical coincidences cannot replace current evidence.
For ordinary players, this kind of analysis is suitable to add to the observation list but not to be the sole basis. When this window arrives, will you value historical cycles more, or changes in funding environment and selling pressure? What signals would make you change your judgment?Coinbase Bitcoin ($BTC) premium index dropped to -0.2037 on October 31, with a premium gap of -158 and a Z-score of -2.76. The negative premium signal suggests a weakening spot buying demand on Coinbase. Meanwhile, Binance BTC funding rate rose to 0.0100, up 123.6% compared to 30 days ago, but open interest contracts only slightly declined, indicating that leveraged trading remains active. On the macro level, US GDP and PCE data recorded 3.40% and 3.65%, respectively. The correlation coefficient between Bitcoin and the US Dollar Index (DXY) over the past 90 trading sessions is only -0.27, indicating weak correlation; it should be used only as background reference and not directly as a trading signal. Some market views speculate that Bitcoin's drop from 80,800 on October 27 to 77,900 on October 29 may be a reaction to this batch of macro data. Note the data boundaries: on-chain data is up to October 31, macro data up to October 29. This analysis does not include net flow or stablecoin-related series, so the signals have limitations and should not be solely relied upon to determine future direction. $XPL
16 wallets collectively withdrew their margin before the flash crash. That's what the investigation states; Hyperliquid's HLP passively took over XPL's long positions, losing $556,000.
XPL dropped from 0.0825 to 0.069, now at 0.071, down 14% in one day. There are still $10.5 million in contract positions open, not yet closed.
This kind of situation is not new. It's not the market falling on its own; someone first pulled out the safety cushion, forcing the market maker's treasury to cover. The treasury's losses are ultimately shared by the pool participants.
Don't think it's cheap just because it dropped 14%. The cushion withdrawn hasn't returned yet, so I won't catch the fall. The most costly in these scenarios is never that $556,000, but the people who follow and bottom-fish later. I used to be that person.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $SKHYNIX waited for a pullback to enter a long position; I didn't buy at the lowest point, but the position is still acceptable.
This morning, watching $SKHYNIX, I saw it surge straight up. Honestly, I felt a sudden impulse to chase in at market price. But after the fear of being "spiked" a few days ago, I forced myself to hold back and told myself: chasing highs ruins three generations, waiting for pullbacks enriches a lifetime.
By 9:30, the Korean stock market opened low but rose strongly, and the A-share market also gained strength. The logic finally became clear:
1. Macro sentiment resonance
I glanced at the Korean market; although it opened low, it quickly showed a strong "low open, high close" pattern. As a semiconductor leader, the stabilization of the Korean market directly gave strong confidence to the Hynix token.
2. Technical pullback confirmation
Switching to the 15-minute chart, the price indeed pulled back after a sharp rise, just touching the EMA21 support band (around 1072). I didn't hesitate and decisively opened a long at 1075.9.
3. Optimal risk-reward ratio
· Entry: 1075.9 (pullback to moving average support).
· Stop loss: 1067.3 (below EMA55; breaking this means the logic fails, with minimal loss).
· Take profit: first target at previous high 1097, with a risk-reward ratio as high as 1:3.
Current position:
Unrealized profit +32.54% (about 80U). But since the 15-minute STOCHRSI is already high, I am prepared to defend. If it hits resistance at the previous high, I will decisively close part of the position to lock in profits; if it breaks through strongly, I will trail the stop loss accordingly.
A painful lesson:
My previous liquidations were all due to "FOMO chasing highs" and "holding heavy positions stubbornly." This trade had no chasing, no emotion, only logic and patience. In trading, slow is fast.
What do you all think? Can Hynix ride the Korean market's tailwind to break the previous high and keep flying? Feel free to discuss in the comments! $UNI Binance has been forced to become the biggest bull of this UNI wave, which is quite ridiculous.
Over 7 million UNI were stolen, a hole of more than 40 million dollars, so they have to reluctantly replenish it slowly in the spot market. This rigid buyback demand of several million tokens directly welded the bottom around $6.8.
The daily chart closed bullish at this point, and holding on hard is useless. Plus, various funds are moving to DEX, and the fees are being sent to TokenJar for burning. The fundamental base and capital flow are both pushing upwards, so the current market is clearly a losing battle to go down.
