Orbit Post Sitemap
Unrealized profit of 339,000 USDT; three days ago, these were three "sure-win" leveraged positions, but now all that's left is the phrase "just a big dream" 😭. What really hurts isn't the drawdown itself, but that all three positions were previously in profit: $SOXL average price 80.51, unrealized profit +257,589.37 USDT, return +303.67%; $SKHY average price 137.3, unrealized profit +47,579.72 USDT, return +288.79%; $SNDK average price 1223.2, unrealized profit +33,776.36 USDT, return +126.26%. The three combined unrealized profits total 338,945.45 USDT, with leverage exceeding 10x, 20x, and 10x respectively. This is not a story of being wrong on direction, but of being right on direction yet failing to convert profits into cash. The most intriguing aspect is the mismatch in market background. Intel's Q4 guidance fell short of expectations, its stock price plunged nearly 30%, and semiconductor sentiment clearly cooled, while these three high-leverage long positions clustered precisely in semiconductor-related targets. When the sector narrative shifts from "AI computing power expanding infinitely" to "guidance disproved, valuation repriced," the margin for error for high leverage is instantly compressed—right direction, wrong timing, and unrealized profits turn into paper gains. $SOXL, as a triple-leveraged semiconductor ETF, has its sensitivity to sector sentiment magnified, which explains why "there was profit just days ago" and "now wanting to rest" are separated by only one sentiment reversal. What most people underestimate is not the leverage multiple, but the "unrealized profit of $SNDK SanDisk's latest earnings report delivered a very impressive performance: both revenue and profit exceeded market expectations, and the company's guidance for the next quarter remains strong, with AI data center storage demand continuously driving up NAND flash prices.
Interestingly, despite the strong earnings report, the stock price experienced a pullback.
In my view, this is not due to any fundamental issues but rather because the market had already priced in a large amount of expectations in advance. After a significant rise this year, any performance that does not "far exceed expectations" could become a reason for some investors to take profits.
My perspective:
In the short term, SanDisk's stock price may continue to be highly volatile, and the cost-effectiveness of chasing highs is no longer attractive; if a 10% to 20% pullback occurs later, I would actually pay more attention to opportunities for phased accumulation. As long as AI storage demand does not fundamentally change, I remain optimistic about SanDisk's medium- to long-term value.
In summary:
A good company doesn't necessarily rise every day, but every reasonable pullback of a quality asset is often an opportunity for long-term investors to get back in.
#闪迪MSCI调仓生效，NAND估值受关注 Is it really safe to keep funds on exchanges?
Every time a major security incident occurs at a leading CEX, the market reexamines the question: how safe is it to keep assets on exchanges???
Such incidents test the trust in centralized exchanges, but for DEX and DeFi, they might actually present a new opportunity. If users start withdrawing assets from exchanges and move them to cold wallets and on-chain self-custody, the funds do not just disappear; subsequent trading, lending, wealth management, and liquidity needs will still remain in the market.
The direct beneficiaries of this demand could be leading DEXs like Uniswap and Jupiter. As funds flow back on-chain, trading activity and on-chain liquidity have the chance to improve, which in turn drives growth in trading volume and TVL.
I have always believed that every trust crisis a centralized exchange goes through is an opportunity for DeFi to reassert its value. What truly matters is not just where short-term funds flow, but whether users change their asset management and trading habits as a result.
To summarize, Binance’s recent security incident is beneficial for DEXs. Once Binance reopens withdrawals, it is expected that a significant amount of funds will flow into DEXs, which is positive.The on-chain paper trail from the reported Binance breach is turning into a study of how stolen crypto is laundered rather than a simple hunt for a culprit. Roughly $6.36 billion in assets was taken, and the movement that followed is instructive: funds have been split, shuffled and cycled through intermediary addresses in what looks like a deliberate effort to blur the trail. The most consequential detail is where some of that money went. Portions of the loot have landed at addresses tied to theAn astonishing claim about the Iran war is spreading. $BTC
A person claiming to be a hacker alleges that Iran plays an unknown role in the global financial system:
It may provide implicit liquidity to London's shadow banking and repo markets through energy credit trading.
This mechanism reportedly involves:
Iranian energy credit limits
Cross-border accounts at a medium-sized bank in Oman
Synthetic bonds and collateral trading
Short-term financing in the London repo market
He also divides global powers into two camps:
One side wants to maintain this financial channel, while the other aims to restructure the financial system to bring global funds into a traceable CBDC network.
He even claims that if this channel is disrupted, the London financial market could face severe liquidity shocks in a short time.
This narrative sounds quite astonishing, but currently there is no reliable evidence proving the existence of these financial mechanisms, the so-called two major camps, or war motives.Strategy just announced a record third-quarter operating profit of $20.91 billion. Meanwhile, CFO Andrew Kang announced he will resign on November 5. But the $21 billion figure is the easiest to misunderstand: $20.91 billion comes from the increase in digital asset value recognized at market value, not $21 billion cash flowing into the company.
The operational level is much smaller. Third-quarter revenue was $125.4 million, down 3% year-over-year; as of October 25, Strategy held 848,517 bitcoins. Because fair value accounting incorporates bitcoin volatility into the income statement, even if the software business is basically flat, a quarter with rising bitcoin prices can significantly boost profits.
Mr. Kang said he is leaving for personal reasons, and the company stated there are no operational or policy disagreements between the parties. He will continue as an advisor until the end of the year; CEO Feng Le will handle financial duties during the transition, and Reza Velaste will officially take over as CFO on January 1, 2027.
The key is not that Strategy suddenly received $21 billion in cash. This report shows that the company currently reacts much more strongly to bitcoin price changes than to software revenue—so if you interpret $MSTR using only a traditional income statement and ignore bitcoin’s valuation mechanism, it’s easy to mislead people’s judgment about the company.$ZAMA Observation: Rushing to the top of the leaderboard on the eve of unlocking, who's cramming homework before submitting?
Over 100 million coins are set to unlock tomorrow, yet today it surged to the top of the gainers list. Isn't that strange?
ZAMA is currently at 0.0722, up 16% in 24 hours, climbing from 0.0599 to 0.0746, while OKEx spot trading volume is only 3.7 million USDT.
Checked the schedule: on November 2nd, 114.58 million coins will be released to the foundation, about 4.5% of the circulating supply. This marks the 7th consecutive month of unlocking on the 2nd.
On the same day, there's the Shielded Q3 institutional report presentation at 11 PM Beijing time, and OKEx Europe’s ZAMA trading bonus event ends at 9 PM tonight. How much of the recent buying is driven by this event? We'll know after tonight.
