Orbit Post Sitemap
CORE's Saudi Dream: Cooperation ≠ Investment
Many investors fantasize that the Saudi sovereign fund will directly take a heavy position in CORE tokens, becoming the project's strongest backer. But reality requires a clear boundary: compliance cooperation at the ecological product level ≠ direct investment by Saudi sovereign capital in CORE tokens. The ecological project Nawa Finance deployed on the Core chain has obtained Shariah compliance certification from Amanie Advisors, creating a Halal Bitcoin yield vault targeting the Gulf region, aiming to cover markets such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Core Ventures provides ecological support to Nawa; the product has already launched and briefly reached a TVL of 40M USD. This is a real ecological action, not a completely fabricated story. The community's over-interpretation narrative does not include direct investment in CORE tokens by the Saudi PIF sovereign fund. Nawa has obtained religious compliance certification at the product level, which does not equate to the entire Core public chain obtaining a Saudi regulatory license, nor does it mean that official Saudi funds have bought CORE tokens to support the token price. Cooperation can bring potential Middle Eastern BTC capital inflows, which is a plus for the sector, but it cannot solve Core's most fundamental pain points: official validator nodes continuously withdrawing, SatPay delays, and the on-chain native revenue flywheel failing to take off. The Middle East compliance channel only opens a door; it does not mean that major investors have entered. Cooperation is real, but the narrative of "Saudi heavy investment" is an exaggerated market story.Celo focuses on payments and native stablecoin issuance, while Ronin specializes in stablecoin circulation within blockchain gaming. AVAX, DOT, and APT lean towards institutional large-scale capital sectors; Celo and Ronin are rooted in high-frequency consumer scenarios, showing stronger growth potential in stablecoin circulation.Zhang Sufen would shake her head? Without even a Saudi background, CORE's bottom-line logic is even weaker
The core safety cornerstone of Zhang Sufen's contrarian strategy is that the target has a rigid bottom line. She prefers state-owned small-cap stocks; even if the stock price declines for a long time, the corporate entity will not easily disappear, providing a safety cushion for long-term lurking. Many retail investors fantasize that the Middle East narrative can serve as a "state-owned substitute bottom line" for CORE, believing that Saudi sovereign funds entering the market can support the coin price, but this expectation itself is market rumor. The fact is that there is no direct investment in CORE tokens by Saudi sovereign funds; only the ecosystem project Nawa Finance has obtained Islamic law compliance certification, which is a cooperation at the ecological DApp product level, not a sovereign capital heavy investment. When the fantasy of "Saudi takeover" is shattered, CORE's already weak bottom-line logic is further weakened.
It neither has the physical entity regulatory protection like A-share listed companies, nor does the project team stop actively withdrawing validation nodes. SatPay has been unable to launch for a long time, and on-chain real revenue has never been realized. State-owned bottom line guarantees "even if performance is poor, the entity still exists"; whereas CORE's biggest current risk is the project team continuously reducing input, and the chain's security steadily weakening. Of course, CORE still retains the high odds brought by the BTCFi track, and small position speculative bets on the trend are feasible, but absolutely cannot copy Zhang Sufen's approach of buying more as it falls and holding long-term to death. Zhang Sufen bets on market overkill, while CORE bets on the project not soft-exiting; the underlying risks of the two are completely different.I lost ten thousand dollars on oil here with $BZ. I understand clearly that Trump won't let oil prices drop so fast. High oil prices mean American companies sell a lot and make a lot of money. Trump is actually bullish on oil. Let's not talk about the one or two months before the midterm elections, and Iran won't lower its bargaining chips in negotiations. There are only a few days left before the midterms, so what's the point of negotiating now? Oil prices falling benefit voters for at least half a month, and the probability of Trump losing both houses is very high. Now the aircraft carriers have all been deployed to the Middle East. Is it because they're afraid of being photographed? Previously, the strait was blocked, and oil couldn't get out. It was Trump deliberately forcing Gulf countries to find their own way out. Now the effect has appeared: ship-to-ship transfers and other channels. Even with the strait blockade, oil transportation has reached pre-war levels. Iran's leverage over the strait is useless now. Let's wait for oil to hit new highs after the election.CORE's Middle East Chessboard: Is it 'Real Cooperation' or 'Riding the Narrative'? The data tells you
The Core Middle East sector belongs to genuine ecological cooperation, but the market has seriously exaggerated the narrative. The two need to be clearly distinguished in terms of actual implementation: The ecological project Nawa Finance has obtained Amanie Advisors' Islamic Shariah certification and, in partnership with Solv Protocol, operates the CoreSolvBTC.CORE compliant BTC interest-bearing vault. The product design avoids interest models and is open to Gulf Muslim funds such as those from Saudi Arabia and the UAE. It is an on-chain DeFi product that has already been launched, not a completely fabricated story. Core also held the Bitcoin Fusion industry conference in Dubai, promoting the ecosystem to Middle Eastern institutions, which is a genuine ecological action. The exaggerated and narrative-driven part in the market: There is no direct investment in CORE tokens by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund PIF; this is a rumor that emerged during community dissemination. Nawa is an ecological DApp deployed on Core and has obtained product-level compliance certification, which does not equate to the entire Core public chain obtaining a Saudi regulatory license. Sovereign funds have not directly entered to support the CORE token price. From the data perspective, although Nawa is launched, there has been no explosive growth of massive Middle Eastern BTC funds flooding in for staking. The Middle East cooperation has only opened a potential capital entry point but cannot solve Core's core shortcomings: official validator nodes continue to withdraw,"Don't dream that Saudi Arabia has bailed it out! The real trump card of CORE is only the 'compliance channel' in the Middle East"
The most widespread market fantasy is that the Saudi sovereign fund directly enters the market to heavily bail out CORE tokens. But the reality is: there is no direct investment in CORE by Saudi sovereign capital. The trump card Core holds is that the ecosystem project Nawa Finance has obtained Shariah compliance certification, opening a BTCFi product channel targeting Muslim funds in the Gulf region. Many confuse two concepts: Nawa product compliance ≠ Core's entire public chain obtaining a Saudi regulatory license, and it certainly does not mean Saudi official funds buying CORE tokens. Nawa is an ecosystem DApp deployed on the Core chain, supported by Core Ventures. The product itself has passed Islamic finance compliance audits by third-party institutions and can launch interest-free BTC yield products for Middle Eastern users. This is merely a capital entry point, not a major investor directly propping up the coin price. This Middle East compliance channel is a plus, but it does not solve Core's most fundamental problem: official validator nodes continuously withdrawing, SatPay delays, and on-chain real revenue failing to materialize. The Middle East compliance channel can only open an entry for part of the existing BTC funds but cannot prevent the project team from scaling back investment. The biggest trap in the Middle East narrative is portraying the "product compliance channel" as a "massive Saudi bailout." Whether the channel can continuously bring in real pledged BTC inflows is the real test of whether this trump card can be realized."Holding Above or Breaking Below, Both Sides Win"
Looking at a week, BNB shows relative resilience; over a month, BTC remains more stable; ETH is clearly the weakest. Ranking strength like this is more useful than just guessing the direction.