#UNI
$UNI
👇$BTC
Hougan from Bitwise said the $6.3 billion theft won't change Bitcoin's long-term trend. I agree with that half. The long-term indeed doesn't change, but the short-term changes who holds the chips.
The market gives a pretty straightforward answer. After withdrawals resumed, there was a net outflow of $3.64 billion in 9.5 hours, BTC's low only touched 77,600, now at 78,524, which is even 1% higher than 24 hours ago. If there was real panic, this level wouldn't hold.
On the other hand, there's a detail: Coinbase's BTC discount to Binance hit the largest this year. The US market is selling, the Asian market is buying, two pricing sets for the same thing.
My judgment is this looks more like a liquidity event, not a credit event. On-chain money is moving houses, not disappearing. Don't expect a one-sided move before the move finishes. I have no positions, waiting for the discount to narrow before acting.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ Many people see BTC hovering around 78,000 over the weekend and start debating who will win between bulls and bears. In fact, judging the direction based solely on weekend trading is not very meaningful.
The core reason the price is stuck at this level is options expiration. Market makers hold large positions and use hedging strategies to guide the spot price toward the Max Pain point, causing as many options contracts as possible to expire worthless. Additionally, with thin liquidity over the weekend, a small amount of trading can stabilize the market, making the price seem glued in place.
So don’t use this weekend’s consolidation to predict next week’s trend. Once Monday’s market opens and capital and volume return, this pinning effect will disappear.
The real action is next week: US ISM manufacturing data, midterm elections, and nonfarm payrolls—all have the potential to shake the market.
The weekend is just a warm-up; next week is the real game.$BNB short sellers are losing interest every day, while 7 big holders have swept up $12 million worth of BNB spot and transferred it directly.
Watching the order book, there are basically no large sell orders actively pushing the price down. Big funds are moving their holdings into withdrawal channels, so the real selling pressure has already been cut off.
Short sellers are still stubbornly holding contracts with negative fees, but the spot liquidity has long been quietly drained.
With such a high concentration of chips, the vehicle is light and can speed up as soon as you step on the gas.
As long as the price is pushed up a few dollars to trigger short stop losses, the market buy orders triggered by liquidations will naturally drive the price up.
This hard short position is completely fueling the big spot holders.
#BNB
$BNB
👇 29% along with declines in chip stocks like AMD and Nvidia, directly triggering margin pressure and forcing institutions to sell liquidity assets such as gold to raise cash. Spot gold briefly fell below 3900 to about 3880 USD/oz, while silver plunged more sharply below 50 USD (around 49 USD), hitting an 11-month low, and the gold-silver ratio rose to about 79. The key divergence lies in this: US Treasury yields fell, supporting risk aversion; defensive sectors (consumer, healthcare) were relati#US stocks and gold & silver fall sharply in sync, safe-haven fund flows diverge Cross-asset synchronized deleveraging: gold and BTC both fall, safe-haven narrative temporarily invalid
Global assets adjusted synchronously on October 30: Nasdaq dropped 2.86%, Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 7.2%; spot gold fell about 3.5% to $3882, silver dropped over 6% below $50; BTC broke below $77,000. The only asset rising was bonds, with the 10-year US Treasury yield retreating to 4.93%.
Logic analysis: This is not ordinary safe-haven rotation but cross-asset deleveraging. Gold, silver, tech stocks, and BTC all fell while only bonds rose, indicating some institutions face margin pressure and are forced to sell liquid assets to raise cash, with declines amplified by leverage. The failure of gold's safe-haven function shows the driver is liquidity squeeze rather than geopolitical risk. BTC breaking below the key $77,000 support further confirms its risk-asset correlation.
Trading strategy: Correlation approaches 1 during deleveraging, so diversification temporarily fails. Watch if gold can hold 3800-3850 and rebound, and whether US Treasury yields continue to fall. If gold stabilizes, it may signal deleveraging is nearing its end; if BTC rebounds to 77,000-78,000 on low volume, prioritize reducing positions rather than bottom-fishing. Support to watch below is 74,000-75,000. Core principle: cash is king under liquidity squeeze, avoid catching falling knives. Control position size and set stop losses.#BTC continues to face pressure, with divergence between capital flow and market trend
Bitcoin rose to $78,617, up 1.14% on November 2, approaching $80,000. But there are concerns on the capital side:
1. Binance spot 24-hour trading volume is $548 million, contract trading volume is $4.638 billion, with the contract market being hotter.