A 16% rise on a 3.7 million volume isn't hard to pull off. Tomorrow, the foundation's batch of coins moving will speak louder than today's bullish candle.There has been a lot of BTC news these days: Federal Reserve officials continue to discuss interest rate hikes, tech stocks are undergoing sharp adjustments, and security incidents on trading platforms are also being addressed. The price is temporarily not moving much, which easily makes people feel that the market has already digested everything.
However, the sideways movement may also just be a temporary stalemate between buyers and sellers, with neither side showing enough sustained strength.
It is especially important to distinguish between different sources of buying. Platforms purchasing tokens to replenish affected assets have a clear purpose; investors increasing BTC allocation due to optimism about long-term returns represent a different kind of demand. Even if the former brings short-term transactions, it cannot be directly inferred as continuous new BTC funds entering the market. After platforms disclose that major assets have been replenished, subsequent purchases should not all be counted as Bitcoin buying.
Similarly, a price drop during an incident does not mean every sell order comes from disposing of stolen assets. Sentiment, proactive position reductions, and leverage adjustments can all happen simultaneously.
I am now more willing to observe whether the rebound can hold rather than rushing to label the sideways movement. Whether there is sustained support after a pull-up, and whether BTC can gradually stabilize when related risk assets decline, are more convincing than a single short-term bullish candle.
Back-and-forth fluctuations are the most patience-draining. The more it is such a time, the more judgment needs to lag behind price movements; otherwise, it is easy to feel the direction changes every day.
#BTC持续震荡，后续走势受多重因素影响 🔷 CryptoX-ray #24: $GRAM - tranche 37M on November 6
Formerly Toncoin. Market cap ~$3.35B, FDV ~$6.25B, 54% of supply in circulation.
Red flag: about 37M GRAM (~1.3% of circulation) will leave Believers Fund on November 6. This is not a sale.
No share in Telegram token is given.
Verdict: there is coverage, no demand for gas seen. Ready for −30%.
Will the tranche be held or sold? 👇Binance has already replenished about 95% of the stolen assets, and the risks of a bank run and industry credit contagion are basically under control.
Some say that with such a big black swan event, BTC still holding up shows the market is strong.
But my view is more neutral.
The stolen BTC and ETH have not seen large-scale sell-offs for now; instead, the hackers exchanged some stablecoins and altcoins for ETH. In other words, the funds mainly changed holders and did not immediately turn into market selling pressure.
In the short term, this indeed reduces selling pressure. But these stolen assets remain potential chips, and whether they will be transferred to exchanges, OTC, or mixing channels in the future still needs to be observed. It cannot be simply understood as permanently locked.
Therefore, my judgment on BTC remains unchanged, with a high probability of continuing wide-range oscillation.
This is neither bullish nor bearish, just that the current risk-reward ratio is not high, making it hard to earn particularly meaningful profits.
When there is no opportunity, not participating also means no loss.
An expert's opinion The price elasticity of $SUI depends on whether the ecosystem demand can absorb the new supply. The common risk in the weekend market is thinning liquidity, where sell-offs triggered by unlocks or incentives are more easily amplified. If new applications retain continuous users and fees cover incentives, supply and demand can form a positive cycle; if activity is mainly driven by subsidies and token release outpaces real demand, short-term strength may also turn into supply pressure.To pour some cold water first, I don't directly consider "no loss detected" as positive news. Indodax suspended deposits and withdrawals on October 29 due to detected abnormal activity, and began phased service restoration on October 31; the official statement said no asset loss or user data leakage was found.
What concerns me more is the availability risk exposed by this incident. First, no loss of assets doesn't mean users don't have liquidity costs; the suspension of deposits and withdrawals itself affects usability. Second, phased restoration does not equal full recovery, and the materials did not explain the cause of the abnormal activity. If this news is interpreted as the risk being resolved, I think it is adding drama to limited information.
Of course, optimistic people might think otherwise. If deposits and withdrawals fully resume later, and the cause and handling of the abnormality are clearly explained, I will adjust my judgment to see it as a controlled operational incident rather than an ongoing risk. What I will focus on next is whether the service can fully recover, not whether the announcement wording is reassuring enough.Everyone is celebrating BTC's return to 78,000. But market recovery ≠ holding above resistance; these are two different things—on February 2nd, it touched 78,005, a level that has been hit more than once this year.
Repeatedly tested thresholds are hard to break through in one go.
The Binance $6 billion hack black swan just happened a few days ago, and market panic was quickly absorbed; a quick rebound only means this crisis didn’t trigger a sell-off, it doesn’t mean this ceiling can be easily taken down.
My simple standard for holding above: two consecutive daily closes firmly above 78,000 without a quick fallback.
My choice: no chasing longs at the current level, waiting for this confirmation signal.
👉 How about you? Have you added positions above 78,000, or are you watching like me? What’s your signal for holding above? Let’s discuss in the comments.Closing the monthly candle. BTC has faced multiple negative factors in recent days, including the Binance hack incident, tech stock earnings shocks, and massive single-day net outflows from spot ETFs. Yet under this pressure, the price only retraced from 81,000 to around 76,000. In the past, similar levels of negative news would have caused at least a 10% drop, but this time it clearly showed resilience, indicating that the current chip structure has stabilized significantly. Coupled with the prolonged narrow-range consolidation earlier and continuously declining leverage, the risk of a stampede has been reduced to a relatively low level.
In the short term, the market has initially withstood this round of pressure. The 75,000–76,000 range serves as a phase bottom and may continue to oscillate for some time, mainly to digest the aftereffects of these events. Therefore, this area can be considered a good position for phased bottom-fishing/phased accumulation, but it is more suitable for position control and gradual buying rather than heavy one-time investment.
My mid-term personal view remains unchanged: I still expect BTC to break through 87,000 in November. The overall rhythm is to first watch the 75,000–76,000 range for consolidation and digestion, then observe whether it can gradually strengthen and break upward.
#BTC持续震荡，后续走势受多重因素影响 #加密行业协同守护资产安全 #Everyone says ETF outflows mean a market dump, but this time the data is exactly the opposite.
On October 30, the US BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of $643 million in one day, which is more than the $440 million bought in the previous four days combined. Yet $BTC only dropped 0.9% that day and even rose slightly the next day.
The real big drop happened the day before: on October 29, BTC fell 4.1%, while the ETF was still seeing a slight net buy.
In other words, this time the price dropped first, and the ETF money withdrew afterward. This batch of funds seems to follow the price trend, redeeming only after the drop.
[ETF is not the one leading the dump; it’s more like the last to turn off the lights and leave.]