The 80,000 level for Bitcoin has been oscillating repeatedly. Both bullish and bearish views are voiced; having many opinions isn't the problem. The issue is many analysts always say: "Hold above here to be bullish, break below here to be bearish." If it rises, the bulls win; if it falls, the bears win. Either way, they win, but they never tell you how to position, where to set stop-loss, or if the risk-reward is worthwhile.
Such talk sounds professional but actually says nothing. Holding above or breaking below are confirmations after the fact. During trading, there is no such clear "here." By the time confirmation happens, the price has already moved. Retail investors following this often chase false breakouts and get cut on real pullbacks.
I prefer to look at relative strength: BNB's resilience shows support, BTC's stability means the main trend is intact, ETH's weakness indicates funds haven't fully spread. The repeated oscillation around 80,000 is digesting chips itself, so no need to rush to take sides. Strategically, scaling in, waiting for confirmation, and keeping cash on hand is better than just chanting slogans. Analysts can win on both sides, but you alone are responsible for your own account.Without Saudi investment, can CORE's 'compliance story' still hold?
Many people equate the Middle East narrative with the Saudi sovereign fund directly investing in CORE, which is a major misconception. The reality is that the ecosystem project Nawa Finance obtained Shariah compliance certification and launched a Halal Bitcoin yield product on the Core chain, targeting the Gulf markets such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. This is a product-level compliance at the ecosystem DApp layer, not a direct investment of Saudi sovereign capital into CORE tokens. Stripping away the filter of "Saudi mega investment entering," CORE's compliance narrative can still be told, but its weight and imaginative space will shrink significantly.
✅ Remaining highlights: Nawa's Islamic-compliant BTCFi product theoretically can reach the massive existing BTC funds in the Middle East, representing a differentiated route in the BTCFi sector and still a positive theme. However, this compliance story has major shortcomings: 1. The compliance certification is at the Nawa product level, which does not mean the entire Core public chain has obtained a Saudi regulatory license; the chain itself has not received official blockchain operation permission from Saudi authorities; 2. The most critical point: the fundamental issues of the chain itself have not been resolved by the compliance narrative. Core risks such as continuous withdrawal of official nodes, SatPay delays, and insufficient real on-chain revenue still loom overhead. Middle East compliance is just a product-level embellishment, not a fundamental change that underpins the CORE token. If the chain itself continues to weaken, even if the ecosystem has compliant products, capital will be unwilling to stay long-term Did CORE really get investment from Saudi Arabia? Don't be fooled by the 'Middle East narrative'; the truth is actually quite sobering
The community rumor that "Saudi Arabia has made a huge investment in CORE, and Middle Eastern sovereign funds have entered the scene" is an exaggerated narrative. There is no official announcement of direct investment in CORE by Saudi PIF (Public Investment Fund). The real Middle East-related action in the Core ecosystem is the launch of the ecosystem project Nawa Finance, which focuses on Shariah-compliant BTC yield products covering the Gulf GCC region, supported at the ecosystem level by Core Ventures. This is not Saudi sovereign capital directly investing money into CORE tokens or the Core project itself. There is a fundamental difference between the two: sovereign fund direct investment means substantial real capital backing, bringing a long-term capital ballast; whereas Nawa Finance is just a cooperative DApp within the ecosystem, an ecosystem project, and is not equivalent to Saudi capital heavily holding CORE tokens. The market's portrayal of "launching compliant BTCFi applications in the Gulf region" as Saudi capital entering the market is an overblown narrative. Core's most critical shortcomings remain unresolved by the Middle East narrative: official validator nodes continue to withdraw, SatPay is delayed, partner Mobilum has weak qualifications, and on-chain real revenue has yet to materialize. The Middle East narrative can only be considered a positive theme, not a fundamental qualitative change. One cannot assume large capital is supporting the token price solely based on Middle East-related rumors; it is important to distinguish between "ecosystem regional cooperation" and "sovereign fund direct investment."Last week's $BTC spot ETF fund flows felt like a journey of sudden braking followed by flooring the gas pedal 😵
On Monday, it surged over $500 million, giving the impression that institutions were buying the dip; on Wednesday, another $500 million was added, warming sentiment and making the market think the buying momentum was stabilizing 🚀
But on Thursday, the story reversed with a single-day net outflow of over $630 million, and Friday saw a continued slight retreat 📉. Adding it all up, the week only saw about $300 million net inflow, with the rhythm completely disrupted.
On the charts, $BTC slid from the 84,000 range and has been tugging around 80,500. The 80,000 mark is a short-term critical point: holding it could allow a rebound, but breaking it might accelerate a test of 78,000 🧭. ETH fell from above 2,500 to around 2,350, moving in sync with BTC; 2,300-2,350 is a support zone, and breaking below would put it in a more passive position.
ETFs remain an important institutional entry point, but relying on them alone is insufficient to independently drive the market higher; macro data coordination is also needed. The upcoming Federal Reserve rate decision is the main event 👀#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ Today I checked the long-short data and found something very interesting — although BTC is falling, the retail long-short ratio is still at 69%, with bulls accounting for nearly 70%. The funding rate is still positive at 0.01%, meaning bulls are still paying to hold positions.
This is really dangerous. The lower the price falls, the more retail traders feel it's "cheap" and crazily add long positions. The higher the leverage stacks, once it truly breaks 79,000, a chain reaction of long liquidations will directly smash the price down to 78,000 or even lower.
Historically, every major bottom happened when retail traders were desperately cutting losses and the long-short ratio dropped below 40%. Now with 69% bulls still holding on stubbornly, it means panic is not enough yet, and the bottom hasn't arrived.
I believe the whales are waiting for this — waiting for the bulls' leverage to stack high enough, then a big bearish candle will wipe them all out. Don't be the one getting wiped out; keep your position light and wait until it truly crashes before entering.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #中东原油运输恢复，油价为何仍居高位？ $BTC $ETH $ZEC #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？
On Friday, the memory sector showed clear divergence: Micron closed up 2.46%, SK Hynix's Korean stock rose 4.42%; SanDisk fell 1.82%, Western Digital dropped 2.97%. The trigger was SK Hynix's withdrawal of Solidigm's US IPO, which the market immediately interpreted as a reduction in NAND expansion funding, temporarily easing concerns about oversupply.
Micron benefited because it is a major NAND player, with expected reduced supply-side pressure and more stable prices. Western Digital was hit despite its previous earnings beating expectations; the market worries about the sustainability of price increases and rising capital expenditures. SanDisk lacks independent catalysts and can only follow the sector trend; if it can't keep up, it falls behind.