2. Active buy orders account for 51.1%, bulls only slightly dominant, no signs of frantic accumulation.
3. Price rises, but contract open interest dropped from 97,309 to 95,070 contracts, a decrease of 2,239 contracts, indicating some of the rise is driven by liquidations.
4. The US Bitcoin ETF saw an outflow of $643 million on the last trading day, with a total outflow of $976 million over the past 7 days; institutions have not clearly returned yet.
5. Lows have risen from $76,326 to $77,114 and $77,517, with pullbacks gradually higher, showing support below.
6. $78,600 has been reached; the next resistance is $78,800. Whether it can hold with volume will determine if it can break $80,000.
7. If $77,500 fails to hold, the $76,326 low may be tested again.
Price is rising, leverage is decreasing, and ETFs are still seeing outflows.
The market may be deleveraging, but large funds have not yet made a clear move.
Don't rush to call a bull market, nor assume this is a fake rally; first watch if $80,000 can be secured. $BTC $ZEC $HYPE @OKX中文 @OKX星球 Unitree dropped more than 12% intraday today, hitting a low of 565. I bought contract long positions during the drop, not because "the bad news is fully priced in," but because the contract structure is handing a knife to the bulls.
The bad news is real: Q3 revenue was 665 million, up 69.93% year-over-year, but net profit attributable to the parent was 113 million, down 13.37% year-over-year and halved 49.55% quarter-over-quarter. Revenue increased without profit growth, expenses are expanding. The dynamic P/E ratio is 478 times, and the stock rose more than 50% in October. At this level, releasing such financial results justifies the drop.
But one thing on the contract side contradicts the stock price: $UNITREE perpetual funding rates remain negative. The short side is correct directionally but must continuously pay funding costs; as long as the rate doesn't turn positive, shorts are holding a "correct direction but losing position" with real money. This doesn't mean "it must rise," but shorting is no longer a free lunch, and going long naturally carries a rent-collecting structure.
Another overlooked variable is the circulating shares: Unitree has only 30.0877 million circulating shares, with a circulating market cap of 18.3 billion and a total market cap of 246.7 billion. Small float and high volatility mean that if shorts are forced to cover, the elasticity will be amplified. Today's rebound from a low of 565 to above 600 intraday is the first rehearsal of this structure.
My approach: keep long positions light, set stop loss below today's low of 565. Negative funding rate is a buffer, not a reason for heavy positions. As long as the rate doesn't turn positive and the float doesn't expand, the contract structure still favors the bulls. Position size is more important than direction.
$UNITREE Just spotted another ruthless whale, total profit 163 million, earned 43.9 million in 7 days, and made 13.88 million just today. The perpetual position value is 459 million, all four coins are short positions. 🐋
Where he profits: The ZEC short was opened at 1336, with a floating profit of 5.11 million at most; ETH opened at 2375, floating profit 4.12 million; BTC has the largest position, a 142 million short opened at 78114, floating profit only 260,000, basically just placed around this level, no big gap yet.
The only losing position is SOL, opened at 91.42, floating loss 870,000. Out of four trades, three are profitable and one is losing; the loss is the smallest, and the profits come from the large positions.
Even more ruthless is the funding fee: all four short positions are collecting fees, totaling about 7.64 million, while longs are still lining up to pay him. With this structure, he’s in no rush, low leverage of 5x and 3x, liquidation price is far from the current price by a huge margin; BTC would have to rise to 130,098 to liquidate him, and he can also wear down the longs over time.
My view: This is not an emotional short, he’s using profits and funding fees to wear others down. I wouldn’t dare to bottom-fish against him in the short term. But blindly following to short naked is even worse; his cost and margin can’t be replicated by retail investors. Next week’s data is dense again: Monday’s private PMI, Friday’s non-farm payrolls. He’s fully short and not moving, probably betting that the data won’t save the bulls.I came across a whale account with an astonishing volume, having overall profits reaching 163 million, earning 43.9 million in just seven days, and 13.88 million recorded today alone. His total perpetual contract position value is 459 million, with short positions across four cryptocurrencies.
