Orbit Post Sitemap
$ETH
Has rebounded significantly from the low, so why is the 24-hour return still negative?
In this morning's spot snapshot, ETH's 24-hour price change was -0.62%, ranging between 2282.85 and 2390.48 USDT.
A rebound from the low and rolling returns answer different questions. The price moving away from 2282.85 does not mean the entire day's losses have been recovered; when BTC is nearly flat, ETH remains weak, indicating that relative strength has not improved in sync.
If the ETH to BTC ratio starts to rise steadily, the rotation explanation is more credible; if only the USD price rebounds while the ratio continues to decline, it should be understood as a follow-up correction.At 09:00, CAP's trading volume was nearly double the average volume of the previous hours, while the nominal value of open interest slightly decreased.
At 09:00, OKEx perpetual contracts closed from $0.08045 to $0.08107, with a nominal trading volume of about $990,000, which is 1.92 times the average volume of the previous 24 closed hours. As of 10:27 Beijing time, the price is about $0.08284, up approximately 18% in 24 hours.
The nominal value of open interest in the hourly contract statistics dropped from about $2.88 million at 08:00 to about $2.84 million at 09:00. My judgment is that this price increase was accompanied by more active trading, but open interest did not rise correspondingly. If you only look at the daily price increase, it’s easy to mistake the amplified trading volume as new positions entering the market.
Nominal open interest is affected by price changes, and two-hour data cannot distinguish which side is exiting. If in the following full hour the price stands above $0.08329 and open interest rises simultaneously, I will revise my judgment; if it falls below $0.08045, the sustainability of the volume surge at 09:00 will be questionable.
$CAP Volume has shrunk. The pace has slowed down. ⚡
With Meme this time, I'll first watch for support, not rush to look for a rebound. It's lively, but in the short term, the biggest fear is mistaking sentiment for liquidity.
As of 10:01 on October 25, the combined core trading volume of major Meme markets like Solana, Robinhood, and BNB was about $168 million, down 18.8% day-over-day. Robinhood was about $51.08 million, down 13.9%, the smallest decline among the three major markets.
My judgment: This is somewhat negative for short-term sentiment, but it doesn't directly mean prices will fall. Cooling trading volume indicates shrinking trading enthusiasm; if the order book depth also thins simultaneously, then the same order could cause greater volatility. Robinhood's smaller decline only means its trading volume is relatively more resistant to shrinking; it doesn't prove that funds are flowing in.
When I look at inflows and outflows, I consider volume recovery and price support together. If the price just spikes but volume doesn't keep up, I'll wait first; if after a volume surge the pullback still finds support, then I'll consider participating. Exiting follows the same logic: if support fails, I won't comfort myself by "waiting for the heat to come back." Quick hands are fine, but the reasoning can't lag behind.
When you encounter news of nearly a 20% drop in daily trading volume, do you pause and wait for volume to return, or continue observing the markets with smaller declines? Which confirmation signal do you value most?The consensus that $BTC has already bottomed is precisely what makes it suspect. Every cycle low has left a recognizable fingerprint, and this one has yet to press a complete set. The historical checklist is unglamorous but consistent. A bottom typically forms near the 0.786 Fibonacci retracement, with weekly oversold readings accompanied by bullish divergence. Price tends to sit at or below the 200-week moving average. And buyers usually endure successive liquidation cascades running into the t💻 I treat this message as a code review: As of 10:01 on October 25, the combined core trading volume of major Meme markets such as Solana, Robinhood, and BNB was about $168 million, a day-on-day decrease of 18.8%. Among them, Robinhood was about $51.08 million, down 13.9%, the smallest decline among the three major markets.
My judgment is: this is a signal of cooling trading enthusiasm, but directly translating it as "Meme market is over" has not passed logical testing. For players who frequently enter and exit and rely on liquidity, this data comparison is more important than just watching the excitement.
Logically, a decrease in trading volume indicates a decline in trading activity within this statistical group, but it cannot distinguish whether it is a retreat of buying interest or a reduction in short-term turnover. Robinhood's smaller drop only indicates relative resistance to decline and cannot be used to conclude that funds are migrating there.
A potential bug lies in the statistical scope: which assets are covered by "core trading volume," and whether the markets are comparable; the material does not elaborate. If the volume shrinkage is accompanied by thinner order books, then slippage might be more painful; this is my speculation, not a concluded fact.
If I were to revise this judgment process, I would additionally check several consecutive days of trading volume, active trader numbers, and order book depth before deciding whether to upgrade the risk alert. Please help me review: to confirm this cooling, which data would you most want to supplement? Where is the flaw in my logic?$LIGHT is up +37.7% in the last 24 hours, but what’s driving it isn’t contract leverage, it’s spot buying — which you actually can’t see on OKX.
Three numbers:
1) The funding rate is stuck firmly at the 0.005% floor, exactly the same for 36 of the last 40 periods. The longs haven’t pushed at all, and the usual premium during a real rally hasn’t appeared.
2) OKX open interest is only $1.93 million, but 24-hour perpetual contract volume is $46.9 million, a turnover of 24 times. And there’s no LIGHT spot on OKX at all, only 10x perpetuals (launching 2025-12-15).
3) The buying is on-chain: PancakeSwap V3 pool on BSC has $19.07 million in 24h volume, with pool liquidity only $1.78 million. The total circulating market cap is just $13.5 million.
Two numbers to cool things down: total supply is 420 million tokens, circulating supply only 43.06 million, FDV of $132 million is 9.8 times the market cap; current price $0.3158 is only 6.6% of the ATH $4.8.
Bitlight is building RGB protocol + Lightning Network (RLN client, RGB Lightning Node v0.0.9).
No contract premium, no spot anchor for the price rise — do you dare to take it?📊 As of now, the implied probability of no change in interest rates in October according to futures is about 85%–90%, and the vast majority of 100 economists also expect no change in October. But almost all respondents expect another hike in December. Why not hike directly now?
September CPI year-on-year is 3.7%, PPI year-on-year is 6.3%, inflation pressure remains; meanwhile, September nonfarm payrolls increased by only 29,000, giving the Federal Reserve a reason to "wait one more step." More importantly, September PCE will not be released until October 29, later than this decision. No rate hike in October does not mean the tightening cycle is over. For BTC, the real risk is not a single pause, but the market repricing "high rates lasting longer."
Currently, BTC is fluctuating around 80,800. In the past few days, US spot BTC ETFs have seen continuous net outflows (about $635 million outflow on the 22nd alone, continuing on the 23rd), with institutional buying significantly weakening. Leveraged longs have been shaken out, but spot buying has not shown obvious follow-through.
⚠️ My judgment is: temporarily holding around 80,000 does not mean the risk is gone. If it can only fluctuate between 80,000 and 82,000 but never firmly hold above 82,000, this rebound is still weak. Conversely, if it dips again but quickly recovers accompanied by ETF capital inflows, that is more worth watching.