So when you see headlines about "large ETF outflows" and rush to cut losses, it’s often already too late. What you should really watch is: if outflows continue for several days and whether the price breaks below previous lows.
The hottest topic in today’s intel is $HYPE, with the breakdown included in the poster.
Do you think BTC is showing bottom support and resilience, or is this calm before a further drop?
#BTC持续震荡，后续走势受多重因素影响 U.S. stock markets are closed on weekends; only stock tokens can be traded, and token prices do not equal Monday's stock opening prices. Latest data from Binance public API (in USD): Tesla token 399.58, 24h -0.10%; Robinhood token 85.65, +0.211%; Nvidia token 204.38, -0.293%; Amazon token 240.63, -0.249%; Crypto platform token 146.29, +0.571%. 24h trading volume: Nvidia 1.9362 million, Apple 767,100, S&P 50 certificate 237,800, Robinhood only 52,000. Market depth shows: S&P 50 certificate spread 0.0013%, Nvidia 0.0049%, Apple 0.0058%; Berkshire B certificate 0.2501%, Robinhood 0.0117%. Pre-market arbitrage should not only focus on price changes but at least consider three things: ① premium/discount of token versus stock reference price; ② trading volume and order book depth; ③ redemption path, issuer custody, and regulatory status. Premiums may revert, discounts may persist due to redemption restrictions; on weekends, do not treat tokens as real-time stock substitutes. Execution discipline: enter only after net space covers spread, fees, slippage, and redemption costs; use limit orders in batches, test with small positions; if premium exceeds 0.5% or discount exceeds 0.9%, investigate reasons before arbitraging blindly; if issuer redemption is suspended, reference price distorted, or depth sharply drops, cancel orders and exit immediately. Regulatory note: no region may use stock tokens to circumvent securities rules or illegally raise funds from the public. Risk warning: stocksBTC/Gold Monthly Iron Law $BTC
The 14-month curse remains unbroken, don't rush to bottom-fish!🩸
Looking at this BTC/Gold monthly chart, I only see two words: destiny. History doesn't repeat, but it always rhymes the same way.
📊 Core Signals
1. 14-month time window: After the three major tops in 2013, 2017, and 2021, the corrections precisely lasted 14 monthly candles (about 426 days). We are currently in this cycle; the adjustment is far from over, the time window hasn't arrived yet.
2. Decline convergence: As the volume grows, volatility decreases. This correction of -68.42%, though milder than previous ones (-80%+), is enough to shake out weak hands.
3. Reversal node: Calculated from the 2024 peak, the real bottom will be in mid to late 2026. The current consolidation is just exchanging time for space.
Iron Law: Time is more important than price! Any V-shaped rebound before the 14-month cycle is a bull trap When I look at crypto prediction markets, I always check the buy and sell orders first. The guess is about the event, but when you really want to exit, someone has to take the other side; in this respect, it's no different from trading coins. But when it comes to niche topics, the order book is as thin as a display, and even a slight trade can change the odds. It looks like everyone suddenly changed their mind, but it could also be that there just aren't many people on the other side.
So those odds screenshots now make me hesitate: marked at this price, when you really want to exit, who can you sell to?On November 1st, CZ restated his relationship with Binance on X: no longer operating it, but still a shareholder and supporter, free to post. This statement looks like a clarification of identity, but it actually breaks down a matter that has long been conflated—the operational rights, equity, and voice.
In past years, the market priced Binance by bundling these three together. What he said was taken as the company's words; his silence was interpreted as company action. Now he separates the three: daily operations are no longer his, the interests remain with him, and the voice is still his. For $BNB holders, these represent three completely different risk exposures.
Operational control is handed over, lengthening the decision chain and placing product rhythm under the current management, making responsibility clearer when issues arise; equity remains, so his and the company's long-term interests are still aligned; free posting is the most subtle—he has both the motive and ability to influence sentiment, but what he says no longer equals official company stance.
This also explains why he still frequently discusses the industry. To outsiders, a shareholder and founder's statements naturally carry company connotations, but he draws the line as "I am not in office." This gap will persist long-term, and the market can only judge for itself which statements should be treated as company information and which should be discounted as personal views. What really matters is whether the reactions of $BNB and the exchange sector will become increasingly muted each time he speaks in the future. Don't suture yet—this 5.09% rise in $SSV is not recovery, it's a pseudoaneurysm pulsating on the ventricular wall.
The 24-hour vital signs seem to have risen by 5.09%, but the short-term RSI has reached 68.1, and the 1-hour RSI >64 triggers a sell signal; this is not a strong heart, but sympathetic nervous system overexcitation. More dangerously, the Bollinger Bands: the short-term price is at the 95% position, only 0.4% from the upper band, but there is a 7.2% drop space to the lower band; the mid-term position is 116%, the price has exceeded the upper band by 1.1%, like a left ventricle at the end of dilation, preload maxed out, myocardial oxygen consumption soaring in the dark. The long-term RSI at 61.8 is not yet extreme, indicating the lesion is not in a single candlestick but in the high-level perfusion pressure imbalance.
Diagnosis: high-level regurgitation with excessive wall tension. The current price 2.19, with 3.4% above at 2.26, is the rebound resistance and also the blood pressure rebound point after anesthesia induction; shorting there is more in line with sterile principles than chasing the blade. Targets 1.98 and 2.00 correspond to 9.5% and 8.5% below the current price, respectively; the latter is near the mid-term lower band at about 9.3%, the former is the confirmation zone outside the lower band; stop loss at 2.51 is 14.6% above the current price, once effectively broken, it equals massive bleeding and requires immediate transfer to open chest surgery.
📉 Short:
Entry: 2.26 (current price +3.4%)
Take Profit 1: 1.98 (-9.5%)
Take Profit 2: 2.00 (-8.5%)
Stop Loss: 2.51 (+14.6%)
Monitoring focus: the short-term is only 0.4% from the upper band, any spike could be a precursor to ventricular fibrillation; the mid-term exceeding the upper band by 1.1% is not healthy compensation but overextension. This $SSV operation, wait for the rebound first, then clamp; the incision can be small, but hemostasis must be precise. Diagnosis made: high-level regurgitation, short first then suture; if 2.51 is effectively broken, immediately transfer to open chest surgery.UNITREE Yushù Technology has entered a short squeeze rally, with a -1 funding rate continuously eroding short sellers' costs. Once the shorts can't hold on any longer, it might drop. Hourly charts have already shown signs of bearish divergence. When the funding rate drops, it will be possible to short.Seeing this message, I felt that familiar feeling from the last round again: verbally afraid, but the market didn't fully follow the pessimistic script. At times like this, I remind myself that low sentiment and position liquidation are two different things.