Breaking down each position: the $ZEC short was entered at 1336, with an unrealized profit of 5.11 million, the highest gain; $ETH was shorted at 2375, with an unrealized profit of about 4.12 million; $BTC is his heaviest position, valued at 142 million, opened at 78114, currently with only 260,000 unrealized profit, indicating a recent entry with no significant profit margin yet. The only unrealized loss is on SOL, opened at 91.42, with a loss of 870,000. Overall, three positions are profitable and one is at a loss; the losing position is the smallest, while the profitable ones are large positions.
A more critical point: these four short positions continuously earn funding fees, totaling nearly 7.64 million, meaning the longs are consistently paying his costs. Moreover, he only uses 3–5x low leverage, with a very thick safety buffer, far from liquidation price. BTC would need to rise to 130098 to trigger liquidation, giving him ample time to slowly wear down the longs through funding fees.
Going forward, I will focus on two signals: whether he continues to add to the BTC short position, and whether the losing SOL position will be cut and exited. Whichever action happens first is more likely to indicate the future market direction. The competition for stablecoins has long ceased to be about who can issue the coin, but rather who can integrate the coin into real capital flows. RDUSD is launched on the HSK Chain, valuing the counterpart's entry points in cross-border payments and RWA (Real World Assets) scenarios.
First, let's look at the issuance structure. The issuer is Anchorage Digital Bank, a US-regulated crypto bank. The token is pegged 1:1 to the US dollar and undergoes third-party audits. The compliance foundation is American-style, with custody in a bank and transparent reserves. Yuanbi Technology is responsible for distribution and scenarios, without touching the reserves.
Next, the implementation path. Both parties are exploring three areas: cross-border payments, global fund management, and tokenization of real-world assets. The first two are cash flow businesses; the third is an asset-side business. The profit of stablecoins does not lie in minting but in how much settlement runs on this chain.
Then there's that easily overlooked sentence. RDUSD has not obtained a license from the Hong Kong Monetary Authority and is only available to professional investors in Hong Kong. This statement splits the market in two: it can be deployed overseas but only serves institutions in Hong Kong. For a dollar coin aiming to capture cross-border business, this is a shortcoming.
My judgment: for $HSK, this is a narrative increment; for the stablecoin landscape, only a marginal change; for RDUSD itself, a channel test. To verify, don't just look at announcements but check on-chain data—whether the number of settlements and custody scale pick up.
One question remains: why would a dollar coin without a local license in Hong Kong convince cross-border merchants there to replace the $USDT they currently use? Democrats take control of Congress, will $DOGE Musk and $SPCX be liquidated?
1. The merger will not be directly stopped, but regulatory investigations and hearings are very likely to happen. Congress only has supervisory and pressure powers and cannot directly veto mergers; the decision lies with the SEC. A lengthy review will increase merger uncertainty and suppress market speculation expectations.
2. This merger itself relies on a relaxed regulatory environment. If the Democrats take power, they will pressure regulatory agencies, focusing on questioning conflicts of interest after the SpaceX and Tesla merger. The market fears indefinite approval delays the most; once expectations weaken, SPCX premiums will quickly fade, dragging down Tesla's valuation.
3. Two market scenarios: if only one chamber is taken, there will be a bearish pulse drop, not suitable for shorting; if both chambers are taken, it is a strong bearish signal, suitable for shorting SPCX rebounds and avoiding high Tesla longs.
4. Before the election, it is an expectation game with high market volatility, so avoid heavy bets. If polls favor Democrats, short SPCX on rallies; if Republicans hold Congress, regulatory risks ease, and the asset has rebound potential.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ The crypto industry collaborates to safeguard asset security #Palantir财报前瞻: Can high growth support a high valuation? Came across a ruthless whale again, total profit 163 million, earned 43.9 million in 7 days, just today made 13.88 million, perpetual position value 459 million, all four coins are short positions. 🐋
First, let's see where he profits: ZEC short opened at 1336, floating profit 5.11 million at most; ETH opened at 2375, floating profit 4.12 million; BTC position is the largest, 142 million short opened at 78114, floating profit only 260,000, basically just placed around this level, no big gap yet.