What we fear most now is not breaking below 80,000, but repeatedly breaking below with weaker and weaker rebounds. $BTC #FOMC #FederalReserve #BTC #Macroeconomics #Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？ It's difficult, the business volume is limited, mostly small retail investors. It can't really take off#SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ In short: The main driver of Q3 profits is not HBM4, but the long-term contract for HBM3E plus the price increase of server DRAM; HBM4 is more about valuation and growth logic after Q4, with limited contribution this quarter, making it the biggest variable to watch in the earnings report.The Worldcoin project-related address has cumulatively deposited 10.5 million $WLD to exchanges in the past 11 hours, valued at 4.857 million USD 👀
Tracing the source of funds backward, these are $WLD funds transferred by the project team 3 years ago; another related address also transferred tokens worth 1.61 million USD to exchanges three days ago
Wallet address 0x9b6614727CE1525DaEEd6f7607Ed0719f4a98fE3Subscription revenue is a relatively stable cash flow that smooths out the cyclical fluctuations of trading business.
⚠️ Core risks restricting growth (also the growth ceiling)
1. Trading business is inherently highly cyclical, heavily dependent on retail investors' risk appetite and market volatility
The trading volume of options and event contracts is strongly tied to VIX and hot events. If the US stock market enters a low volatility range and macro uncertainty decreases, retail trading enthusiasm will decline, and the trading volume of options and event contracts will cool down rapidly, causing a significant slowdown in trading revenue growth. Historically, after the retail boom faded in 2021, Robinhood experienced a prolonged downturn.
2. Regulatory risk is the biggest black swan
◦ The compliance boundaries of prediction markets and event contracts are unclear, with varying regulatory attitudes across US states, posing risks of restrictions and tighter licensing;
◦ Derivatives, high-leverage perpetual contracts, and AI automated trading agents will attract stricter SEC scrutiny;
◦ The crypto business itself remains under pressure, with high uncertainty in US crypto regulation, limiting the recovery potential of this segment.
3. Competitive pressure
Schwab, Webull, and IB are all increasing zero-commission options, community trading, and AI tools; Robinhood's advantage lies in rapid product launches and appeal to young users, but under the commission war, relying solely on fees makes it difficult to continuously capture market share, so continuous product innovation is necessary.
4. Growth naturally slows after the base rises
The event contract segment currently has a small base, allowing for hundredfold growth; once this business scale grows, high growth will converge to the growth levels of options and stocks, making it difficult to sustain an overall 40%+ growth long term #SKhynixQ3HBM4Earnings
Samsung's operating profit for Q3 is expected to increase by about 8 times — it seems like cheating, but upon closer inspection, AI for storage, HBM4 shipments, and rising prices of storage chips all contributed to this.
The full financial report will be announced on October 29. The community has already started to cool down the enthusiasm: profits exceeded expectations, but the increase is limited; strong forecasts have already been priced into the stock, so an initial pullback may occur after the announcement.Bitcoin hasn't escaped any of the past four midterm elections.
In 2010, it retraced 72%. In 2014, 65%. In 2018, 52%. In 2022, 27%.
What's even more painful is Q4. In three of the past four midterm election years, Q4 posted negative returns — down 16.7% in 2014, 42% in 2018, and 14.75% in 2022.
Voting is on November 3rd, less than 10 days away.
It's not shameful to be anxious. The data is right here; ignoring it is self-deception.
In 2014, 2018, and 2022, the bear market lows all appeared after the election. The lows were 71, 38, and 13 days after election day in January 2015, December 2018, and November 2022, respectively.
What about this year?
The low was on July 1st at $57,850, 125 days before the election.
By October 22nd, the price had already rebounded to $81,455, about 40% up from the low.
The market has already priced in the "election bottom" early. Using the script of "bottom only after the election" now is applying the wrong timeline.
Ali Charts clearly states: around $73,000 is close to the average purchase cost of short-term holders. In an established bull market, deep pullbacks often find support around this level.
Coincidentally, Strategy holds 848,000 BTC at an average cost of $75,446.
Short-term holders' cost is $73,000, institutional cost is $75,446. Both figures cluster in the same range.
The real damage of the election curse isn't in the word "election" itself, but that it may act as a catalyst for the price to test the shared cost zone of $73,000–$75,000. If it falls there but doesn't break, the bull market continues; if it breaks, that's the real problem.
BTC's intraday low today was $79,146, already below $80,000, down about 2.7% in 24 hours.
The liquidation heatmap shows $80,000–$80,844 as a dense liquidation zone, with about $3.6 billion long positions near $79,000 below.
$80,000 is the first gate. $78,000 is the second. $73,000–$75,000 is the final gate testing the true strength.
CoinDesk's judgment is worth serious consideration: Bitcoin's midterm weakness reflects more its own market cycle than the election itself.
The election is just a date on the calendar. The cost zone is real money on the ledger.
Elections cause volatility; cost determines survival.
It can drop on November 3rd, but $73,000–$75,000 cannot be lost.
$BTC $ETH $SOL Under the surgical light, the blood vessel has been opened, but the blood pressure on the monitor is dropping.
This is the scene I least want to see on the operating table—a success anatomically, but a disaster hemodynamically. Today's phase III data is like that just-opened bridge vessel: a 42% reduction in risk of recurrence or death, a 38% reduction in risk of distant metastasis or death, statistically significant for the dual endpoints, with the primary endpoint already achieved. Angiographically, the anastomosis looks perfect, no residual stenosis, and grade 3 blood flow. Yet the stock price crashed over 26% intraday and still lost 17.6% by close.
The problem has never been the vessel, but the myocardium.
The market pump has long been overloaded due to "expectations," causing compensatory hypertrophy. This year's gains are like that thickened ventricular wall—looking strong but actually stiff, with poor compliance and diastolic dysfunction long established. When the good news finally lands, it's like suddenly removing the preload; the hypertrophied myocardium instantly decompensates. This is not a complication from the data, but reperfusion injury: the heart didn't die during ischemia, but when blood flow returns, arrhythmias occur. The 42% and 38% figures were already converted into "cure" and priced in during preoperative discussions. When the surgeon actually opens the chest, the only option is standard procedure—the expectation gap is the ventricular fibrillation caused by reperfusion.
What's worse is that the more beautifully this surgical record is written, the more it exposes a fact: the lesion was removed, but the patient's cardiac function grading was never truly assessed. The market previously priced not efficacy, but "better than efficacy." This optimistic sentiment itself is a latent cardiomyopathy, with normal ECG at rest but revealed under stress testing.
As for the $XAUT linkage line, it resembles intraoperative extracorporeal circulation support—when the market myocardium is stunned and blood pressure can't hold, capital instinctively seeks perfusion sources, and gold targets become temporary left heart support. But assist devices save pump failure, not preoperative assessment errors.
What is truly fatal has never been tumor recurrence, but turning "42% risk reduction" into "42% cure rate" during preoperative talks. #modernaearlydisclosure【Raised $12 billion to buy BTC, but Strategy can't keep up with buying coins?】
The treasury company has raised funds through preferred shares and has cumulatively purchased 136,000 $BTC, accounting for over 0.5% of the total supply cap. Data shows that as of October 5, the scale of these preferred shares is about $12 billion, indeed opening a new buying channel for Bitcoin.
However, the latest weekly data is a bit glaring: Strategy spent $193.1 million to repurchase STRC but only $22.1 million to buy 267 BTC, with a fund usage ratio close to 9 to 1. The company also raised the repurchase authorization for preferred shares to $3 billion.
The contradiction in this financing model lies here: preferred shares can attract investors who want to earn returns but are unwilling to hold BTC directly, yet dividends must be continuously paid. If the stock price falls below par value, new financing becomes more difficult; the company must first stabilize the financing instrument, so the speed of buying coins naturally may slow down.