Keep an eye on the earnings calendar: SK Hynix will release Q3 results on Wednesday, October 28, with institutions already revising operating profit expectations above 76 trillion KRW; Micron's last report was at the end of September, with the next one pending, so no short-term catalyst; Western Digital just reported, with the next wave expected in January next year.
Directionally, memory is not a broad rally but selective. If SK Hynix's numbers explode, Micron is likely to follow.#交易之声：你的经验值得被听到
Before judging altcoins weakening, don't rush to check the macro calendar; first see if the chip distribution and sentiment have loosened.
Tokens like RAVE and LAB have taught us lessons: with the same big KOL speaking out, RAVE weakened continuously after being called out by ZachXBT, while LAB didn't react as much, indicating that looking at KOL alone is insufficient; you need to combine chip distribution, unlocking release volume, and order book support.
HYPE follows a different logic, relying more on capital inflow and macro sentiment. After Hayes publicly shorted and sold, the price dropped from over $70 to over $50; the resonance of KOL statements and capital flow is more effective.
So the order of altcoin weakening signals is: whether chips are dispersed and loosened, whether unlocking selling pressure is approaching, whether big KOL attitudes have shifted, and whether sentiment is ebbing. Traditional macro factors have limited impact on tokens but sudden attacks can't be ignored.
In short: watch chips, watch releases, watch KOLs, watch sentiment; don't treat a single signal as gospel, and be mindful of risks. #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #中东原油运输恢复，油价为何仍居高位？ CORE: The position is right, the story fits, but the foundation is risky! The only play under Zhang Sufen's system
CORE's current coin price is low enough, and the BTCFi sector narrative has ample room for imagination. On the surface, it perfectly matches Zhang Sufen's aesthetic of low-price accumulation, but it lacks the "state-owned capital-backed safety net" that Zhang values most. The project team's nodes are continuously retreating, and the launch of SatPay is indefinitely delayed. The fundamentals face ongoing deterioration risks, so it absolutely cannot be treated as a long-term core holding. This is the core premise.
Within Zhang Sufen's risk control system, the only compliant play for CORE is: small position speculation, not heavy investment and passive holding. Referring to her strict position control approach for single assets, CORE can only serve as a high-odds small ticket in the portfolio, with single-ticket positions kept extremely low. Most of the principal must never be bet on it.
At the same time, hard observation indicators and stop-loss boundaries must be set: continuously track the number of independent validators, BTC staking scale, and SatPay progress. Once nodes continue to flee, proving fundamentals are further collapsing, one must decisively exit and not keep averaging down and holding hard as with state-backed low-price stocks.
The essence of Zhang Sufen's strategy is to wait for valuation repair under the premise that the main entity will not disappear. CORE can speculate on the valuation elasticity brought by the BTCFi trend, but it has no floor. The upside is huge returns, but the downside carries zeroing risk. Distinguishing between "themes suitable for small position speculation" and "core holdings suitable for long-term holding" is the key to this strategy."Why Zhang Sufen would never use CORE as a base position? Understanding these 3 risk zones can save you 100,000 in losses"
Many people see CORE's deep price drop and small market cap and want to use Zhang Sufen's contrarian strategy to heavily invest as a base position. In fact, this goes against her core risk control logic. Zhang Sufen's primary condition for setting a base position is that the asset has a bottom-line guarantee. She bets on market overreaction, not project failure. CORE has three major risk zones that completely break her stock selection criteria.
First, there is no rigid backstop entity. Zhang Sufen prefers small-cap state-owned stocks with real businesses and regulatory constraints. Even if performance is poor, the operating entity won't abandon the business lightly. Core DAO lacks such a backstop; the official nodes of the project team are continuously withdrawing, signaling the operator is actively reducing investment. Second, the fundamentals have the potential to continuously deteriorate. Unpopular A-shares only have temporarily poor performance and won't actively shut down core operations; CORE's independent validators are decreasing, SatPay is repeatedly delayed, and partner Mobilum has weak qualifications. The originally envisioned fee buyback flywheel is far from realization. The risk is not just short-term sentiment.
Third, a base position requires certainty, but CORE is a high-risk, high-reward bet. Base positions need stability, suitable for holding long-term while waiting for recovery; CORE has huge upside potential but no downside support. If there is an on-chain security issue, assets could face catastrophic drawdowns, making it unsuitable as a base position. Zhang Sufen's contrarian investment is not just about low price; the core is that the entity won't disappear. This is the fundamental reason she would never use CORE as a base position.Zhang Sufen only looks at 'state-owned capital backing'? Then she definitely wouldn't buy CORE, and here's why
Many people oversimplify Zhang Sufen's strategy, thinking it's just about bottom-fishing low-priced small-cap stocks. In fact, state-owned capital backing is a very critical safety boundary in her strategy. Targets with state-owned background have real companies and regulatory constraints; even if performance is poor, the entity is unlikely to be wiped out directly, providing a safety cushion for contrarian investors to wait for valuation recovery. Price drops are more due to market sentiment suppression, not the project itself actively abandoning operations.
Although CORE is low-priced and small-cap, seemingly a good target for contrarian bets, it completely breaks the fundamental safety bottom line of Zhang Sufen's stock selection. CORE lacks a rigid entity like state-owned capital backing it. The official verification nodes of the project continue to withdraw, indicating the project team is reducing investment and actively shrinking the ecosystem. Besides, SatPay keeps delaying, the partner Mobilum has weak qualifications, and the originally planned fee buyback flywheel has yet to materialize. The fundamentals are not just temporarily neglected by the market but face risks of continuous deterioration and gradual decay of the on-chain ecosystem.
Zhang Sufen's contrarian investment bets on market overreaction, not project death. CORE has a potential hundredfold upside from the BTCFi track but no bottom-line protection on the downside. Once nodes keep disappearing, the security of the entire chain will be impacted. Even though the coin price has dropped a lot, according to Zhang Sufen's risk control standards, she would not choose to enter and position in a target without rigid backing and with an operator continuously retreating.Applying the stock-picking logic of Zhang Sufen, the 'Contrarian King' of A-shares, directly to CORE results in a harsh outcome
Zhang Sufen's contrarian strategy focuses on uncovering unpopular, low-priced stocks at the bottom of the A-share market, favoring small-cap stocks with real business entities and state-owned backgrounds. Even if these stocks have long been depressed, the operating entities of the companies will not disappear out of thin air. There is a chance for valuation recovery driven by policy or industry catalysts, and the companies themselves have a bottom line to fall back on. This is the fundamental premise that makes this strategy viable.
On the surface, CORE appears to fit the "low-priced unpopular" contrarian stock-picking framework: low token price, small market cap, and the BTCFi sector yet to explode. Many investors blindly apply this logic by buying more as the price falls and holding long-term, but they overlook the fundamental differences between the two.