At 10 AM Beijing time, BTC is at $77,776, up 0.51% in 24 hours; ETH is at $2,273, up 1.36%; SOL is at $95.83, down 0.79%. The funding rates for all three are 0.0013% per hour, and the fear and greed index is 34, in the fear zone.
Unlike the vague impression from the last round, this time when separating price, sentiment, and position cost, the signals are inconsistent. My judgment is that this looks more like an expected tug-of-war within the cycle, not enough to be taken as evidence that risk has been released. The index reflects sentiment and cannot replace position data; the funding rate is still positive, indicating longs are still paying holding costs, but this number alone does not prove long crowding. BTC and ETH rising while SOL falls also does not support a unanimous shift toward optimism in funding.
I won't use "everyone is afraid" to boost my confidence. What I want to observe next is whether, as sentiment remains weak, price and funding rates can stay stable, rather than rushing to label this phase as a cycle turning point. SOL has bounced up a bit from the low, but it hasn't reclaimed the 24-hour opening line yet.
As of around 13:51 on November 1, OKX spot SOL/USDT was quoted at 95.59, with a rolling 24-hour low of 95.15 and an opening price of 95.89. Calculated based on this opening, it still fell by 0.31%; moving away from the low and recovering the entire window's decline are not the same thing.
The latest completed 12:00 hourly candle had a low of 95.26 and a close of 95.46; the 13:00 hourly candle, not yet complete at that time, opened at 95.47, with an intraday low of 95.44 and the latest price at 95.59. This only indicates that the snapshot price was above the hour's open, but it cannot be said in advance that a bullish candle has formed.
Regarding this rebound, 95.89 is more recognizable than "no longer at the lowest point": it is the 24-hour starting point of this snapshot, not a guaranteed support order wall.
If subsequent hourly candles close back above 95.89 and still close above it after a retest, it can be considered that this repair threshold has been crossed; merely touching or briefly surpassing it intraday is still insufficient to determine that the repair is complete.
If it first closes below 95.26, the recent complete hourly low will also fail to hold, and the judgment of this short-term repair must be canceled; 95.15 is just a lower rolling low and cannot be assumed to have buy orders there.
These conditions only address SOL's own pullback repair and do not confirm strength from another market just because BTC is near its high. Gold $XAU has really struggled this week😥
It oscillated around $4000 at the start of the week, briefly surged to about $4089 midweek, but then continuously fell back, breaking below $4000 on Friday and hitting a low near $3881. The weekly drop is about 2.7%.
The Fed held interest rates steady this time, but there were two dissenting votes in favor of a rate hike internally, and the subsequently released PCE data showed inflationary pressures remain significant.
Gold is already facing pressure from tighter monetary policy, and on top of that, the US stock market saw a clear sell-off on Friday.
Gold fell along with it. At times like this, liquidity shocks must be considered; some funds may need to sell gold to replenish cash or meet margin requirements.
I am still bearish for now:
$4000 has once again become a key resistance level. Next week, I will first watch how support holds around $3880.
This round of decline has not yet shown a clear enough signal of a bottom, so I’m not in a hurry to guess the bottom.
#美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 I saw this message and first calculated my own cost account: for an on-chain transaction, the fee plus slippage is the real cash expenditure. No matter how lively the trading volume is, it cannot offset these costs for me.
According to DefiLlama, the total DEX trading volume across the network in the past 24 hours was about $7.019 billion, down 42.7% from the previous day, but up 9.7% compared to a week ago. My judgment is that the short-term heat has cooled off, but we cannot directly say that on-chain demand has turned cold: the large day-on-day decline indicates unstable heat; the positive week-on-week figure suggests that looking at just one day can easily lead to misjudgment.
For ordinary users, large volume does not mean every pool trades well, and volume contraction does not mean risk shrinks accordingly. If volume contraction is accompanied by a decrease in pool depth, then slippage might be more disadvantageous, which is my speculation. I choose to be more cautious and will focus on trading depth and actual costs going forward, rather than using single-day trading volume as a directional signal. #加密行业协同守护资产安全 【Weekend Gold Review】
Gold not only fell below 4000 but also broke 3900; this round of sharp decline may be nearing its end.
In the past 30 years, gold has experienced about a 30% correction every few years: a 26% drop in one month in 2006, a 34% drop over seven months in 2008, a 22% drop over more than two years in 2020, and a 46% drop over more than four years after the bull market ended in 2011. Starting from the January high of $5600 in 2026, this round has been adjusting for 9 months with a maximum drawdown of 29%, both in duration and magnitude close to typical shakeouts since 2000.
Every major drop comes with "ghost stories," but the essence remains liquidity, high interest rates, and a strong dollar. This time, all three factors overlap: oil prices hit a five-month high, US CPI returned to 3.7%, and the market fears consecutive Fed rate hikes. Unless you consider yourself smarter than decades of market history, the current price level is already attractive. But attractive prices do not mean an immediate main upward wave: historically, it takes only 2–3 months to recover half the decline from the low, but more than a year to reach new highs; if like the 2011 bull market end, recovering half took three and a half years.
Currently, inflation is sticky, interest rates are high, and liquidity is relatively tight, so gold as a non-yielding asset temporarily lacks catalysts for a one-sided bull market. More importantly, if a strong rebound comes, be prepared for tactical allocation and don’t just wait passively. Under high interest rates, first decide clearly: short-term speculation or long-term allocation; don’t numb yourself with grand long-term narratives and ignore short-term timing.The recent market has been a bit surreal: oil prices are pressuring, tech stocks are getting hammered
The current macro and US stock logic basically boils down to a few lines:
1. Macro: The US-Iran chicken game, with the world footing the bill
The essence of the current oil price surge is still the Iran situation. Both the US and Iran know that continuing the fight is pointless, but neither wants to back down, exchanging harsh words. This has pushed oil prices up, making inflation uncontrollable.
Result: The market expects an 80% probability of a Fed rate hike in December. Oil prices and gold have become a seesaw—oil price rises ➡️ forcing the Fed to hike rates ➡️ suppressing gold prices.
Ultimately, the losers are the bond market, stock market, and the global economy.
2. US Stocks: Tech stock massacre, but don’t panic yet
US stocks continued to fall on Friday, with Intel plummeting (even though it has tripled from the bottom, this pullback is painful). Google, Micron, and a bunch of stocks related to optical chips have dropped 30% or even halved from their highs.
But note one data point: The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index fell 25%, but the Nasdaq overall only dropped 10%. The Nasdaq typically experiences about a 20% correction annually and then fully recovers, so a 10% drop is actually normal.