This does not mean Strategy has lost confidence in BTC; it’s just that the financing instrument itself needs maintenance. If preferred shares can recover to trade near par value and issuance continues to expand, this demand channel still has growth potential; if discounts persist and dividend pressure rises, funds for buying coins may be squeezed out. What needs to be watched now is whether the preferred share price can stabilize and whether new issuance will convert back into actual coin purchases.This technical position analysis is basically valid, but the core contradiction is not in the position itself, rather in the fact that macro pricing before and after the FOMC has not yet unified.
BTC at $80,000 is a psychological barrier, but what truly determines whether it can hold is the ETF capital flow and whether the dollar and U.S. Treasury yields coordinate synchronously. The daily MACD death cross and weak RSI indicate insufficient short-term momentum, but if there is volume-supported buying near 80,000, it can only be considered a rebound window, not a direct trend reversal. The judgment that ETH is weaker than BTC also holds; there is obvious resistance near $2,400, and capital support is still weaker than BTC. SOL is testing support near $100, with $100–$102 being a recent key area; if it breaks below, watch out for $97 and $92–$95 below, while a rebound must first reclaim $105–$107.
On the macro side, it is highly likely that interest rates will remain unchanged in October, but the probability of a 25 basis point hike in December remains in the 67%–75% range; a pause does not equal easing. More importantly is the post-meeting statement: how Waller explains the pause, whether the tightening bias is retained, and whether inflation stickiness continues to be emphasized—these will influence crypto market elasticity more than the decision itself.
In terms of operations, it is not advisable to heavily bet on direction before the FOMC. For BTC, watch if 80,000 can hold; for ETH, watch if $2,400 can be reclaimed; for SOL, watch if $100 is effective. Position sizing is more important than judgment; after the decision, observe whether capital flows back. The above is for market communication only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC $ETH $BTC Comprehensive Analysis
Dow Theory confirms 79145 false breakdown = bear trap
Chan Theory bottom fractal confirmed + new core reconstruction, 79700-80300 is a secondary buying zone
Wave Theory Y' wave likely ends, new impulse wave starting point
Volume-price relationship three consecutive declining candles + Delta turning positive = selling pressure exhausted
Order flow 1.479 billion post-low Delta = main force aggressively accumulating
Price action spring bottom + long lower shadow + minimal volume consolidation = eve of reversal.
Six-dimensional comprehensive: 79145 is very likely the ultimate bottom of the six-week grinder, currently at the starting area of a new market cycle. However, Sunday’s 300 million minimal volume cannot confirm direction; Monday (10-26) US session’s movement will determine the direction for the next three months
Short-term strategy recommendation (turning bullish):
Short positions handling: All short positions should be fully closed for profit in the 79700-80000 range. The +1.479 billion post-low Delta at 79145 proves the bear power is exhausted; continuing shorts is very risky
Long positions already entered (79500-80200): Hold, move stop loss to 79500 (below spring low), targets 81400→82000→83550
For those not yet entered: Currently 80667 can be lightly bought (1/3 position), stop loss 79500; if Monday retraces to 79700-80300, add to normal position; break above 81400 add another 1/3 #BTC spot ETF weekly inflow hits near one-year high Over the weekend, BTC fell below 80,000.
The low was 79,146 USD, down 2.7% in 24 hours. The entire network saw liquidations of $820 million, with long positions accounting for 93.1%, and over 213,000 people forcibly liquidated.
Within a single hour, $200 million in leverage evaporated.
If you’re still treating 80,000 as a “key support,” you’re already behind the curve.
This isn’t testing support. This is breaking through support.
What’s even more painful: the sell-off wasn’t caused by a black swan event, but by three things happening simultaneously.
First, ETFs are running. On October 22, spot Bitcoin ETFs saw a net outflow of $635.6 million, the largest single-day outflow since June; on the 23rd, another $137.9 million flowed out, totaling $774 million over two days. BlackRock’s IBIT alone withdrew $254 million.
Second, the Nasdaq is falling. On October 22, the Nasdaq dropped 2.6%, with tech stocks being heavily sold off. The risk appetite for crypto and tech stocks is now tied together.
Third, oil prices are burning. Brent crude hit $112. The Middle East situation is pushing inflation expectations higher, further squeezing the Fed’s room to cut rates.
Institutions withdrawing, stock markets falling, inflation pressure — a triple resonance, with leveraged longs being the first to get crushed.
Now look at the next layer of liquidity — this is the truly critical point.
Coinglass data shows: if the price continues to fall below 79,000, the cumulative long liquidation intensity on major CEXs below is about $855 million; if it rebounds and breaks through 82,000, the short liquidation intensity above is about $519 million.
The longs’ “ammunition” is stacked below, the shorts’ “fuel” is above.
But the price is less than $1,000 away from the lower trigger point.
The resistance going down is much smaller than going up.
Then there’s the Fed on the 28th.
CME data shows a 90.6% probability of no change. The market has almost priced in “no rate hike.”
But “no rate hike” doesn’t equal good news.
Because what really hangs over us isn’t whether they act this time, but whether they will cut rates at all this year.
If the market’s probability for “no rate cut this year” is already absurdly high, then even if the Fed holds steady, it only confirms a bad news that’s already priced in. No new buying, only a battle over existing positions.
What’s more troublesome is that the probability of a rate hike in December has risen to 67.5%, and all 100 economists surveyed by Reuters expect another hike then.
The 28th isn’t the end. It’s the calm before the “second shoe” drops.
80,000 broke — the long liquidation massacre completed its first round.
But the first round of liquidations doesn’t mean the bottom; it only means some leverage has been cleared.
Next, watch three things: whether the $855 million longs below 79,000 will be triggered; whether ETF outflows will stop bleeding; and whether Fed’s Waller on the 28th will call the “pause” a “hawkish pause.”
Those who survive aren’t the ones who guessed the direction right. They’re the ones who weren’t carried away when the direction was wrong.
$BTC $ETH $IRYS JPMorgan has finally incorporated Bitcoin into its ten-year master chart — but the main beam marked "10% annualized" is supported by a cantilever structure with 55% amplitude; such a component, when placed in a wind tunnel, requires recalculating after just three load cycles.
In my field, whether a blueprint can be realized never depends on how pretty the renderings are. The white paper counts as scheme design, the consensus layer as the foundation, and the node implementation as construction quality; but volatility is the wind load, the seismic fortification intensity, a lateral force that must be included in the calculations and cannot be avoided. They provide three levels: baseline 10%, optimistic 17%, pessimistic -9.7%, which is standard envelope design acknowledging uncertainty, and I agree; but setting the annualized volatility at 55% is like stuffing a damper that can reverse at any time into the core tube. The upper tenants won’t feel stability, so how can they talk about long-term holding?
What’s more troublesome is "unstable correlation." Translated into structural terms: the load transfer path is unclear. If a project can’t even clearly explain how vertical loads transfer from the roof to the foundation, it won’t be included in any combined configuration construction drawings. The essence of diversified returns is structural redundancy: two systems back each other up, one fails and the other holds. But when the correlation coefficient between BTC and risk assets jumps between 0.2 and 0.8, that redundancy is illusory, equivalent to drawing two trusses on the same column but marking different safety factors.
Matt Hougan says returns are underestimated and volatility overestimated. I’m familiar with this: the general contractor is saying the design institute is too conservative. Whether conservative or not, don’t listen to words, look at the long-term readings of settlement monitoring points; ten years is the observation period they set themselves.