A-shares listed companies are regulated real business entities, whereas Core DAO has no physical backing. The current phenomenon of the project team’s official nodes actively withdrawing indicates that the project team itself is scaling back investment. This is not simply a case of market mispricing; there is a risk of continuous fundamental deterioration: the number of independent validators is steadily declining, SatPay keeps being delayed, the partner Mobilum has weak qualifications, and the expected revenue buyback flywheel has yet to materialize.
Zhang Sufen’s strategy can endure prolonged price declines, but it cannot accommodate risks like a "soft exit" of the project. If core indicators continue to weaken and one blindly applies the A-share contrarian lurking approach, the result will be very harsh. Contrarian investing does not mean buying just because the price is low; the premise of low price is that the fundamentals will not continue to collapse. Zhang Sufen's 'low-price niche' strategy turns out to be 'unsuitable' when applied to CORE?
The core of A-share bull investor Zhang Sufen's strategy: low-priced small caps + a main entity with strong credit backing (state-owned assets) + long-term bottom consolidation, gradually accumulating and holding for the long term, waiting for policy or industry dividends to bring valuation recovery. The state-owned assets act as a safety firewall, ensuring the company won't easily disappear, go bankrupt, or delist. This is the fundamental basis for the strategy's validity.
On the surface, CORE seems to perfectly fit the characteristics of "low price, small market cap, niche sector." Many people directly apply this contrarian bottom-fishing approach to enter, but they overlook the most critical underlying differences, which is the root cause of the unsuitability:
Zhang Sufen buys state-owned enterprise targets whose main entities will not voluntarily give up operations; however, Core DAO currently has official project-verified nodes actively withdrawing, indicating the project side is shrinking its business, lacking the rigid backing of state-owned assets.
Zhang Sufen's low-priced stocks only reflect a drop in share price, while the company continues normal operations; but CORE's biggest risk is not the cheap token price, but the continuous decrease of network validator nodes and the long-delayed SatPay launch, with fundamentals potentially deteriorating continuously, not simply a "niche good asset mistakenly punished by the market."
Of course, there are similarities: if the BTCFi sector later catches a favorable trend, node withdrawals stop, and ecosystem indicators stabilize, small-cap targets will also have huge valuation elasticity. But lacking a rigid main entity backing means Zhang Sufen's "buy more as it falls and hold long-term" approach would carry much higher risk when applied to CORE $QNT The competition for pure quantum computing targets is highly concentrated between IonQ (IONQ) and Quantinuum. Both follow the ion trap technology route, but their commercialization pace differs: IonQ currently leads in revenue scale and manufacturability, with quarterly revenues reaching tens of millions of dollars in 2026; Quantinuum, on the other hand, is at the forefront of the industry in two-qubit gate fidelity (99.92%, IonQ at 99.99%, both far exceeding peers).IRYS is acting a bit crazy this time. The current price is about 0.02843, down approximately 24.69% in 24h, with a 24h high of 0.04062 and low of 0.0258, and a trading volume around 12.47 million USDT. Looking at the broader market, BTC is around 79,981, down only -0.66% in 24h, ETH about 2,310.69, down -1.47%, basically moving sideways. In the same sector, DOOD has risen about 41%, CHIP about +15%. While one side is crashing, some are pumping — this kind of disconnect is quite typical in crypto.
Personally, I think these independent moves in small coins are the easiest to misread. The market hasn’t moved much, but this coin crashes first; many people's first reaction is "Is it oversold?" or "Will it rebound?" But what should be focused on more is liquidity and volatility themselves. A trading volume of 12.47 million USDT is neither very big nor very small; when emotions run high, prices can easily slip in thin order books, and the drop can be irrational.
So don’t treat "small coin independent moves" as trend signals; they are more likely just local funds stirring things up. The market moves sideways, and it does its own thing, which doesn’t mean the whole market will follow. If you’re panicking, don’t act yet; if you don’t understand, just watch and don’t rush to assign a direction. Volatility and liquidity risks are there, and chasing emotions is the easiest way to lose. Just my personal opinion, not investment advice.Bitcoin at $79,949, dropped below $80,000 over the weekend, down 3.33% in seven days, landing at the 10th percentile of the 30-day range. But what really changed this period was the direction of positions. In the October 19th issue, I wrote about Ethereum
All 8 of the largest liquidation pools were above the current price, forming a short squeeze chart. Today, 6 out of 8 are below. First, a definition: liquidation magnets refer to price levels where a large amount of leveraged positions will be forcibly liquidated; the intensity is a relative index of nominal scale at the same position, not the amount of liquidations that have already occurred. Below is a seven-layer analysis: Ethereum's ladder, the Saturday washout, the leaving leverage is not Bitcoin's, shorts are pressing, reserves turning into inflows, front-end rush, calendar. #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 $BTC $ETH Don't underestimate CORE, don't mythologize CORE
The most rational way to view CORE is neither to blindly short and completely dismiss it, nor to mythologize it as the only answer in the BTCFi sector.
Don't underestimate it: The Satoshi Plus consensus enables BTC participation in staking mining, capturing the core narrative direction of BTCFi. Trillions in Bitcoin assets represent huge idle liquidity, and once the sector's momentum arrives, small-cap targets have extremely strong valuation elasticity, which is CORE's inherent odds advantage.
At the same time, don't mythologize CORE: grand visions do not equal deliverability. The project lacks primary VC locked tokens as a floor, official nodes are continuously withdrawing, and network security risks remain unresolved; the revenue-hopeful SatPay has been delayed multiple times, partner Mobilum has weak qualifications, and the expected fee buyback flywheel has yet to materialize.
It is neither a guaranteed winning floor asset nor a worthless vapor project. It is a high-odds, uncertain win-rate BTCFi sector speculative asset.
The key to investment decisions is not simply bullish or bearish, but to continuously track core indicators: the number of independent validators, changes in BTC staking volume, and SatPay implementation progress. When the momentum hits, the elasticity is huge; if fundamentals continue to deteriorate, the valuation will keep collapsing. #Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？
Growth is real, but the driving forces are shifting, and vulnerabilities are also moving.
Bernstein expects Q3 revenue to increase by 13% quarter-over-quarter to about $1.5 billion, driven by expansion in nominal stock trading volume, options, and event contracts. However, the crypto segment is unstable: crypto revenue plummeted 47% in Q1, with retail speculative enthusiasm dropping 48% simultaneously. Instead, event contracts have taken the lead, generating $156 million in revenue in Q2 alone. Bernstein projects they will contribute $1.7 billion by 2028, surpassing the crypto business's $1.6 billion. Tokenized stock cumulative trading volume has also exceeded $15 billion, with 200,000 holders across more than 120 countries.
But structural concerns remain. Net interest income still accounts for more than one-third of total revenue and is highly sensitive to interest rates; trading revenue essentially depends on volatility, so when the market calms down, growth will stall.