The characteristic of US stocks is quick clearing; after the drop, valuations aren’t high, and with positive news, they are likely to slowly climb back up.
3. Where did the money go?
With tech stocks crashing, funds fled to buy US Treasuries for safety. As more people bought, Treasury yields were driven down.
Here’s the interesting part: The sharp drop in Treasury yields effectively acts like a rate cut. $SNDK The pet phrase "Give me a little more" makes me think not of cuteness, but of greed and how good it is at making excuses for itself 🫠. According to Odaily monitoring, the market cap of $BLOB on Solana has surpassed $1.4 million; it personifies Dario Amodei's "Big Blob of Compute" scaling hypothesis as an insatiable orange AI pet.
I think it tends to amplify AI anxiety rather than prove that the AI sector has gained new value. Chips and power plants have become pet food, and computing power expenses are turned into an easy-to-understand joke; subscription bills and employment anxiety provide an emotional outlet for onlookers. My guess is, if participants treat the hype as value confirmation, then the resonance from onlookers might also be misread as sustained demand, and confirmation bias emerges here.
I also tend to add business logic to a meme just because it fits well. Next, I want to clarify: are people laughing at AI being insatiable, or at their own "Give me a little more" impulse acting up again.ZEC was rejected twice today at the 1257 resistance level.
At 09:00, it touched 1264.00 and closed at 1257.05; at 10:00, a large sell order of 3.1 million contracts pushed the price down from 1257.06 to 1238.48, marking the 24-hour low.
At 11:00, it took three attempts with 4.25 million contracts (1.37 times the sell volume) to recover to 1252.47, still 4.59 points short of the initial sell-off point.
At 14:00, it again touched 1255.85 but was pushed back to 1245.39 — funds were exhausted, and no position was held.
The MA20 is at 1266.04, about 20 points above; the current price is 1245.39 / 24h -1.56%.
On the 1H chart, there is a rebound between 1254~1257 but with volume closing bearish (≥2.5 million contracts) indicating a short position, stop loss at 1262.50, first target at 1238.48, with odds of 2.4.
Only if volume closes above 1258.90 (≥3 million contracts) would a long position be considered; with MA20 just 7 points away and stop loss needing 8 points, the odds are less than 1, so no trade.
The 1240~1254 range is still consolidating; do not act prematurely.
$ZEC
(Not investment advice, trade at your own risk)The same liquidation event, three different ledgers
$1.347 billion liquidated across the entire network in 24 hours, with bulls accounting for 86.68%. BTC hit a low of 76,769, currently around 77,400; ETH at 2,240; SOL hit a low of 94.38.
$BTC around 77,400. Spot ETF net inflow of $135 million in a single day, absorbing 1,684 BTC, almost the only buyer amid panic. The area around 76,895 is the densest bullish zone, less than 1% below the current price.
$ETH around 2,240. ETF has seen net outflows for 23 consecutive trading days, the longest streak since listing; however, staking volume hit a new high of 43.8 million tokens, with an address buying 7,703 tokens 9 hours ago for 17.24 million USDC. ETFs are selling “paper ETH,” while whales are locking up “real ETH.”
$SOL around 95–96. ETF net inflow of 6.12 million in one day, totaling 12.87 million over 7 days, the only direction still receiving funds; however, about 1.223 million SOL (worth $117 million) was transferred to Coinbase Prime on the 31st. Funding rate is -0.0097%, shorts pay, bulls still hold 76.1% of accounts.
In short: liquidations clear leverage, but money does not indiscriminately flee—BTC ETFs are absorbing, ETH whales are hoarding, SOL large addresses are transferring.
For record-keeping of market conditions only, not investment advice.
#美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧 Hyperliquid platform's position data shows a clear contrast. The platform's total open contract size reaches $10.38 billion, with short positions totaling $5.65 billion. On the surface, shorts hold the position advantage, but actual profit and loss have already reversed. Long unrealized gains reach $48.01 million, significantly exceeding the shorts' $16.72 million. Although shorts can still earn about $110 million in funding fees, as the market continues to rise, this income buffer is being steadily eroded by unrealized losses. The most noteworthy is the top whale holding a $650 million position. This account shorts Bitcoin ($BTC) for $180 million at an entry price near 76,366, currently with an unrealized loss of $2.87 million; shorts Ethereum ($ETH) for $220 million at an entry price of 2322, still holding a $6.67 million profit; shorts SOL ($SOL) for $66.77 million, with an unrealized loss of $1.1 million. Overall leverage is maintained between 5 to 7 times, with Bitcoin short liquidation price as high as 135,619, margin is sufficient, making forced liquidation unlikely in the short term. This also changes the traditional whale liquidation game; betting on this account's collapse is unrealistic. The whale's entry prices instead become key market dividing lines: Bitcoin ($BTC) around 76,366 is a battleground for longs and shorts; Ethereum ($ETH) faces heavy resistance above, making rapid short-term gains difficult; SOL ($SOL) shows weak trends, with strong selling pressure near $94. As for the platform token Went flat over the weekend, here’s the trader’s perspective analysis:
Spot-Futures Divergence Alert: BTC is genuinely accumulating, ETH is a fake pump? 🩸
Just finished reviewing the capital flow chart, this is clearly the big players playing "Great Shift of Qi and Kun"! Retail traders watch the candlesticks, veterans only watch the capital.
📊 Core Signal Breakdown
1. BTC: Spot aggressively accumulating, futures faking a dump (+121 million vs -18.72 million)
This is the classic accumulation signal! Whales are hoarding coins crazily on spot, but deliberately smashing the futures market to create panic. As long as spot inflows continue and futures outflows happen, it’s just smoke and mirrors; a rise is only a matter of time.
2. ETH: Spot fleeing, futures pumping (+120 million vs -82.87 million)
Extremely dangerous! Smart money is withdrawing from spot but using high-leverage funds to pump futures. This "spot runs, futures surge" is a typical bull trap. Without spot support, the rise can cascade down anytime.
3. SOL: Pumping while withdrawing
Although there is short-term inflow, combined with long-term data, the main force is in profit-taking mode. The current rebound looks more like a downtrend continuation; catching the falling knife has very low odds.
Trader’s Notes
Iron rule: Spot inflow + futures outflow = real rise; spot outflow + futures inflow = fake rise.
Strategy: Follow BTC spot movements, don’t trust ETH futures volume. Only coins held in hand are real; futures floating profits can vanish anytime.