As for the linkage of US stock token assets like $XPL, essentially it’s an addition and renovation on the existing main structure. The biggest fear in additions isn’t the new dead load, but that the original structure didn’t leave rebar inserts or post-cast joints. Opening a new room upstairs means the shear wall downstairs must first be opened and reinforced; if the process is wrong, cracks will run from the transfer floor all the way to the basement.
One more point: 55% volatility means this system must be designed for a high seismic intensity zone: foundations must be deeper, beam-column joints must have sufficient ductility, and enough inter-story drift angle must be reserved between the curtain wall system and the main structure. All these will add to costs, ultimately borne by the holders. Institutions aren’t afraid to live in tall buildings, but they dare not live in a building where the reinforcement is recalculated every day.
I don’t look at the colors rendered in the renderings, I just ask one question: is the structural design service life of this system written as fifty years, or just "until the next halving cycle"? #jpmorganbtcforecastThree hours, two big players each more ruthless than the other｜Today's Top 5 Decline Rankings Changes (10:00)
$IRYS climbed from 5th to 1st, -29.92%, 24h -66.27%. At 07:00 it was still -3.26%, 3h price -27.55%, position -20.33% (4.26M → 3.39M), volume ratio 49.3. Three days ago it was still number one, 24h changed from +32.44% to -66.27%.
$RLS 4→6, 3h price +0.42% no drop, squeezed out by those hit harder; HUMA 3→11.
$ORDER 2→2, today -23.34%, 24h +45.24%. At 08:00 it bounced +4.80%, 3h price -17.35%, position -7.38% (2.58M → 2.39M), volume ratio 123.8.
$OFC 1→3, today -12.60%. 1h price -0.50%, position -1.14% slow grind, 630K position.
$ZBT 4→9, 3h price -5.92%, position -12.05%, 410K small cap.
$ANIME 6→5, today -8.85%, 24h only +1.26% left. At 06:00 it was still 2nd on the gainers list, fee rate capped at -1.0000%, 3h price -11.58%, position -7.71%, daily gains and losses swapped.📉 79,220 is not the bottom, it's a probe before the meeting
Reconciliation: Last night said breaking 80,458, touching 79,900, at 23:00 smashed to 79,220 all fulfilled, the surrender line 82,300 was not touched. People are exhausted.
Most read it as "washed out." What didn't move were rent and positions.
Fee rate settled at 08:00 is 0.00219%, the lowest in six periods, only up to 20% of the benchmark, premium is still negative. Neither longs nor shorts pay.
Positions of 3 million contracts unchanged for three days; 15m amplitude 0.1305%, cost eaten up by 77%.
Liquidations reversed: 12-hour BTC cleared 169 million, longs 88.7%; recent 4-hour shorts 98.9%.
Not building a bottom, just waiting. FOMC 10/27–28, PMI 57.6 hits a 53-month high.
IRYS down 63.8% in one day, ZEC rose 3.7% against the trend. Clear these tickets before the meeting.
The most expensive before the meeting is not the direction, but the position.
Prediction: Before 10-29 02:00, it won't go out of 79,000–81,300 (lower edge lets pass yesterday's low 79,220; upper edge = today's high 80,985×1.003). If it stands above 81,300 or breaks 79,000, consider me wrong. (Not investment advice)
Before the meeting, first shrink volume to grind, or smash one first?
$BTC #OctoberFOMC approaching, what uncertainties remain with the Fed pausing rate hikes?Historic Turning Signal: On Saturday (10-24), the fourth test at 79,700 was completed as a "false breakdown" — the low was 79,145 (breaking below 79,700 by 555 points), but then volume surged and it rebounded to close at 80,770, forming a +1,624-point long lower shadow. Delta shifted from three consecutive negative days (-3.17 billion / -830 million / -190 million) to +852 million, with post-low (after 79,145) Delta reaching as high as +1.479 billion. On Sunday (10-25), a low volume of 300 million consolidated at 80,667. The "last drop" of the six-week grinder most likely ended at 79,145, but whether it can hold above 81,000-82,000 on Monday is the key confirmation. 1. Dow Theory The false breakdown plus long lower shadow recovery indicates a qualitative change in the Dow structure: From the Dow perspective, the 79,145 low on 10-24 broke below the six-week box lower boundary (79,700), but the close at 80,770 was 1,070 points above the lower boundary — this is a classic "spring" structure: a false breakdown to flush stop-loss orders, with bulls quickly reclaiming lost ground. The Dow "lower low" sequence was negated at 79,145 (no effective close below 79,700), and the short-term structure shifted from "bearish bias" to "neutral to bullish." Dow conclusion: The false breakdown recovery = a bear trap in Dow terms. 79,700 upgraded from "support" to "strong support + spring bottom," closing firmly above 81 #SpaceX业绩大增，与特斯拉合并能否推进？
Musk: As long as there is no world war, SpaceX will break through a $100 trillion market cap within 10 years. Setting aside faith, purely based on hardcore calculations of math, physics, and macro liquidity, how long will it actually take?
Math calculation: The current combined SpaceX valuation after merging with xAI is about $2.07T, needing to multiply 48.3 times to reach $100T. To hit the target in 10 years, the compound annual growth rate must maintain an astonishing 47.4%; assuming a 25–30x PE ratio, it would require annual net profits of $3.5T+ and nearly $10T in revenue by then.
Relying only on rockets and broadband, even monopolizing global telecom, the ceiling is only $5T–$8T. To reach $100T, three steps must be completed:
0–5 years: Starlink + defense contracts support a $5T–$8T base
5–15 years: xAI + space orbital data centers, monopolizing space-based AGI computing power, pushing to $20T–$35T
15–30 years: Earth-Moon economic belt and Mars infrastructure taxpayers, creating incremental space GDP
Physical bottleneck: Vacuum does not conduct heat; space computing relies on large radiation panels for cooling and suffers cosmic ray damage. It will take 8–12 years of iteration for costs to outperform terrestrial nuclear power.
Financial pressure: Building tens of thousands of Starships and buying cards to burn money have pushed 5-year CDS to 194 basis points.
Liquidity: Unless there is epic hyperinflation of the dollar, the global capital pool 10 years from now simply cannot hold $100T.At the same time, a tale of two extremes—ZEC surged 6.62% in a single day, while IRYS plummeted 23.35%, tearing the crypto market apart in extreme divergence.
BTC ($80,858, +1.45%): Aftershocks of liquidations remain
Last night, Bitcoin briefly fell below $80,000, with over $800 million liquidated across the network in 24 hours, affecting more than 210,000 traders. Although the current price has slightly recovered, the fear and greed index is only 54, with bulls and bears still locked in a tug-of-war around the $80,000 mark.
ZEC ($1,220, +6.62%): Narrative shift drives independent rally
The key catalyst is the Winklevoss brothers submitting the S-1 filing for a ZEC spot ETF, planning to list on Nasdaq with an initial $100 million subscription intention, directly changing the privacy coin’s narrative. Coupled with a repair demand after prior overselling, ZEC has staged a counter-trend rally.
IRYS ($0.035, -23.35%): A textbook case of leverage collapse
Previously, short squeezes pushed prices up, followed by excessive accumulation of long leverage. Single-day contract trading volume soared 1,035%, with open interest reaching $1.2 billion at one point, ultimately triggering about $68.51 million in chained forced liquidations. Shallow liquidity tokens have no buffer when leverage recedes.