Old Mo says: Robinhood is not "de-cyclicizing"; it is shifting the cycle from one asset class to another. Whether growth can continue depends on whether event contracts and tokenization can take over the volatility baton when crypto recedes, not on whether the user count is still rising. $BTC $ETH $ZEC The market pricing given in this October interest rate decision preview is: 92.8% probability of maintaining the interest rate unchanged, 74.8% probability of a rate hike in December. These two expectations are not contradictory: holding steady this time does not mean the tightening pressure at the end of the year disappears. The core judgment of the preview is that the market focus may shift from the interest rate result to the post-meeting statements. 📊 Three cryptocurrencies, different degrees of weakness ZEC: 1228.05U, -1.64%. The decline is in the middle among the three; based on this quote alone, it is not enough to determine whether it has an independent trend. HYPE: 77.706U, -1.00%. The smallest decline, but the preview describes its rise followed by a pullback and consolidation, indicating that relative resistance to decline and pressure on the upward move can coexist. CORE: 0.01718U, -2.10%. The largest decline among the three, also the target judged by the preview to have a weak trend, making it more worth observing whether the weakness continues. 💡 My view. The preview summarizes the market as range-bound and cautious, but range-bound does not mean low event risk. If the interest rate result meets expectations but the speech changes the year-end policy expectations, prices may still fluctuate rapidly back and forth. I pay more attention to whether the strength ranking among the three after the meeting can be maintained: if HYPE still cannot hold after a rally, the small decline cannot be directly taken as a signal of strengthening; if CORE continues to lag, it cannot be judged to rebound just because it fell more. ZEC can be used as a contrast among the three to observe whether the divergence is expanding or gradually converging. Would you place more importance on this interest rate result or the speech's impact on December expectations? #OctoberFOMCToBeAnnouncedThisWeekBrothers and sisters
ETH has hit a new low again, now at 2304, down 1.5%, much worse than BTC. The most heartbreaking thing is that the ETH spot ETF has seen net outflows for four consecutive weeks, with nearly $1.1 billion running off in October.
You might say ETH has no value, but the on-chain data looks good—staking accounts for 35% of circulating supply, and 170,000 tokens were withdrawn from exchanges in a single day. Yet the funds just won’t buy it; they’re all flowing to BTC instead.
The ETH/BTC ratio has slid from 0.0319 to 0.0289, which is the market voting with its feet. I think ETH will struggle to recover in the short term; 2300 is the bulls’ last cover, and if Wednesday’s FOMC leans hawkish, 2300 will likely break.
For those holding ETH, be mentally prepared. Don’t add to your position, don’t hold through the dip, wait until it really bottoms out before making a move.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #中东原油运输恢复，油价为何仍居高位？ $BTC $ETH $ZEC Brothers, here's a contradictory set of data. Bitcoin dropped below 80,000, so logically the ETF should be redeemed, right? But last week BTC ETF actually reversed to a net inflow of 440 million USD, while the previous week was a net outflow of 220 million, a complete turnaround.
But look at Sunday alone, there was a net outflow of 169 million USD. What does this mean? Institutions are picking up in batches during the dip, but not buying every day—buying wave after wave on the dips, showing a lot of patience.
BlackRock IBIT is the only big buyer; Fidelity and Grayscale are still seeing outflows. Funds are concentrating into the top ETFs, and small ETFs are increasingly being ignored.
I think this indicates that long-term institutions have started building positions below 80,000, but they won’t push the price up in the short term—institutions buy for long-term holding, not to pump the price for you. Don’t chase just because institutions are buying; they can hold for a year, can you hold for a week?
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ #Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？ $BTC $ETH $ZEC BTC current price is about $79,936, down 0.49% in 24 hours. The 80,000 level was a defense line last week but has now become a ceiling. Risk appetite contracted before the FOMC meeting, ETFs turned to outflows in the second half of the week, and oil prices are supported by geopolitical risks. Before the price breaks below the 100-day moving average at about 75,600, bottom-fishers will still be stubborn, but the trading volume has already been honest. ETH current price is about $2,320, down 1.36% in 24 hours. The 2,300 to 2,400 range is the recent observation zone, and the price is currently hugging the lower boundary. Leveraged liquidations, ETF outflows, and upgrade delays are piling up. The rebound can’t even reach 2,350; accounts chasing longs are still holding on, but the buying pressure is not coming. XRP current price is around $1.29 to $1.30. The key is not the price but the chips: 1.26 is the most critical watershed right now. If it holds, it may consolidate between 1.30 and 1.43; if it doesn’t, the next support is at 1.11, with an extreme case at 0.98. Wallets holding tens of millions of XRP are decreasing, while exchange balances are increasing. Big holders are withdrawing, retail investors are taking over. Under this structure, waiting for “long sideways leads to a rise” might actually bring something else. Summary: BTC’s 80,000 level has broken and not recovered, ETH’s 2,300 is right underfoot, and XRP’s big holders have moved before the direction. Those being shaken out are the ones who mistake “no big drop” for “someone is supporting.” $ZEC
ZEC's position here is quite interesting. The current price is 1227, up less than 1% in 24 hours, fluctuating between 1177 and 1268 all day, with hardly anyone moving it. But the filing documents are not simple—Tuttle submitted two more 2x leveraged long ZEC ETFs on October 21. Counting back, the ZEC ETF launched at the end of August has already ranked third in capital inflows among all altcoin ETFs, only behind XRP and SOL.
A privacy coin without many new stories, yet ETF applications are queuing up to get in. This round, institutions are not after narratives, but chips.