The only one in loss is SOL, opened at 91.42, floating loss 870,000. Among the four trades, three are profitable and one is losing, the loss is the smallest, profits are all from large positions.
More ruthless is the funding fee: all four short positions are collecting fees, totaling about 7.64 million, longs are still lining up to pay him. Under this structure, he is not in a hurry at all, low leverage of 5x and 3x, liquidation price is far from current price by over 100,000, BTC has to rise to 130,098 to liquidate him, he can also wear down the longs. 💰
My view: This is not an emotional short, it's using profits and funding fees to wear others down, I dare not bottom-fish against him in the short term. But blindly following to short naked is even worse, his cost and margin cannot be replicated by retail investors. Next week is data heavy again, Monday private PMI, Friday non-farm payrolls, he stays fully short and inactive, most likely betting that data won't save the longs.In the futures market, whenever there is a seasonal low, some people flip through the calendar looking for patterns. I usually first check if inventory and demand align, as the date itself cannot explain the bottom.
PANews, citing Coin Bureau analysis, states that Bitcoin's bottoms in the past three cycles appeared 71 days, 39 days, and 13 days after the U.S. midterm elections respectively; if this pattern repeats, the end of 2026 to early 2027 might be the next bottom window. I see this more as observing scheduling rather than a pricing basis: three samples cannot rule out coincidence, the intervals vary significantly, and it’s impossible to lock in a timing based on this.
Unlike commodities, crypto lacks spot inventory and utilization rate supply-demand verification, and election dates cannot directly explain why funds flow back. I’d rather wait for funds and prices to mutually confirm each other, rather than treating the political calendar as a settlement date. For those who have also transitioned from traditional markets, what indicators would you use to verify this window instead of just counting days after the election?For investors, Terafab should not be simply regarded as a "realized positive development." The focus should be on three things going forward: the order share Intel secures in the formal agreement, the yield data after Tesla's 18A/14A tape-out, and the progress of Terafab's plant construction. The foundry sector has never been about a letter of intent, but about stable delivery capability.In the long run, what Bitcoin lacks on-chain is not just stablecoin issuance, but also a whole layer of entry points where "ordinary people can receive, transfer, and exchange." Assets staying on-chain and how usable those assets are, are two different things. The community discussion these days about $USDT returning to Bitcoin mostly focuses on this point, rather than repeating the narrative.
Considering the recent market, BTC is consolidating with low volume around 78,000. On the macro side, there is still disagreement about the Fed's rate hike expectations in December, and overall funds remain cautious. Against this backdrop, the implementation of the RGB ecosystem appears more pragmatic. unisat × utexo have split the tasks: issuance and minting happen on Utexo (RGB), circulation entry points are first implemented in wallets and UniScan, and the order book side is left to UniHexa—first enabling USDT to be managed on the same screen with BTC, Ordinals, and Runes, then pairing with USD against Bitcoin native assets. The public launch target is November 28. The semi-automatic listing line will also continue to release information around November: public applications for listing are allowed, the review process is transparent, and before listing, project teams or market makers prepare initial buy and sell order depth; the platform does not provide liquidity. This mechanism thickens the market depth, is more practical for long-term infrastructure, and can truly solve the circulation pain points of stablecoins in the Bitcoin ecosystem. Currently, altcoins lack incremental growth, while the steady advancement of the Bitcoin ecosystem infrastructure holds more long-term value. $BTC $ETH $ZEC Conclusion first: Unitree Technology's A-shares experienced a flash crash at today's open, hitting a low of 565 yuan (-12.7%), then rebounding to 642.9 yuan by 11 AM. However, the $UNITREE perpetual contract on OKX did not follow suit: priced at $91.39, it trades at a 33.5% discount (6.65 fold) to 607.9 yuan, which is 5.4% lower than the underlying stock.
Three key figures. ① At 09:00, the 1-hour candle saw 234,034 contracts traded, worth 21.16 million USD, which is 11.8 times the previous hour and 140 times the 24-hour median; the lowest price was at an 86.28% discount to 573.9 yuan, 1.6% higher than the A-share low — this means it was pushed down by premium selling, not a break below the underlying stock price. ② During that candle, open interest dropped from 8.51 million to 7.77 million USD (-8.8%), indicating longs closed their positions themselves, not shorts dumping. ③ The funding rate has been negative for the last 9 settlement periods, currently at -0.147% per 8 hours, with the next period estimated at -0.392%.