Summary: The market is in a fragile balance post-liquidation, with ZEC’s ETF narrative and IRYS’s leverage clearing forming a stark contrast. In a divergent market, narrative strength and leverage levels determine individual fates, rather than the overall market direction itself. #10月FOMC临近，美联储暂停加息还有哪些变数？ #Robinhood交易业务增长能否延续？
Conclusion: Growth can continue, but with a change in the "billing engine," the growth rate baseline will also shift downward
The trading revenue line has not weakened; its growth driver is shifting from "crypto + interest rates" to "options + stocks + event contracts." Under the baseline scenario, trading revenue in the second half of 2026 can still maintain a year-over-year growth of +10%~20%, with the 2027 growth rate baseline dropping to 10%~15%. Three key factors determine whether it is a "continuation" or a "stall": regulation of event contracts, single contract fee rates for options, and when crypto assets will recover.
A reminder of a timeline: The Q3 2026 earnings report will be disclosed after the U.S. market close on October 27. The latest complete breakdown is for Q2 2026 (ending 6/30).
Latest quarter breakdown: The growth engine has changed
Trading line Q1'26 YoY Q2'26 YoY Q2'26 Revenue Judgment
Options +8% +29% $342 million The most stable cash cow, volume 774 million contracts (+50%), revenue growth slower than volume growth
Stocks +46% +95% $129 million Trading volume $956 billion (+85%), volume and revenue grow in sync, fastest growth and highest quality
Event contracts and other trading income +320% +10x $156 million Annualized about $620 million, new category starting from zero Sunday morning, take out the deadline for $BZ and verify it.
Three criteria, go through them one by one.
First, has the geopolitical signal truly shifted? These past two days, I haven't seen anything that would make me change my judgment; no easing, no loss of control. This point indeed hasn't changed.
Second, has the price pushed further away from the opening day 107.72, and I can't find a new reason? Marked 110.94, three and two-tenths away from my opening price; account at −149.4 (−8.96%). I've looked for new reasons for two days, but simply can't find any.
Third, do a final check before Monday's opening. Today is the last day.
Two out of the three criteria don't hold up. According to the rules I wrote the day before yesterday, this position should go, not "give it one more day."
The forced liquidation price is 136.55, still twenty-five away from the mark, far from liquidation. But that's not why I'm keeping it—the problem with this position has never been whether it will liquidate, but whether the direction is right.
$DOGE +139.24 (+14.35%), marked 0.0778594, forced liquidation price 0.1084158, the farthest away, continue to ignore.
$UNI half position +79.11 (+83.92%), marked 6.8369, the reason hasn't broken, continue to hold.
A few words: the hardest part about setting a fixed deadline isn't executing it, but feeling reluctant when executing. Today I will feel reluctant, but my hand still has to move.
#10月FOMC临近，美联储暂停加息还有哪些变数？ $IRYS big funds, really shows the benefits of having big funds. Didn’t enter when life was boiling, then entered when the team abandoned the position, holding until now. Meanwhile, you and my friends, many lost in longs and shorts, almost liquidated. Although he said there were losses not disclosed, this trade made a profit. It shows that big funds wouldn’t go all-in just for a single coin.
Then, I earned $8,000 on this coin with Ao Ying. For a whale, it’s a drop in the bucket, not even enough for the 10,000 U red envelope he sent the day before yesterday. That red envelope should have been just one normal one, about 2,000 U, which I also grabbed. The rest all had issues, and it seems the OKEx platform refunded him, saying they would compensate again, but who knows if that’s true @allincrypto熬鹰资本 I just finished eating and checked the market, getting caught up by a set of twisted numbers: BTC spot ETF had a net outflow of 138 million on October 23, with 7,562 coins withdrawn the day before; meanwhile, on the same day, ETH spot ETF had a net inflow of 4.4 million, after an outflow of 111 million the previous day, flipping completely in one day 🔄.
Money isn’t running away; it’s just changing seats. BTC pulls back first, ETH probes first, and divergence is more worth watching than moving up or down together.
The three major assets are each moving independently on the market. BTC hovers around 80,755, basically unchanged, with holdings up 1.08%, topping 54 billion; ETH grinds around 2,356, down 0.79%, holdings shrink 1.26%, remaining at 30.3 billion; SOL hovers around 102, down 0.15%, holdings at 6.2 billion, shrinking 0.23%.
The liquidation chart is even more surreal. BTC’s current price is pressed by the brightest liquidation bands above and below—above between 81,000 and 82,000, below around 79,000. The price is squeezed between these two high-pressure lines ⚡; whichever side breaks first will trigger a chain of orders.
On the options side, open interest surged more than fivefold in one day, reaching 45.3 billion. Money isn’t leaving the game; it’s just switching tables to play 🎲.
My stance is very clear:
First, ETF divergence isn’t over; don’t mistake BTC capital withdrawal for a market-wide exit;
Second, with price squeezed between liquidation bands, chasing gains or losses is just crashing into high-pressure lines;
Third, the explosive rise in options positions shows someone is betting on volatility, but betting doesn’t equal direction. I’ll watch first and follow once one side breaks.4 hours vaporized $404 million in long positions, Bitcoin only dropped 1.9%.
Bottomed at $79,280, $208 million vaporized in 15 minutes - not a big drop, but excessive leverage stacking.
Self-check 3 things: leverage not exceeding daily volatility tolerance; maintaining sufficient margin; separate calculation for spot and futures contracts.
Choose a side: is the main cause excessive leverage deserving the outcome, or intentional price dumping to harvest? $BTC #BTCETFFlowSwings Woke up to find an ETH whale just $30 away from liquidation, urgently topping up 9.21 million USDC at dawn
Last night ETH hit a low of 2,282, and a whale holding nearly $400 million in long positions was only $30 away from the liquidation line. They urgently added margin at dawn, pushing the liquidation price down from 2,256 to 2,181. Some are defending the line with real money, while others are quietly retreating.
$BTC lost and regained 80,000, ETF inflows wiped out by 70% in two days
Intraday low was 79,146, with $820 million liquidated in 24 hours, longs accounting for 93.1%. ETF net outflow over two days was 774 million, giving back more than 70% of the inflows from the previous three days. If 80,000 can’t hold, the next support is at 77,800.
$ETH 2,181 is the whale’s bottom line
Around 2,344, down 2.28% intraday. October ETF net outflow was about 1 billion, but BitMine has hoarded nearly 5% of total supply, with staking volume hitting a record high. ETFs are selling, whales are locking and holding.
$SOL didn’t break 100, but buyers are absent
Around 102, ETF net outflow of 30.3 million over five trading days, with no net inflow in seven products on the 22nd and five with zero liquidity. No panic selling, no buying support.
Summary: BTC ETFs are withdrawing, ETH is surviving on whale margin, SOL doesn’t even have buyers present. Who’s defending, who’s retreating, and who’s absent is the key.
Do you think BTC can reclaim 80,000 today, or will it first drop to 77,800? #AI demand supports the storage market, chip stocks fluctuate $ADA ADA这走势真绝了，0.2136附近全是密密麻麻的卖单，反弹量能缩得跟狗啃的一样。
最搞笑的是持仓结构：账户多空比一路飙到2.43，散户拼命抄底接飞刀，大户多空比却只有0.98，聪明钱早就悄悄撤了。
均线全在头顶压着，没有主力接盘，就凭散户这堆拥挤的多头头寸，接下来随便一个下砸就能清算一大片。
#ADA
$ADA
👇Microsoft will release its earnings report after the market closes on Wednesday. Azure's growth rate of 45% is just the passing line; I won't get in before the earnings.