I haven't gotten on board myself, but I've moved ZEC from the "just watch" list to the "keep an eye on" list. Privacy coins like this never give a heads-up when they start to rise.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 A rebound is not a reversal, and the flows prove it. Short-horizon money is tentatively returning to crypto, but the medium-term exit is still running. That divergence, not the green candles, is the story. On a four-hour view, $BTC drew $39.36 million in net spot inflows and $127 million in net futures inflows. Zoom out to 24 hours and the picture inverts: $34.95 million net spot outflows and $118 million net futures outflows. Over 30 days, futures outflows have widened to $7.82 billion. Money i这组48小时清算痛点数据里，BTC下方多头痛点距离报价仅0.62%，对应清算资金1亿U。三种币都有上下两侧的集中清算区域，但距离和金额并不完全对称。 BTC：统计时价格80020.5U。下方多头痛点79525.26U，距离-0.62%，对应1亿U；上方空头痛点81149.85U，距离+1.41%，对应9646.42万U。两侧金额接近，下方却明显更近。 ETH：统计时价格2308.41U。下方多头痛点2279.32U，距离-1.26%，对应3112.8万U；上方空头痛点2346.64U，距离+1.66%，对应2532.17万U。下方不仅更近，对应金额也更大。 SOL：统计时价格100.49U。下方多头痛点99.49U，距离-0.99%，对应548.95万U；上方空头痛点102.97U，距离+2.47%，对应373.71万U。它的上下距离差异同样值得留意。 💡 我的看法。 判断这组数据，不能只看哪边清算金额大，还要结合触发所需的价格变化。按所列数值，三者都是下方多头痛点更近、对应金额更大；所谓“两边都有筹码”，并不等于两边风险均衡。 BTC值得优先观察的是距离，SOL则体现出更明显的上下Today I watched Buffett's speech. Buffett mainly focuses on long-term value investing. The distinction between speculation and investment is not so clear-cut. Long-term positions can be traded short-term, and short-term positions can be used as a prelude to long-term holdings. Everything must follow the profit effect or the so-called intrinsic value itself. Market fluctuations have never been a risk; regardless of rises or falls, the real risk has always been ourselves—whether we make trades within expectations or impulsive trades outside expectations. Our first step in the market should not be to pursue profit but to improve our cognition. Profit and loss share the same source; money earned by luck will eventually be lost by luck. Therefore, our first step should be to make the quality control of each trade increasingly strict, so that we can review where the problems in the portfolio lie and the cognition we possess. Wealth is the result. At the same time, we can use the fundamental theory that profit and loss share the same source to improve cognition and operations. For example, after I make a big profit, I tend to trade emotionally, meaning that after rationally completing a trade, I often lose money due to irrational trades. This means the profit effect inevitably comes with a loss effect. At this time, we can choose, or rather force, to go flat to avoid this loss effect. Thus, you endure two profit effects; the new profit effect will bring a new loss effect, meaning that going flat might cause you to miss the market. You need to solve the new loss effect. In this process, your trading cognition correspondingly improves, but profits usually depend on the risk you take. Infinitely reducing risk means infinitely reducing your profit Obviously, what Anthropic says is true.
Its profit margin is too low, the growth rate of revenue is too slow, and the revenue itself is too small.
Currently, the ROI of global AI large models is extremely unsatisfactory, so AI infrastructure stocks worldwide are plummeting, entering a bear market, which is a footnote to this.
This might be the last frenzy of AI. Although AI will exist, it is still far from profitability.
Earlier, we saw Facebook $META preparing to issue stocks to raise 60 billion, and companies like Nvidia have promised to buy part of their shares.
Just like their previous cycle of investments, it’s still the same game—how high can you fly stepping on your own feet?
However, Facebook (Meta)’s stock price has risen from 80 in 2022 to over 700 now, which is truly impressive.Switzerland Approves BBIT, US Finalizes Stablecoin Final Rule: Two More Bricks Added to the Slow Bull
Saying something not so "exciting," but I think very important.
In Europe: On October 20, Swiss FINMA approved the Bitcoin Fund ETF (BBIT), under Swiss legal framework, directly holding coins (not futures), retail-oriented, with assets segregated from the management company. It is expected to be listed on the SIX exchange in November, ticker BBIT. The official statement is "Switzerland's first and currently Europe's only spot BTC ETF"[web_doc 29][web_doc 35]. Previously, Europe only had ETPs, which are essentially debt instruments with issuer risk; this time it is a fund.
In the US: On October 21, OCC released the final implementation rules for the GENIUS Act, effective January 18, 2027, together with the Act itself. Key points: a 5% always-available liquidity floor, no single counterparty exceeding 40% of reserves, redemption must be completed within two business days; however, no safe harbor was provided for "interest-paying" existing stablecoin projects, such as Coinbase's 3.75% and PayPal's 4% rewards, which will require case-by-case review[web_doc 32][web_doc 38]. Both money channels are shrinking: ETF flows and stablecoins
I'm watching two faucets for liquidity: ETFs and stablecoins. Both have been dripping this week.
First, ETFs, according to Farside's data (10/19–10/23, five trading days): a net inflow of $301.2 million for the week, ending two consecutive weeks of net outflows[web_doc 39]. But breaking it down, from Monday to Wednesday, $1.075 billion flowed in, then on Thursday $636 million + Friday $138 million were withdrawn totaling $774 million, a 72% pullback[web_doc 39]. The $636 million outflow on the 22nd was the largest single-day redemption since June, with IBIT+FBTC accounting for nearly three-quarters[web_doc 6].
Next, stablecoins, which are more covert: DefiLlama snapshot on October 25 shows total USD stablecoin supply at $302.598 billion, down $2.055 billion from October 18 and down $3.204 billion from September 25[web_doc 39].
What does this mean? Stablecoins are the "ammunition stockpile" on the market; shrinking indicates funds are exiting rather than just waiting. Not to mention ETH ETF had another $221 million outflow that week, marking the fourth consecutive week of net outflows[web_doc 39].
There are exceptions: the Fear & Greed Index is at 50 (neutral), whereas a week ago it was 59, indicating "greed".Someone is betting 68 million on 90,000, but the options market is still buying insurance
The drama at this options table is more exciting than the spot market.
On Derive, on October 20, a wallet bought 800 BTC call options expiring on November 6 with a strike price of 90,000 in one go, with a notional principal of about 68 million USD — the timing is right after the US midterm elections [web_doc 37]. The implied probability of "breaking 100,000 before Christmas" calculated on the same platform rose from 9.7% a week ago to 12%; meanwhile, the probability of "falling below 70,000 before Christmas" dropped from 15.6% to 11% [web_doc 37].
Sounds impressive? Flip over to Deribit and the picture changes: the front-end 25-delta skew is still negative, puts are more expensive than calls [web_doc 37]. Coinglass liquidated 254 million USD in the past 24 hours, with 99,714 liquidations, longs accounting for 63.8% (162 million vs 92 million) [web_doc 11].
Translation: retail investors are betting on 90,000 after the election, while institutions are still buying downside insurance.
Who do I believe? I don’t side with either. Negative skew means "smart money" isn’t following the trend; this 68 million looks more like a one-sided bet, not a consensus. Before options expire, prices will be pulled toward the "max pain" point, so don’t mistake others’ bets for your own direction. $BTC "80,000 is the institutional iron bottom"? I'll give you three cracks
The most dangerous word in a bull market is "iron bottom."
The popular saying now is: ETF holders' average cost is about 81,500, the listed companies' treasury average is about 82,000, so institutions won't cut losses below the cost line, and 80,000 is supported by someone[web_doc 31]. Sounds solid, let me knock three times for you:
Crack one: The cost line is a break-even position, not a buying position. A group of people near the break-even price want to run when it rises a bit, fear when it falls below, and stop-loss orders cluster. It amplifies volatility, it does not absorb volatility.
Crack two: The biggest buyer stopped buying. Strategy holds 848,517 coins, but last week only bought 267, while simultaneously repurchasing $190 million of its own 12% coupon-like preferred stock STRC[web_doc 31]. The focus shifted from "buying coins" to "managing debt," and that is the signal. Its average holding price is about 75,400; if the coin price really drops to that range, mNAV will be pressed below 1x, issuing new shares to buy coins would dilute old shareholders—during the 64,000 wave in August, it already sold over 1,600 interest-paying coins[web_doc 31].