This is the hardest part about perpetuals: A-shares have a 10% daily limit and visible underlying stock; perpetuals run 24/7 with 20x leverage and no visible underlying. When A-shares flash crash, perpetuals get slammed; when A-shares rebound in a V-shape, perpetuals only recover halfway.
The earnings report still matters: net profit for the first three quarters was 387 million yuan, up 270% year-over-year, but Q3 net profit dropped about 17%.
Is this 5.4% discount an opportunity or a short-seller's trap? $UNITREE$BTC $ETH continue to oscillate back and forth in the 77000–78000 range, with the fear and greed index slightly rising
The biggest feature now is that neither bulls nor bears have retreated, but no one can make a decisive call
The bulls refuse to surrender, funding rates remain positive, about +0.0074% to +0.01%, and the proportion of long positions in the entire market accounts is still close to 73.5%
This means that a lot of leveraged longs have been washed out during the decline, but the weight of the position hasn't lightened much
Overall liquidation volume has significantly contracted from the peak of the past few days, and the market is transitioning from a severe deleveraging phase to a low-volatility game
The technical structure is very clear, with dense resistance from 78000 to 82000 formed by trapped positions and moving averages above, making a smooth rebound difficult in the short term; below, 76000–77000 is the near-term long defense bottom line
On the macro level, the election window is approaching, interest rate hike expectations fluctuate, and liquidity conditions are tight
Given positive funding rates, uncleared longs, and unresolved macro uncertainties, it is advisable to wait for a volume breakout on either side at 76000 or 78000 before making a directional choice
#BTC持续震荡，后续走势受多重因素影响 [The Bank of Korea simultaneously surveys 31 financial institutions, crypto market begins entering traditional finance's risk ledger]
What is truly noteworthy about this Bank of Korea survey is the risk transmission between the crypto market and traditional finance. On October 23, the Bank of Korea sent questionnaires to 18 banks and 13 securities firms, requesting submissions on virtual asset business layouts, budgets, investment status, and risk management measures, with responses due by November 4.
Several stress test scenarios are quite interesting: If the largest crypto exchange by market share in Korea suffers a large-scale hacker attack and is forced to suspend operations, how much impact will banks and securities firms face? If $BTC plunges sharply and trading volume continues to shrink, how much loss will financial institutions incur? This indicates that the Bank of Korea has begun to place exchange security, coin price volatility, and financial institutions' business exposures on the same risk assessment sheet.
The Bank of Korea's June Financial Stability Report already pointed out that after the launch of the US spot ETF in 2024, the correlation between the crypto market and traditional stock market remains higher than historical levels. Meanwhile, Korea's domestic exchanges saw a 44% decline in average daily trading volume in the first half of 2026, and Korean won deposits dropped by 35%. Market size and trading activity are contracting, yet financial institutions are still actively researching entry. The central bank clearly does not want to wait until risks truly transmit to the banking system before starting to catch up. [Brazil's Crypto License Application Surge, Regulatory Overhaul]
The number of license applications in Brazil has finally risen to 63, including Binance, Coinbase, OKX, Kraken, Bitget, as well as multiple local banks and financial institutions. The 270-day application deadline set by regulators for existing virtual asset service providers ended on October 30. Institutions that submitted applications on time can continue operating while awaiting approval, whereas those that did not must cease related operations within 30 days.
This surge in applications follows the expiration of the 270-day transition period set by the Central Bank of Brazil for existing virtual asset service providers. To remain, they must comply with requirements on capital, governance, anti-money laundering, client asset custody, and auditing. Smaller platforms that cannot bear compliance costs must either exit or transform; Coinext, Digitra, and others have already announced the suspension of some trading or custody services. Binance, Coinbase, OKX, and others have chosen to apply, competing for the remaining market share.