The company's guidance for this quarter: revenue between $89.85 billion and $90.95 billion, Azure growth at a constant currency rate of 44% to 45%, and capital expenditures exceeding $50 billion.
Last quarter, capital expenditures were about $41 billion, and a year ago only $34.9 billion; the spending is accelerating.
In January this year, Azure grew 38%, clearly exceeding guidance, yet the stock price still dropped 10%.
The contract is now at 524.5, pressed below the daily MA20 around 532, with MA50 supporting near 515.
It surged above 550 in mid-month, and on Thursday the low touched 516.
I think this time everyone is focusing not on how much profit is made, but on how much Azure revenue is generated from that $50 billion.
As long as growth sticks at 45% and profit margins drop a bit more, the stock price that rose for a quarter can easily give back gains first.
I'll wait for the earnings to land before deciding; only after reclaiming 532 will I consider following.
If it falls below the 515 line, I'll treat it as the market not buying in and keep waiting.
That Wednesday night, are you more concerned about Azure's growth rate or the capital expenditure figures?
$MSFT #AI需求支撑存储市场，芯片股行情反复 #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ I will first verify several key price and capacity metrics, then perform calculations based on optimistic assumptions, and finally output scenario charts for review.
In short
Under optimistic scenarios, HBM4 can bring annual gross profit increments in the hundreds of billions of dollars by 2027 to the three leading memory companies (SK Hynix +$23.3 billion, Samsung +$17 billion, Micron +$12.4 billion), but this requires all four conditions of "yield, price, share, and depreciation" to be met simultaneously; if any one condition is not met, the increment will shrink significantly.
Four prerequisites for the optimistic scenario (must all be met)
Condition 2026 Status Optimistic Scenario Assumption
HBM4 Yield 60%–70% ramping up ≥85%, reaching a critical level above 80%
HBM4 Unit Price (36GB/12H) About $550, HBM3E about $350 Mixed ASP about $700, maintaining price increases without customers pushing for fewer layers
HBM4 Share of HBM Revenue About 20% 60%, and 12Hi not largely replaced by 8Hi
Capital Expenditure and Depreciation Continuous high-intensity investment Stable expansion pace, no overlap of depreciation and R&D expenses caused by new product iterations This viewpoint captures the most critical structural change in the current market: the correlation between BTC and gold indeed rose to a high since 2020 in September 2026, with the 90-day rolling correlation coefficient reaching 0.59 or even higher at times, while the correlation with the Nasdaq and the dollar clearly declined. Behind this is the repricing dominated again by concerns over macro debt, fiscal deficits, and currency depreciation, with institutions beginning to include BTC in the "hard asset" basket.
However, the conclusion that BTC is "tied to gold and has elasticity far exceeding gold" requires more caution. First, BTC currently wears two hats simultaneously: a correlation coefficient of about +0.51 with gold, about +0.42 with the Nasdaq, and about -0.36 with the dollar index. This triple coexistence itself indicates the market has not completed the identity switch. Second, when US Treasury real yields continue to rise, BTC will still be suppressed like a high-beta risk asset, as the pullback in late September has already verified. Third, gold is a low-volatility defensive asset, while BTC is a leveraged elastic hard asset narrative; an increased correlation does not mean BTC has stably replaced gold.
So a more accurate statement is: BTC is gaining "gold-like" pricing weight but has not yet completely shed its risk asset attributes. What to watch next is not the single-day gains, but whether ETF fund flows continue to be net inflows, whether BTC can hold above $81,000, and whether the dollar and US Treasury yields truly decline after the October 28 FOMC. Spot base positions can be retained, but do not take the rising correlation as a risk-free endorsement.
$BTC $ETH 中央网络安全和信息化委员会近日印发《国家信息化“十五五”规划》，明确了到2030年我国信息化发展的主要目标。规划提出，到2030年，国家区块链网络基本建成，新一代通信网全面建成，并适时启动6G商用。此外，规划强调数字技术与实体经济深度融合，网信产业生态繁荣发展，经济社会数字化网络化智能化应用水平迈上新台阶。 区块链作为国家基础设施 将国家区块链网络纳入信息化规划的核心内容，标志着中国对区块链技术的战略定位进一步提升。与西方强调去中心化公链的路径不同，中国更侧重于联盟链和许可链，由国家主导标准制定。规划将区块链视为数据共享、供应链管理和政务服务的基础设施，旨在为数字经济构建信任底座。 这种自上而下的模式有望在跨境贸易、物流和身份认证等领域加速应用落地。然而，这也引发了与全球公链互操作性以及加密货币角色的问题。需要注意的是，规划并未提及数字资产或代币，这进一步印证了中国将区块链技术与加密货币投机相分离的立场。 对加密货币和RWA领域的影响 尽管该规划对全球加密市场直接影响有限，但间接影响不容忽视。国家区块链网络可能促进中国在国际贸易金融和数字人民币（e-CNY）方面的参与，并可能通过技术标The framework of this review is solid, but there are still several key details that need to be added.
At the macro level, the consensus that there will be no action in October is basically established, with a probability of about 90.6%, but the probability of a 25 basis point rate hike in December remains around 67.5%, so the pause is indeed just an observation window. What truly determines the subsequent resilience is the post-meeting statements by Powell on inflation and interest rate paths, as well as whether US Treasury yields can genuinely decline.
Regarding order book support, the judgment that orders can be withdrawn at any time is completely correct. More importantly, the swings in ETF fund flows: on October 21, BTC ETFs saw a single-day inflow of over $500 million, but on the 22nd, there was an outflow of $636 million, indicating that institutions were repeatedly adjusting positions before the rate decision rather than unilaterally exiting.
For ETH, the cumulative ETF outflow in October has exceeded $1 billion, concentrated in a single fund, ETHA. Caution is needed regarding old whales transferring to Kraken, but it depends on whether there is sustained volume and transaction activity. On XRPL, sgBENJI has increased to nearly $200 million in scale, essentially representing an expansion of tokenized settlement channels, which does not equate to a direct purchase of XRP.
The overall judgment stands: the macro environment is not settled, funds are not unified, and sentiment is probing first. Positioning before and after the decision is more important than direction.
$BTC $ETH $BTC broke below 80,000 three times: it's not that the negative news is fully priced in, but that leverage is "changing medication." BTC fell to 79,277 USD on October 23, dropping about 2.67% for the day, triggering over 800 million USD in liquidations in the crypto market within 24 hours, affecting more than 190,000 traders; on the same day, the Nasdaq also dropped about 2.6%, and the 7-day correlation coefficient between BTC and the S&P 500 rose to 0.83.
This indicates that the essence of this round of decline is a contraction in cross-asset risk appetite, rather than an isolated event in the crypto space.
It is worth noting that the current trading volume is about 21% lower than the 30-day average, and the 10-period and 20-period EMAs (approximately 82,061 and 82,393 USD respectively) are above the price, creating resistance, while the 50/100/200-period EMAs (approximately 80,568 / 77,149 / 75,983 USD) still show a bullish alignment.