$ETH $BTC $SOL
#聯準會官員釋放升息訊號，12月預期仍存分歧 I see large long positions being opened, and what I most want to do is add a "cooling-off period" to the signal. After learning quantitative trading, I developed a small quirk: the more I want to draw immediate conclusions, the more I want to write a filtering condition first 🤖
This time, the wallet Core Trader 07 (0x8afaca…28113) opened a long position with 3x leverage on $ONDO, with a nominal value of about $106,800 and a reference price of about $0.4141. This is an opening position, not a report card; for now, we can only see that it is willing to take on long risk.
If I were to write this as a strategy, I would first try an observation rule: if such a long position is detected, record the reference price; only if the next two consecutive 15-minute candlesticks close above the reference price does it enter the long research list, otherwise it is temporarily set aside. This condition is my hypothesis, does not mean the subsequent market has already moved, nor is it an automatic buy instruction.
My judgment is that large orders are suitable as research clues, not as direct directional answers. Waiting for candle closes can filter out some instantaneous price disturbances; but the cost is slower confirmation, possibly missing a segment of volatility. The flaw is also obvious: price standing above the reference price still cannot prove that this wallet has no other hedging positions, and a single monitoring cannot see the full intent.
I would first test whether this rule can reduce false positives, rather than rushing to adjust parameters. If you were to write this confirmation condition, would you choose "two 15-minute closes" or "one 1-hour close"? Which type of noise would you prefer to filter?Election night hasn't arrived yet, but people in the square are already shouting "Price will rise after the election."
I checked the data: Since 1974, in 13 midterm elections, the S&P 500 rose 11 times in the three months after the election (Schwab statistics); BTC averaged a 53.7% increase 12 months after the election (CoinDesk). Sounds pretty good, right?
But CoinDesk also reminds us that those big BTC rallies seem more like the four-year halving cycle just happened to coincide, with only three samples, so it may not be the election's credit.
My approach: Don’t chase on Tuesday night, take what you should take. The election is one less uncertainty, not a price increase pass.
Are you positioning ahead on Tuesday, or waiting for the results before making a move?
$BTC $SPY
Personal opinion, not advice
#MidtermElection #Cryptocurrency #USStockMarket$AVAX's differentiation lies in custom chains and subnets, but the number of chains does not equal economic activity. Security shocks make the market more concerned about bridging, validation, and asset isolation. If the subnet architecture can reduce single points of failure, it may demonstrate advantages; however, if users and liquidity are fragmented and cross-chain costs increase, ecosystem expansion could instead dilute network effects. The key is whether real settlement and fees grow in a concentrated manner.【Market Real-Time Quotes】$BTC is struggling around the $77,000 mark (down about 5% in 24h), $ETH is hovering near $2,200, and $SOL has fallen below $95. The Fear and Greed Index remains at 29, deeply stuck in the fear zone. The market just experienced $1.47 billion in liquidations and deleveraging, while the external macro environment is sending even more troubling signals. 👇 First, let's look at the core data from today's sobering analyst report: 📊 Giants losing momentum: Analyst John Bates states that so far in Q3, five of the "Big Tech Seven" companies have EPS growth lagging behind other S&P 500 constituents. 📈 Stunning reversal: The combined EPS growth forecast for the Big Tech Seven has plunged from 33.6% a month ago to 22.6%. In contrast, the other 493 S&P 500 companies have a combined EPS growth of 32.6%. This means that for the first time since Q4 2022, the giants' profit growth will underperform that of other ordinary companies. ⚠️ Trend continuation: Analysts expect this "decentralized" profit trend to continue into Q4 this year. 【Why does this data scare the crypto community more than the Fed's rate hikes?】 Over the past two years, the logic for US stocks and global risk assets has been extremely simple: buy AI, buy tech giants. Because the giants have the strongest cash flow and highest growth. The crypto market's AI track (such as decentralized computing power and storage) also follows this logic closely, leveraging the giants' spillover demand to push valuations to the max. The early session targets of 898.87 and 900.77 were hit, but this trade didn't make a profit.
At 12:00, a large order of 1,214 contracts pushed 898.72 up to 902.00; at 13:00, using 1,127 contracts (93%) only moved it 0.39 points, with the lower shadow touching 900.07.
With the same amount of contracts, the first move covered 3.28 points, the second only 0.39 points — volume per point rose from 370 contracts to 2,890 contracts.
Above 902 is the supply left from yesterday at 905.32; pushing it up would cost eight times more, so no one is lifting it.
No trading in US stocks over the weekend; true pricing happens at Monday's US Eastern open (22:30 Beijing time, winter).
On the 1H chart, a volume-backed close above 902.00 (≥1000 contracts) suggests buying on pullbacks to 901.3~901.7, stop loss at 900.00, target 905.32, risk-reward ratio 2.5.
A volume-backed break below 898.37 (MA20, ≥1000 contracts) suggests shorting on rebounds to 899.0~899.6, stop loss at 901.00, target 894.03, risk-reward ratio 3.1.
Current price 901.42 / 24h -0.28%.
$MU
(Not investment advice, trade at your own risk) After continuous net inflows during the bull market, the ETH spot ETF has now experienced 23 consecutive days of large net outflows, closely aligning with ETH's price trend! As for causality, I believe the price decline caused the spot ETF net outflows, rather than the net outflows causing the price drop! Currently, ETH's trend pattern resembles a dome top, with the vast majority of people bearish on the market outlook, so net outflows may continue. However, excessive outflows that significantly deviate from the ETF's normal pattern over a long period will definitely reverse soon, starting net inflows again. At that time, the causality will flip, and massive net inflows will drive $ETH's price up. Hold on to your positions!Today's market is quite divided; BTC and ETH are warming up, but altcoins are collectively down.
Those that surged the most yesterday are all selling off today. LSK jumped 34% yesterday but has dropped 15% from its high today. BTC, on the other hand, is slowly climbing back to 77,900.
Many people ask if this is good or bad. Honestly, it's not looking great.
This indicates no new money is coming in; it's still the same old money moving around. Yesterday, BTC was sideways while they went guerrilla trading in altcoins. Today, BTC is warming up, and they pull back. The mainstream and altcoins can only be red on one side—this is a seesaw, not a real market.
Moreover, a true reversal doesn't follow this script. BTC should move first, then altcoins follow, and everyone heats up together. Now BTC rises while altcoins fall, showing funds are hiding in the strong assets, not daring to attack broadly. This is defensive warming; the risk appetite hasn't returned at all.
So when can you be confident? Just watch one signal: BTC holds above 79,000 and altcoins start to follow and catch up. Only when these two conditions are met can we talk about a real market.
Before that, treat the rises as portfolio rotation, not trend chasing.