This has no direct short-term impact on $BTC prices but represents a substantial structural change for Brazil's local crypto market. The future beneficiaries are more likely to be large platforms with capital and compliance capabilities, as well as institutions providing stablecoins, custody, and payment infrastructure for banks and enterprises. Brazil is not pushing the crypto industry out but is filtering out smaller players at the table, requiring the remaining institutions to operate according to financial industry standards.Analyst: There may be a strong temporal correlation between the US midterm elections and Bitcoin cycle bottoms
On November 2, according to an analysis article from Coin Bureau, the bottoms of Bitcoin's past three cycles all appeared shortly after the conclusion of the US midterm elections.
Historical pattern data provided shows that after the US midterm elections in 2014, 2018, and 2022, Bitcoin bottomed out 71 days, 39 days, and 13 days later, respectively.
It is worth noting that the US midterm elections will be held on November 3. If this historical pattern continues, the end of 2026 to early 2027 may become a key observation window for Bitcoin's next cycle bottom.
However, the analysis also cautions that although these three historical samples form an interesting temporal pattern, it cannot currently prove that the midterm elections themselves are the fundamental driver of Bitcoin's cycles. Market participants should view this statistical correlation rationally and make decisions cautiously.
Do you think Bitcoin will bottom out at the end of this year or early next year? Share your predictions in the comments!
#BitcoinCycleBottom #USMidtermElectionCountdown ETF bleeding heavily, are whales secretly bottom fishing? Unveiling the long-short battle in the fear zone!
When fear becomes an ATM, who is taking the bloodied chips? On November 2, the fear index was 34. Amid the aftermath of the Binance theft, the three major spot ETFs all bled heavily. But underwater currents surge: BTC whales' holdings grew at the fastest pace since February; Solana attracted over 900 million RWA. ETFs are selling, whales are buying, and fear is being priced inversely.
$BTC ($78,445): Tug of war. ETFs outflowed 859 million in the past 6 days, but BlackRock IBIT countered with an inflow of 170 million. Whale accumulation coexists with some large holders turning bearish.
$ETH ($2,294): The "no-yield" dilemma. ETFs lost 430 million consecutively. Under high yields, institutions sell off non-yielding naked assets, while Pectra's upgrade is quietly reshaping staking thresholds.
$SOL ($94.95): Capital internal conflict. HKD stablecoins and RWA benefit the ecosystem, but SOL ETFs have outflowed 72 million for 5 consecutive days. Issuing tokens ≠ buying tokens; there is a time lag between ecosystem and capital.
Summary: The theft case acts like a stress test: BTC has the least issues, chips concentrate towards whales; ETH is the most structural, needing yield-bearing products to rescue; SOL is the most divided, ecosystem moves forward while capital retreats. In the short term, it’s a macro game; ultimately, victory depends on who can first convert "selling pressure tools" into "yield-bearing tools." Prices belong to everyone, chips belong only to those who understand the ledger.
#闪迪业绩超预期并宣布拆股，股价跌逾13% #非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？
Just saw an analysis saying that Bitcoin's bottom in the past three cycles all appeared after the US midterm elections. In 2014, it was 71 days after the election; in 2018, 39 days; and in 2022, 13 days. If this pattern repeats, the opportunity is right in front of us now. What does everyone think? $BTC 🔍Can elections signal the bottom for Bitcoin? Don't rush to conclusions. According to Coin Bureau's analysis, the cycle bottoms in 2014, 2018, and 2022 appeared 71, 39, and 13 days after the US midterm elections respectively; if this pattern repeats, the bottom window might be from late 2026 to early 2027, with this election scheduled for November 3.
An interesting detail is that the intervals vary significantly. I prefer to treat this as an observation calendar rather than proof for bottom fishing. First, there are only three samples, so coincidence can't be ruled out; second, occurrence in sequence doesn't mean elections cause the bottom, and the data doesn't provide verification from the capital flow perspective.
This is my speculation: if the market treats this window as consensus, ordinary players might be more likely to bet by date, ignoring the market itself. I will focus on capital flow and price performance within the window, not treating historical coincidences as an alarm clock."Smart Money Blogger Weekly Review" Issue 11 · US Stock Zhao Ge: On the day semiconductors crashed the hardest, he reversed to short
On October 22, semiconductors kept dropping for several days, Zhao Ge sent a message: opened SOXS, shorting semiconductors. Three hours later he sold half, and two hours after that cleared the rest. This trade smoothly earned 10 points, absolutely a masterstroke.