This combination of "weakness in short-term cycles but no break in long-term cycles" is more akin to technical probing and leverage reduction in a low liquidity environment, rather than a volume-driven sell-off.
After breaking below and then recovering three times, it shows that the buying power at the 80,000 level has regenerative ability, but it also means that the leveraged longs here have been repeatedly cleaned out—each time the defense line is tested, its strength is diminished.
$ETH $SOL #SK海力士Q3财报在即，HBM4能否提振盈利？ $ZEC
1216, today among the mainstream coins only ZEC is really rising.
BTC is sideways, ETH dropped by one point, SOL is flat at 102, ZEC's lowest at dawn was 1119, now 1219, up more than three points in 24 hours. Checked Binance at 1216.3, matches OKX.
The fee rate is negative, 0.065%, shorts are still paying, open interest remains at $125 million without shrinking. Price going up, fee rate going down, the last time I saw this combo was the night before a short squeeze, but maybe I'm overthinking it.
Last week when ZCSH broke 1 billion, the price was falling, today it's exactly the opposite. November 5th NU7 is still ten days away, I haven't added any shares, so I’m not envious of the rise.
#10月FOMC临近，美联储暂停加息还有哪些变数？ The most commendable point of this review is treating "order book, whales, institutions" as three different signals, rather than mixing them together as bullish evidence. On the eve of the FOMC, the market's biggest fear is interpreting local phenomena as directional confirmation.
At the macro level, it is highly likely that there will be no change in October, but the expectation of a rate hike in December remains. The post-meeting statements are more critical than the decision itself. Order book pending orders can only be considered as buffers, not real support; caution is needed when ETH old addresses transfer to Kraken, but it depends on whether the transactions continue and whether ETF fund flows continue to deteriorate. Franklin Templeton increasing sgBENJI shares on XRPL should be understood more as an expansion of tokenized infrastructure and settlement channels, not a direct purchase of XRP.
Overall judgment stands: currently, the macro is not finalized, funds are not unified, and sentiment is still probing. In operation, do not mistake a 4-hour rebound for a reversal, nor a single on-chain transfer as confirmation of a dump. Positioning before and after the decision is more important than direction. The above is for market communication only and does not constitute investment advice.
$BTC $ETH Strategy The unrealized gains in this financial report basically come from the price increase of the coin itself. The Strategy financial report is about to be released, and everyone outside is calculating how much the BTC book profit has rebounded. Let's do a quick calculation: holding about 640,000 coins, with an average cost of around $46,000, every $10,000 move in the coin price results in a $6.4 billion change in unrealized gains. $BTC bounced back from 83,000 at the beginning of October to around 90,000, adding nearly $4.5 billion in unrealized gains just in this segment.
So the headline "significant rebound" sounds weighty, but in reality, it is just the arithmetic result of the coin price multiplied by the holdings, which has little to do with what this company has done during this period.
What really matters is another number: what it uses to continue buying. The funds for purchasing coins come from ATM issuance and convertible bonds. The market gives a premium on the stock price relative to the net value of holdings. Once the premium narrows, the money raised from issuance can buy only a few coins. The remaining quota in the financial report and whether this unrealized gain corresponds to available funds are more useful than the total number on the books.
Calculating unrealized gains at a price of 90,000 puts it at the scale of $28 billion, but this number does not generate a penny in cash, nor will anyone buy more coins just because it looks good. The conditions are here: only if it holds steady at 90,000 and the issuance quota disclosed in the financial report still has room, does this premium logic stay alive; if it falls below 83,000, this financial report is just a pretty number on the books.
#Strategy财报前瞻：BTC账面收益大幅反弹 Brothers, the liquidation data of ETH has trapped a lot of people!
Let's first look at the 24-hour dimension: the total short liquidations across the network are close to 200 million, while long liquidations are just over 80 million.
At first glance, doesn't it seem like the shorts were completely wiped out and the longs won big?
But! If we shift the perspective to the last hour, the total liquidations across the network are over 50 million, and 98% of that is longs!
This market move smoothly played out by first killing the shorts, then immediately killing the longs.
The long-term aggregated data directly hides the current round of slaughter.
It's quite frustrating to say, but I happened to be one of those precisely liquidated within this hour.
Data itself doesn't lie; the key is which time frame you choose to look at. If you choose wrong, what you see is not the market, just an illusion #Market Pricing: Only a 10% Chance of Fed Rate Hike Next Week 🚨 The probability of a Fed rate hike next week has dropped to 10%! Is the crypto market about to rebound? I actually think it's more dangerous now!
From October 27 to 28, the Fed will hold a new round of policy meetings, and market expectations have clearly shifted.
The latest interest rate futures data shows:
About a 90% chance of keeping rates unchanged in October, and only a 10% chance of a 25 basis point hike.
This looks like great news since no rate hike means the market won't have to endure a new round of monetary tightening for now.
But I believe the real risk is not October, but December!
Currently, the market still expects a high chance of a rate hike in December, with over a 70% probability of at least one hike.
This indicates Wall Street does not think the rate hike cycle is over; it has just pushed the next hike further out.
What's more troublesome is that inflationary pressure in the U.S. remains, energy prices stay high, and the Fed has no sufficient reason to quickly pivot to easing.
For the crypto market, a short-term pause in rate hikes can indeed ease market sentiment, but it doesn't mean liquidity will immediately improve.
Especially for altcoins driven by funds without real support, they can easily surge on good news only to trap those chasing the rally.
My judgment is clear: no rate hike in October does not mean the bull market has started; I remain bearish on high-risk altcoins in the short term! 📉
Don't mistake a temporary pause in tightening for a real start of easing!
👇 Click the link below to go directly! $BTC $ETH $OKB OKB Even with such a situation, there's still a large group of bulls going long. Since they're opposing the big players, they're just waiting to be swept away in a wave! Just look at the market trend and the long-short ratio 😏
The retail investors' long-short ratio has surged to 2.9, while the big players' position long-short ratio is only 0.95.
Retail investors are still frantically bottom-fishing and going long, but the big players have quietly started short positions.
Around 110.46, there are a bunch of large sell orders firmly pressing down, making the K-line move like it's constipated; every time it tries to rise, it gets smashed down.
This kind of market, where retail investors are extremely crowded and big players are secretly setting shorts, is purely using retail investors as a liquidity reservoir, ready to plunge down at any moment to liquidate the longs. Wanting to get rich with leveraged contracts isn't that simple; be prepared to be wiped out. This review separates the three types of signals: "order book, whales, institutions." The direction is correct, but each signal needs to reduce noise one more level.
First, look at the macro. The October FOMC is very likely to keep interest rates unchanged, with the market pricing the probability of no change at about 90.6%, and the probability of a 25 basis point hike in December still around 67%. So currently, it is not a "confirmed easing," but a "pause and observe." For the crypto space, what truly affects subsequent elasticity is not just the decision itself, but the post-meeting statements on inflation, employment, and the December path.
Next, look at the order book. BTC has buy orders around $81,000, but these orders can be withdrawn at any time and cannot be directly equated with real buying pressure. More importantly, if the price dips, the stop-loss and liquidation pressure below will be amplified, so order book support can only be considered a short-term buffer, not evidence of a trend reversal.
ETH whale transfers do require caution, but "transferring into Kraken" does not mean it has already been sold. Early addresses cashing out in batches, foundation wallet rebalancing, and ETF fund flow changes may all coexist. To judge whether selling pressure is real, one must observe whether deposits continue, whether trading volume increases, and whether ETH spot and ETF fund flows continue to deteriorate.