Crack three: Low volatility may mean the market is thinning. Deribit's DVOL once dropped to around 37, a five-year low[web_doc 31]. Many interpret this as "matured," I interpret it as "after the order book was washed out, no one is taking over." Historically, after low volatility periods, several#谷歌云业务增长82%，AI投入回报如何？ Oil at 110, BTC can't act tough
An undervalued transmission chain, let me break it down for you:
Oil price → Inflation → Federal Reserve -> US dollar interest rates → Bitcoin valuation.
At the close on October 26, WTI November contract was $101.41/barrel, up 3.51% for the day; Brent December was $109.86, up 3.72%[web_doc 30]. Trump said "oil prices will drop soon," but the market didn't buy it[web_doc 30].
At the same time, US inflation in September was still around 3.7%, the University of Michigan's one-year inflation expectation rose from 4.6% to 4.7%, and the long-term expectation rose from 3.4% to 3.5%, all the highest since May; the final consumer confidence index was only 48[web_doc 15].
This set of data effectively ties the Fed's hands. Once inflation expectations become unanchored, Powell/Washington would rather tighten more than risk credibility by easing.
So now when I hear "digital gold hedges inflation," I want to laugh. In the short term, BTC follows real interest rates, not the CPI number. If you really want to hedge an oil shortage with crypto, you need to measure with a ruler longer than three years. $BTC Federal Reserve: No change this time is nonsense, December is the real deal
At 2 AM Beijing time on October 29, the FOMC will announce its decision.
Conclusion first: CME prices the probability of holding rates at 3.75%–4.00% in October at 90.6%, with only a 9.4% chance of a 25bp hike[web_doc 9][web_doc 15]. The September hike was the first since 2023, unanimously approved by all 12 votes, raising the range to 3.75%–4.00%[web_doc 26].
The real action is in December: CME estimates a 67.5% chance of a rate hike, 25.8% chance of no change, and 6.7% chance of a 50bp hike[web_doc 9]; Reuters' October 20 survey is even more decisive—100 economists, all 100 believe there will be a hike in December[web_doc 26]. Last month, it was less than half.
Why do I care so much? Bitcoin doesn’t yield interest. USD deposits give you just over 4%, what does BTC give you? Volatility. The higher the interest rates go, the more expensive the opportunity cost becomes.
Don’t just watch that one line on rates early Wednesday morning, watch what Powell says: no economic forecast this time, the statement will likely be very short; the market wants to hear his wording on whether "the September hike was a one-off or the start of a series"[web_doc 15]. If he’s hawkish, 80k won’t hold; if ambiguous, we can breathe a little. $BTC 80,000 mark, silently hit over the weekend
First, let's get the price right: at 03:45 Beijing time this morning, BTC was $80,039, down 0.47% in 24 hours, with a daily range of 79,390–80,825; down 2.49% over 7 days, total market cap 1.61 trillion, accounting for 60.03%[web_doc 24]. Looking at the daily close: on October 25, it closed at 80,024, down 0.95% for the day, with a low of 79,767[web_doc 1].
What really unsettles me is not the drop, but that the ETF was still bleeding over the weekend. According to Lookonchain's on-chain data, on October 26 (Sunday) Eastern Time, the spot BTC ETF had a net redemption of 2,123 BTC in one day, about $169 million; among them, IBIT alone redeemed 1,358 BTC, accounting for 64%[web_doc 34].
But ETFs only trade during US stock market hours, so the redemption orders on Sunday were placed before the market closed on Friday. In plain terms: institutions in the US don't want to hold even a second longer over the weekend.
My own response is simple: 80,000 is a psychological level, not a technical one. Don't "bottom fish" here, nor "confirm a breakdown to short" here. Wait for the US stock market to open on Monday to see if the 2,123 BTC redemption is an isolated case. $BTC 最脆弱的一环从来不是BTC本身，而是那些靠"牛市信仰"撑着的仓位。 你有没有发现，跌的时候喊得最响的人反而先消失了？ 昨晚翻到一件挺有意思的事：有位博主之前坚持说牛市没来、现在只是震荡市，结果一批看多的人直接取关，还有人专门在评论区通知他"已取关"。等到BTC回落到接近80000附近，他反过来问了一句"你们还好吗"，然后甩出一个细节：STRC还挂在99上方，盘前虽然探到过98.99，但又收回去了。而上个月BTC逼近80000那会儿，STRC大概只有95到97。 这个对比才是重点。同样的价格区间，STRC的位置抬了一截，说明什么？说明有一部分资金没有跟着价格情绪跑，而是在用更稳的载体表达对加密资产的敞口。表面上看是BTC在80000附近来回拉扯、群里热闹得很，真实承接却藏在这种"价格没新低、相关标的先抬底"的细节里。资金偏好正在从高波动的追涨，往"能拿得住"的方向偏一点，这个变化比K线本身更值得盯。 偏多的路径也清晰：如果70000一带真是前期顶部转化的支撑，那这轮回踩更像换手而不是转势，STRC这种先行指标站稳，会给现货情绪一点底气，ETH和几个主流山寨的补涨节奏可能随后跟上。但风险也📊 This wave of capital flow indicates: what's withdrawing is leverage, not spot panic selling, so don't scare yourself.
BTC: 30-day contracts net outflow of 7.71 billion, short-term inflows have basically stopped. ETH is weaker, with 30-day contract outflows of 8.46 billion, the most obvious position contraction, and the hourly chart can't lift its head. SOL has a highlight: spot net inflow of 8.86 million in 24 hours, some buying at low levels; but contracts still outflow 24.01 million, leverage doesn't return, the rebound lacks strength. ZEC spot and contracts both outflow, 30-day contracts down 1.04 billion, early enthusiasm fading, trading heat is just turnover.
🌍 No support from news: Fed silent period, oil prices above 116 adding inflation pressure, the market must tough it out until Thursday when FOMC, GDP, and PCE reports come out.