Always losing money when trading on your own? It's not that you're not trying hard, you just lack a reliable reference. Every week we help you review well-known big V bloggers across the web, real performance, data speaks.
We picked out his real trades from the signals he opened in the past two weeks, a total of 14 trades, 10 correct and 4 wrong, a 71% win rate. Simulated, 10,000 in two weeks made 229.
His method is very fixed: add one-sixth of the position each time, sell half when it reaches a certain level, and watch the rest based on the trend. Trades are usually short-term, mostly intraday. On the night of the 20th, entered SOXL at 92.5, sold half at 94.8 ten minutes later, then cleared at 96.43 five minutes after that. He gives the current price, no high-limit orders, so none of the 14 entries were missed.
There was also an ugly trade: on the 15th he entered SOXL at 111.5, then it dropped continuously. He added to the position four times to average down, held until the 22nd to exit, losing 7.7 points over six days. He doesn't set stop losses, relying on this position-splitting management method.
Overall, follow him depending on the situation. His rhythm is steady, prices are accessible, but how to divide your position you must calculate yourself, don't go all in at once. "Smart Money Blogger Weekly Review" Issue 9 · Leading the Pack: Won 60% of trades, only gained 395 yuan in two weeks
At noon on October 25, Sao Ge wrote a sentence in his own channel: "This week's strategy overall stopped losses higher than profits, no positive returns this week." Not many bloggers dare to say this themselves.
Always losing money on your own trades? It's not that you're not trying hard, you just lack a reliable reference. Every week we help you evaluate well-known top bloggers across the web, real performance, data speaks.
I cross-checked his signals for two weeks. 18 trades in 14 days, 16 trades entered, 9 wins and 5 losses, win rate 64.3%. Following his own position size with 10,000 yuan, after two weeks it became 10,395 yuan, an increase of 395 yuan. There are still 2 trades not closed, unrealized profits included.
Won 60%, only gained 395 yuan. This is not bad luck, it's a structural problem—he earns on average half a stop-loss per winning trade, but takes full stop-loss on losing trades. The profit from three wins is not enough to cover two losses.
But this person has his skills. The prices he gives can almost always be entered; 15 out of 16 trades were executed, nine and a half out of ten. He never chases prices, longs are placed below market price, shorts above market price. In this market, being able to give you a price you can actually enter is rarer than calling the direction right—many people give prices you can never reach. The rhythm is steady too, nine trades a week, always active.
There's one detail I care about. He proactively named himself two～～～～～～～～～～～Being liquidated once does not mean the position is lighter
The $ETH long position was just fully liquidated, then immediately reloaded with 250,000 USDC to open another long.
How this number is calculated: the newly opened position is worth 5.88 million USD, spanning $ETH, $HYPE, and $BTC.
250,000 principal leveraged to 5.88 million, over 20x leverage.
At the moment of triggering: the higher the leverage, the closer the liquidation price is to the current price.
The liquidation price for this $ETH position is 2161, only 86 dollars away from the current price.
Once the price moves through these 86 dollars, the system will liquidate it once.
In one and a half years on this platform, 15.86 billion in trading volume was done, with a cumulative loss of 37.05 million.
The lost money isn’t taken by anyone; it’s gradually worn down bit by bit in each liquidation.
The next liquidation price is still hanging there, waiting for the price to move over it itself.
#BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧
#$ETH $HYPE Market sentiment is like a roller coaster: Optimistic periods: believing that businesses like Gemini, TPU, DeepMind, AI for Science, etc., have bright prospects, and that Google is a core player in the AI era.
Pessimistic periods: worrying that search business is being eroded by AI, with users bypassing Google to get information directly.
However, the current five-year moving average is around $210. According to historical patterns: Google's stock price usually rises year by year along the five-year moving average. Currently, it still seems a bit expensive.
Profits may just be the beginning of an operational adjustment cycle. Business operations have inherent rhythms and cycles. Profit decline is not necessarily a long-term trend and needs to be judged in conjunction with the business cycle.
When evaluating Google, investment income should be excluded, and recurring income should be used as the basis for valuation. Investment income is incidental and cannot reflect the actual profitability of the main business. Even if Google's cloud computing business grows well, investment income should not be included in the valuation.