As for Franklin Templeton increasing sgBENJI shares on XRPL, this is more an infrastructure move for tokenized money market funds and does not equate to directly buying XRP. Its significance lies in the RWA ecosystem and institutional settlement channels and should not be simply interpreted as an XRP price catalyst.
$BTC $ETH $SOL Weekend is quiet, $BTC quietly breaks below 80,000! 200,000 people liquidated, ETF lost 600 million in a single day
Family, no big news over the weekend, but the market moved first—BTC smashed through the 80,000 mark overnight, hitting a low of 79,146, down just over 2% in 24 hours. The worst hit were leveraged longs; BTC longs alone liquidated over 200 million USD, with total network liquidations piling up to 670 million, nearly 200,000 people hurt. $ETH
Honestly, weekend trading volume is thin, so even a little selling pressure can trigger a big bearish candle. Leveraged longs got liquidated like dominoes, the more it fell, the more liquidations happened, and the more liquidations, the more it fell—stepping on themselves.
Looking at the capital flow, it's even colder: on Thursday, spot ETFs saw a net outflow of 635 million USD, the largest single-day withdrawal since June 25. BlackRock's IBIT alone had 250 million withdrawn. Institutions are pulling out, retail leverage is still holding on hard, but no one is stepping in to catch the fall.
Adding to the gloom: US withdrawing personnel from the Middle East, Iran reportedly simulating attacks, risk-off sentiment rising, but BTC this time didn’t act as a safe haven, instead getting hammered along with risk assets.
To be frank, once the psychological 80,000 level breaks, technical stop-loss orders will follow. The FOMC decision next week hasn’t happened yet, so there’s no reason for funds to bottom buy at this level. Most of the longs liquidated over the weekend were probably old holders who bought halfway up the mountain. If you’re not leveraged, don’t move yet; wait to see if 80,000 can hold before making a move. A brief analysis of BTC short-term trends (strategy suggestions) from Dow Theory, Chan Theory, Wave Theory, volume-price relationship, order flow, and price action
Comprehensive judgment
Dow Theory confirms 79,145 false breakdown = bear trap
Chan Theory bottom fractal confirmed + new central pivot reconstruction, 79,700-80,300 is a secondary buying point
Wave Theory Y' wave likely ended, starting a new impulse wave
Volume-price relationship shows three consecutive declining bearish candles + Delta turning positive = selling pressure exhausted
Order flow 1.479 billion post-low Delta = main force aggressively accumulating
Price action spring bottom + long lower shadow + minimal volume accumulation = eve of reversal.
Six-dimensional comprehensive analysis: 79,145 is very likely the ultimate bottom of the six-week grinder, currently at the starting area of a new market cycle. However, the Sunday 300 million minimal volume cannot confirm direction; Monday (10-26) US session's movement will determine the direction for the next three months
$BTC #星球日报 Brothers, many people are asking me, can ETH still return to 2400?
Can it touch 2500, or even surge to 2600?
When you ask like this, it leaves Xunge silent.
How should I answer?
Of course, like everyone else, I also hope it can rally so we can all profit together.
But let's look at the data in front of us—does reality really allow it to surge?
The contract data is here: longs account for as high as 72.25%, shorts only 27.75%, with a long-short ratio directly at 2.60.
That means out of ten retail investors, seven and a half are desperately bottom-fishing and going long.
The crypto market is a zero-sum game; with so many crowded on the long side, this vehicle is too heavy to pull up.
Put yourself in the shoes of a big capital main force: with a bunch of long retail investors waiting for you to lift the price, would you spend money to force it up to help them get out of their positions?
Without a brutal round of chip cleansing to wash out the longs who can't hold on, a true bottom is hard to appear.
Looking at the chart, current price is 2368, with moving averages pressing down hard, MACD dead cross below zero line, longs have almost no resistance power.
The intraday low has already hit 2350; this is definitely not the bottom, at best just a rest halfway up the mountain.
Stop fantasizing about 2600; once the 2400 level is completely broken, the next stop is the previous low at 2315. Once that breaks, a waterfall of chained liquidations will come.
Brothers, recognize the market situation: those who follow the trend prosper, those who go against it perish. 💻 I want to break down this one by code review: Pump.fun announced that the app now supports purchasing Monad tokens, allowing users to pay directly with their $USDC balance without manually cross-chain or switching wallets. The input is the balance, the output is the token, with fewer steps in between.
My judgment: This is a positive improvement on the interaction layer, having a greater impact on users unfamiliar with cross-chain, but it cannot yet be directly equated with stronger demand in the Monad ecosystem. A better button doesn’t mean the assets behind the button are more worth buying; these two demands need to be evaluated separately.
Logically, reducing one wallet switch and one cross-chain operation means fewer chances for errors or mid-process abandonment. If users who originally found the process cumbersome are now willing to try, the conversion rate at the purchase entry might improve. This is my speculation and still needs to be verified by actual usage.
A potential bug is: hiding the process doesn’t mean costs and risks disappear. The material doesn’t explain fees, quotes, or failure handling. If I were to revise it, I would put the final received amount, all fees, and how funds are handled after a transaction failure on the confirmation page, so the simplification of operations doesn’t lead to information loss.
I would first approve this as an "experience optimization" and keep "demand growth" pending verification. Please help review: for this kind of one-click purchase, would you want to see the total fees and received amount first, or the destination of funds after failure? Did I miss any critical bugs in my judgment?This is a trend driven by fear. Long leveraged buy positions have been wiped out, and the recovery from the $79,240 level saw no new buying from ETFs after capital outflows of $635 million on 10/22 and $137.9 million on 10/23. The price recovered amid a lot of bad news being released, with sellers running out of reasons. The CME FedWatch tool shows about a 90% chance the Fed will keep policy unchanged next week; macro shocks have already been priced in.$BTC #BitcoinETFExpansion #Spot gold breaks below $4000
Spot gold fell below $4000/oz from October 23 to 25, mainly due to a reversal in interest rate expectations combined with liquidity squeezes, rather than a simple disappearance of safe-haven demand.
Market: Closed at $3995.63/oz on October 23, with an intraday low of $3975.49; down over 28% from the year's high of $5598.75, dropping more than 4% this week, marking the worst weekly performance since early June.
Logic: Middle East tensions pushed oil prices up → inflation pressure rose → market expectations shifted from rate cuts to hikes, putting pressure on the non-yielding asset gold; meanwhile, stock market declines triggered margin calls, leading investors to sell gold for cash.
HSBC said: "Gold is an insurance policy, and this insurance policy is being cashed in."
Chain reaction: "Bottom-fishing" crowds appeared in Shenzhen Shuibei, domestic pure gold jewelry prices fell back to around 1200 yuan/gram; the "fixed income + gold" wealth management yield enhancement logic failed, with some products annualizing only 1.23%, and supply noticeably shrinking.
Outlook: $4000 is the dividing line between bulls and bears.
UBS sees it as a buying opportunity, targeting $4600–$5400; cautious views hold that before war eases or the Fed clearly shifts, gold prices lack sustained upward momentum.
This is an asset repricing triggered by interest rate reversals and amplified by liquidity pressure. Whether it can stabilize in the short term depends on inflation data and Fed signals. @OKX中文 @OKX星球 $BTC