🧭 My view: BTC is grinding below 80000, short-term replenishment looks more like short covering and rebound grabbing, not trend buying. Only if it stands back above 80000 and contract outflows stop first can we believe the rebound has follow-through; if it can't hold and breaks previous lows, it will look for lower levels. Before the reports, treat rebounds as opportunities to reduce positions, don't chase. ETH is the weakest, bottom fishing should be cautious; SOL only watch if spot support remains, leverage money won't return and it won't go far.这组24小时爆仓统计里，CORE所列清算全部来自多单；ZEC、HYPE则是24小时空单爆仓更多，最近1小时却转为多单承压。只看全天总额，很容易忽略这种方向变化。 下面按时间窗口对照，金额单位均为万U，括号内依次为多单、空单。 📊 CORE：清算集中在多头 1小时：1413.23（1413.23、0） 4小时：1413.41（1413.41、0） 12小时：1662.97（1662.97、0） 24小时：1761.73（1761.73、0） 最突出的不是单纯规模大，而是最近1小时的金额已接近4小时总额，显示所列多头清算高度集中在短时段。 📊 ZEC：全天空头更多，短线多头承压 1小时：7.38（6.26、1.11） 4小时：24.82（19.99、4.83） 12小时：310.69（87.15、223.54） 24小时：616.59（267.17、349.42） 12小时和24小时均为空单爆仓更多，但1小时、4小时都是多单占主导，不能把全天结构直接套到最近的市场节奏上。 📊 HYPE：也有类似的周期切换 1小时：9.88（9.88、0） 4小时：18.77（18.76、0.01） #中东原油运输恢复，油价为何仍居高位？ Although Middle East crude oil transportation has resumed, oil prices remain high for four main reasons:
1. Geopolitical risk premium has not disappeared: The shipping lanes are only temporarily open; risks of attacks in the Red Sea and the Strait of Hormuz persist, causing insurance fees and detour shipping costs to rise sharply, with the market continuously factoring in conflict premiums.
2. OPEC+ continues production cuts to support supply: Oil-producing countries insist on production cuts and control, and will not quickly increase output just because shipping has resumed; overall supply remains tight.
3. Global inventories are low, providing weak buffers: Continuous inventory drawdowns have left crude oil and refined product stocks below the five-year average, so any further disruption can quickly push prices up.
4. Futures trading reflects expectations, not just current flows: Trading funds worry about repeated tensions and further facility attacks; combined with the approaching winter peak oil demand season, demand expectations strengthen, supporting oil prices. 表面资金在悄悄进场，价格却像被按了暂停键，这画面是不是有点割裂？ BTC、ETH、SOL 都在原地磨，钱却各有各的走法。我盯着这三条线看了半天，越看越觉得市场在交易的东西和表面热闹不太一样。 先看 BTC。日内净流入 258 枚左右，大单是主要推手，但价格围着 80000 上下来回，没有向上的劲。这个组合其实挺说明问题的：大资金在收，但短期没打算抬价。也就是说，买盘是在吸筹，不是在追涨。衍生品这边更值得盯，横盘久了持仓容易堆起来，资金费率一旦偏正，多头就变得拥挤，来回扫的幅度会比现货看起来凶得多。偏多的路径是筹码慢慢换手到强手手里，等一个触发点；风险则是价格不动、杠杆先动，挤压往往从最脆弱的那一侧开始。 ETH 净流入 4274 枚上下，结构算健康，大单也跟得上，缺点是独立性弱，节奏还是被 BTC 牵着。这意味着 ETH 现在更像跟随者，不是发动机。它要真正走出自己的行情，得先看到 BTC 稳住、资金费率不失控，否则山寨的情绪很难被点燃。 SOL 最扎眼，净流入 45800 枚，吸筹力度最强，大单持续加码，弹性优势明显。但这里有个容易被忽略的点：解锁带来的潜在抛压还在，吸筹强不等于上方#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 The October FOMC chose to keep rates unchanged this time, representing a "hawkish pause," in line with mainstream market expectations. The Federal Reserve has not closed the door on rate hikes, emphasizing that inflation has not fallen as expected and leaving open the possibility of another hike in December. The U.S. economy remains resilient, with employment and inflation data still posing upside risks, making a near-term rate cut unlikely. After the decision, the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields tend to strengthen, putting pressure on gold and non-U.S. currencies. Going forward, focus will be on CPI and employment data, with market volatility continuing to revolve around the December rate hike expectations.The Federal Reserve's rate decision meeting is entering the countdown, and everyone is holding their breath 👀
Whether to raise rates still seems up for discussion, but the market has already bet in advance: inflation stickiness hasn't disappeared, oil prices are fluctuating, and the probability of another rate hike before the end of the year is not low 📈
Over the weekend, $BTC staged a "fake drop": it briefly fell below 80,000 during the day, hitting a low near 79,200. Just as the bears were about to celebrate, buyers quickly stepped in to support, pushing the price back to the 80,300-80,600 range. The breakdown didn't continue, which actually indicates strong support below 80,000 and feels more like a shakeout 😄
$ETH remains weak, having lost 2,400 early on and grinding at the bottom between 2,330-2,380, clearly lagging behind BTC. 2,300 is a key short-term defense line; if it breaks again, 2,250-2,200 may come into view 🙄️
The focus remains on Powell's wording and the Fed's hints about the future interest rate path. On rate decision night, volatility could come suddenly, so buckle up and watch the show 🚀#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ $DOOD
I scanned tonight's entire site's contract gain and loss rankings, and the top one is a name I almost didn't recognize: DOOD, up 44% in 24 hours.
The token of Doodles. Yesterday's opening price was 0.00142, peaked at 0.00267, nearly doubled, now retreated to 0.00206. What made me stop were two other numbers: funding rate -0.34%, shorts are paying longs; total open interest is only 3.36 million USD, but the 24-hour turnover exceeded 200 million.
The trading volume is seventy to eighty times the open interest, no one is really holding positions at this price level, it's all passing money. No matter how much this market rises, I won't profit; money I don't understand loses fastest.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 $BTC
Jamie Dimon said Bitcoin could have an annualized return of 10% over the next decade. I read this news three times to make sure I wasn't mistaken about the person.
The person who has been criticizing Bitcoin for over ten years is now helping Morgan configure portfolios for clients. My first reaction wasn't excitement, but calculation—if the money from his clients really enters the market, he probably won't want the whole world to buy at the top. In the same week, Morgan Stanley's ETF wallet only bought 80 BTC, worth over $60,000, with a historical total of just 6.45 million. Institutions are really buying, but they keep their heads down; their volume and position sizes are inversely related.
BTC is now just above 80,000, with a low of 79,300 last night. The bigger the official shouting to go long, the less they buy. I learned this rule the hard way. This time, I won't follow the noise; I'll watch where the money moves.
#本周将公布10月FOMC利率决议 $RE
This altcoin's decline has only just begun; now is the best time to short it.
When re was listed, it coincided with the start of a bull market, combined with re's design of unlocking tokens every six months. A series of favorable factors meant this altcoin didn't drop much after listing. But now the market style has changed. The U.S. stock market's four-year-long bull run since 2022 has officially ended, and the market has turned bearish. Re coincides with a December unlock of 40 million tokens that will hit the market hard. After this unlock, every June and December will see 126 million tokens unlocked annually, totaling 750 million tokens unlocked over three years. Meanwhile, after three years, competing tokens to re may have already issued dozens of alternatives.
With the bear market starting, combined with 800 million tokens unlocking, phased massive unlocks, competition crisis, and the altcoin's inherent characteristics of unlimited issuance and unbacked printing, a series of adverse factors are destined to drive re toward zero. It is expected that after the December unlock, re will fall to 0.15, and after the 126 million tokens unlock next June, it will drop to 0.07. At this critical bull-bear transition point, shorting is the best way to make money.