#BTC持续震荡，后续走势受多重因素影响 $BTC $ETH $LSK Active trading doesn't mean there will be good quotes when exiting. When I saw this message, the first thing that came to my mind was this sentence. What I care more about is not whether the drop is large enough, but whether the quotes can support the upcoming trades.
According to Hyperliquid perpetual contract public data, the XPL contract open interest dropped from about $99.57 million to $80.65 million in four hours, a 19% decrease; during the same period, the price fell from $0.08156 to $0.07063. The 24-hour trading volume was about $48.85 million, with a funding rate of 0.0013% per hour.
My judgment is that this set of data is more suitable as a reminder of execution risk, not to be packaged as "chips have been cleaned out." The simultaneous decline in price and open interest indicates that the contraction in open interest was not accompanied by price stabilization; but based on these numbers alone, it's impossible to distinguish how much was active closing versus forced liquidation. Rushing to label the decline risks mistaking speculation for evidence.
Another easy misinterpretation: the 24-hour trading volume represents trades that have already occurred, not the current bids on the order book, and it does not share the same statistical window as the four-hour open interest change. If the order book thins afterward, even if there are still trades, slippage could increase—this is my speculation, not a fact proven by the data. Next, I want to look at order book depth and bid-ask spreads to first understand the thickness of the quotes before discussing the temperature of market sentiment.#Meta credit outlook turns negative, AI investment credit risk under scrutiny
The leader has something to say
S&P has downgraded Meta's credit outlook from stable to negative, maintaining the AA- rating. Capital expenditures are expected to exceed $225 billion by 2027, with a free operating cash flow gap of about $71 billion. During the same period, Broadcom's outlook was adjusted to stable, while Oracle was downgraded to BBB- due to high leverage expansion.
I believe the downgrade by rating agencies is a red card from traditional finance signaling the AI arms race. Previously, Wall Street only focused on AI's growth story, but now rating agencies have started to do the math. A cash flow gap of $71 billion means Meta must issue a large amount of debt to cover it. In a high interest rate environment, the debt burden increases, and with high customer concentration, credit risk is directly exposed.
Someone in the comments reminded that the countdown is 4 days, the US midterm elections are approaching, and technology regulation and tax policies are about to be rewritten. The market game window officially opens.
On the market, META rose slightly by 0.13%, the market reaction was not intense, but a credit rating downgrade often signals a long-term increase in financing costs.
Bitcoin fell below 77,000 last night and is still grinding below. Let's see if it can stand back above 80,000. If it can't hold, expect a deeper pullback, with resistance above at 84,000 to 85,000. Do not chase the rise or sell off; set stop losses properly on your orders.
The above analysis is time-sensitive; orders must have stop losses set. Good luck. $BTC $ETH $SOL SanDisk 1-for-8 Stock Split Is About to Happen! Has the Market Already Priced It In?
The news of SanDisk (SNDK) 1-for-8 stock split was announced a long time ago, so what really deserves attention this time is not the split announcement itself, but how the market will behave after the official split on November 20.
Here are a few points worth observing:
1️⃣ Stock split does not equal stock price increase
Originally, 1 share becomes 8 shares, so theoretically the stock price becomes one-eighth of the original. The company's total market value and the actual value held by investors will not automatically increase due to the split.
2️⃣ What the market truly cares about is the capital reaction
After the split, the lower stock price threshold may improve trading convenience, but whether it can attract new capital depends on actual trading volume and buying interest.
3️⃣ The core logic remains AI storage demand
Compared to the split, I pay more attention to the demand for NAND flash and enterprise-grade SSDs. The continuous expansion of AI data centers and the storage industry's prosperity are the key supports for SanDisk's medium- to long-term performance.
4️⃣ In the short term, focus more on recovery after the previous sharp decline
Although the earnings report was good, the stock price still experienced a significant pullback, indicating that the market still has differing views on the high valuation and future growth expectations.
Next, we need to see if SanDisk can regain capital favor after the split takes effect, and whether storage stocks like SK Hynix and Micron can strengthen simultaneously.
A stock split is just a capital structure adjustment, not a new fundamental positive.
What is truly worth looking forward to is whether AI storage demand can continue to materialize and whether capital can return to the semiconductor sector.
$SNDK BitChoice | Satya | Market Structure Intelligence
November 1, 2026 Wall Street Is Looking Beyond Traditional Trading Hours A major development is taking shape at the intersection of traditional finance and crypto-native market infrastructure. On October 29, Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), the parent company of the New York Stock Exchange, announced an agreement with Trade[XYZ] to bring Hyperliquid-based perpetual futures markets into a regulated US environment. And there is another important paTo judge whether there is still money in the market, I mainly look at the total supply of stablecoins. It is the ammunition depot of the entire market; when it rises, it means money is flowing in, and when it falls, money is being redeemed and withdrawn.
This time the numbers are interesting. For the whole year of 2025, the total supply of stablecoins increased from 203.2 billion to 303.7 billion, an increase of 100.5 billion. But from January 1 to October 28, 2026, the total actually decreased by about 2.1 billion, retreating to 301.6 billion. In between, on May 17, it peaked at 315.5 billion and never returned to that level.
Breaking it down makes it clearer. $USDT decreased by 5.3 billion within the year, $USDC decreased by 4 billion, so the two mainstream stablecoins together withdrew 9.3 billion. But other stablecoins collectively grew by 7.2 billion. In other words, the net outflow of 2.1 billion is a real redemption, while most of the rest is just a reshuffling of existing funds—money moving from large stablecoins to smaller ones, not exiting the market nor increasing positions.
Therefore, $BTC only fell about 7% during the same period. My understanding is: there is little selling pressure, but also no new ammunition. A shrinking volume gradual decline is harder to endure than a volume-driven crash because it doesn’t give a reason for panic, only time.
One point worth considering: if the next cycle sees other stablecoins first absorbing the incremental supply, then when the large stablecoins expand again, the market share and liquidity structure may no longer be the same as before.S&P just gave Meta a yellow light: the outlook changed from stable to negative the day it predicted the 2027 bill would exceed $225 billion.
The AA- rating itself hasn't changed, but from October 14 to 30, Meta's stock price has dropped over 19%, wiping out $375.8 billion in market value, leaving only $1.57 trillion.
S&P's reason is straightforward: AI investment monetization is weaker than peers, and the pace of spending shows no timetable for payback.
The predicted bill is even more alarming: this year's capital expenditure is about $140 billion, exceeding $225 billion in 2027, and reaching $252 billion in 2028.
Leverage is also turning sour: about 0.1x last year, possibly exceeding the 1.0x downgrade threshold next year.
Free cash flow in Q3 is already negative $2.12 billion, compared to positive $10.63 billion a year ago.
Meta responded "respectfully disagree," but this time the rating agency isn't looking at whether advertising is profitable, but whether the cash-burning ledger can hold up.
I think this is the first time the AI ledger has been credit-priced: spending is allowed, but it must prove it can be recovered; the fail-safe is Meta setting a 2027 spending cap or free cash flow returning to positive, then this yellow light will be void.
Do you think this is the first time the AI ledger has been credit-priced, or is the rating agency reacting half a step late?
$META $MSFT $GOOGL
#Meta信用展望转负，AI投资信用风险受关注 #英特尔Q4指引不及预期，股价暴跌近30%
Storage contracts diverge sharply: Is storage at a turning point?
$SNDK short-term sell-off
$SKHYNIX fundamental bull-bear tug-of-war lifts price
What’s your take? Still bullish?
Who would have thought that the storage sector, with strong earnings, would see contracts play out a completely different script, as capital quietly begins to diversify its layout.
First, look at $SNDK SanDisk contracts, which surged earlier to a high of 1421.2 before quickly plunging, hitting an intraday low of 1117.1, currently oscillating around 1156.5. Although its latest earnings report shows revenue growth and strong NAND demand from data centers, the market’s biggest concern has surfaced: the pace of NAND price increases has clearly slowed, consumer demand is weakening, and Intel’s earnings shock dragged down sentiment across the chip sector. A large amount of profit-taking triggered this rapid decline. Hourly moving averages are all trending down, short-term selling pressure hasn’t fully eased, and any rebound is more of a technical correction with significant trapped positions above.
In contrast, SK Hynix’s fundamentals are stronger, with Q3 revenue and profits hitting record highs, plus a large shareholder return plan. HBM combined with DRAM and NAND all benefit from AI computing demand. But it also can’t escape sector sentiment disturbances, with contract prices fluctuating as capital oscillates between “positive earnings” and “peak cycle concerns.” The core difference between the two is: SanDisk is more focused on the single NAND track, with consumer demand drag more obvious; Hynix holds core HBM capacity, with stronger AI computing order support and better resilience.
#OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 After reading, I noted three things: 9.7% higher than a week ago, this is the detail I care about most. What popped into my mind wasn’t "hot or not," but how much of this demand will stick.
1. According to DefiLlama, DEX trading volume in the past 24 hours was about $7.019 billion, down 42.7% day-over-day, but still positive year-over-year. My judgment is that this data set does not support the claim that "on-chain demand has already receded," but it’s also not enough to give the DEX sector a high score.
2. Trading volume can show how much was transacted, but it can’t directly answer why users come or whether they will return; speculation and position swapping both contribute to volume, and year-over-year growth does not equal established usage habits. As someone who likes to make lists, I’m most afraid of casually equating "volume remains" with "users are retained." These two must be verified separately.
3. I will focus future observations on repeat usage rather than leaderboard rankings. If active addresses continue to return after volume shrinks, then I will be more convinced of the demand’s resilience; this is my speculation, and this information alone cannot verify it.
My list stops here for now: beyond transaction scale, we must also question demand quality. What would you add as a fourth point—to judge whether this 9.7% growth is solid, which data would you most want to see and why? $ETH ETF fund flow direction has changed: institutions withdraw first, don't rush to bottom fish
The latest US spot $BTC ETF saw a single-day net outflow of $643 million, wiping out the gains from four consecutive days of inflows in one day. ETH is even weaker, with a single-day net outflow of $156 million and five consecutive days of net outflows. This is not a retail-driven sell-off; essentially, institutions are adjusting their positions.
Previously, with the FOMC holding steady, institutions continuously bought BTC; after the PCE data release, rate hike expectations heated up, and funds immediately shifted. ETF subscriptions and redemptions are the most straightforward institutional votes: continuous inflows indicate bullishness, continuous outflows indicate caution or even bearishness. Now BTC ETF has just turned to outflows for one day, but $ETH ETF has had five consecutive days of outflows, indicating institutions are less interested in ETH.
Next, keep an eye on ETFs: if net outflows continue, BTC still faces downside pressure; only when sustained net inflows reappear will it look more like a confirmation of a phase bottom. Don't guess sentiment, watch the money.
#美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧 Too bearish, too bearish! $XPL dumped about 18% in one minute, someone first withdrew the margin and then dumped the position to the insurance fund 😂
This morning around noon Beijing time, a series of newly opened perpetual accounts withdrew about $1.62 million in margin within minutes, while still holding about $12.2 million worth of $XPL long positions. The price dropped from about 0.086 to 0.0705, and these positions were directly liquidated into the platform's insurance fund, which took over and lost about $600,000.
What's even more outrageous is that these accounts were just created a couple of days ago, funded through the same deposit path, and before the dump, they tested a few small withdrawals. Meanwhile, the European and US perpetual market traded about $11.23 million in that one minute. The whole market saw about $24.3 million in long position liquidations within an hour, accounting for roughly 99%.
It looks like they deliberately dumped the positions onto the opposing side, taking out whatever money they could first. This kind of play has been seen several times in crypto, and every time I watch it, I feel sorry for the people left holding the bag.
For beginners, it's recommended to watch more and trade less; when buying coins, only buy $BTC 🚨 Panic has spread to the options market
$BTC $ETH $SOL
Analysts have factored in a deep pullback into their expectations
Polymarket pricing is very eye-catching
BTC is stuck in the 79,000–80,000 demand zone
81,000–82,000 is the first rebound hurdle
Market bets:
The probability of holding 80,000 is only 1.2%
Breaking below 70,000 is given at 99.9%
Derivatives have already priced in a deep pullback
But on-chain data is not one-sided
Whales have been placing orders for several consecutive days
Bottom fishing with positions over 100,000 coins
ETH is weaker
NUPL 0.0073, close to the break-even line
Holder profits are basically almost wiped out
ETF continues outflows, early ICO tokens are still being sold
Over 10,000 coins sold again yesterday
NUPL returning to zero is usually a bottom signal
If 2300 is not reclaimed, it is not considered a stop to the decline
SOL has a hidden positive factor
SkyAI corporate treasury has fully liquidated SOL
$223.8 million cashed out
Top-level selling pressure cleared
On-chain active addresses remain stable at 1.88 million
The current decline leans towards a macro-driven sell-off
Waiting for Alpenglow real trading data
It is expected to rebound first
Do you think Polymarket's extreme bet this time will come true?
This is only market observation and does not constitute investment advice
#美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