Orbit Post Sitemap
#苹果新CEO迎来iPhone18首份成绩单
BTC is currently in a weak recovery phase after an oversell, with prices barely stabilizing in the $77,000–$78,000 range, but technical structure, capital flow, and news have yet to provide confirmation signals for a trend reversal.
---
📉 Current price status: Stabilized but weak rebound
As of November 2, BTC intraday quotes were around $77,900–$78,100, with a slight 24-hour increase of about 0.4%–0.6%, but a cumulative weekly drop of over 3%, and a 30-day decline of 8.4%. The intraday low touched $76,270, still about 38% below the all-time high of $126,080 from October 2025.
A notable derivatives signal is that near-term futures contracts expiring on November 2 and 3 are priced below spot, forming a rare "backwardation," indicating traders currently prefer short-term risk aversion rather than leveraging up to chase gains. No matter how tempting the odds are, you have to first consider whether tail risks will eat up the expected returns. The Bank of Korea is currently investigating 31 financial institutions to assess how the closure of major crypto exchanges, prolonged downturns in the crypto market, or damage to other companies might impact their operations.
I think this is more about mapping out the risk transmission chain rather than evidence that an exchange is about to fail. The investigation itself is not enough for me to raise the probability of platform collapse, but it does indicate that the connections between financial institutions and the crypto market are being seriously examined. For me, institutional exposure is more worth watching than short-term sentiment.
My speculation is: if exposure is limited, market worries may be overestimated, and only then does bearing volatility allow room to discuss odds; if risks are concentrated and deeply connected, something that looks cheap may not have good expected value because losses could amplify along the chain. I will wait for clearer exposure information and not directly interpret "starting an investigation" as a bearish signal.What I care most about in this Bank of Korea survey is that it asked about the "operational impact" on financial institutions. In the context of how risks transmit between traditional finance and the crypto market, this carries more weight than just looking at coin prices.
The survey covers 31 institutions and involves scenarios like exchange closures and prolonged market downturns, but the survey itself does not mean the risks have already materialized.
My speculation is: if the survey finds that related losses would squeeze the institutions' capital arrangements, then these institutions might tighten credit to crypto-related businesses, and the pressure could transmit along the funding chain rather than just remain at the sentiment level. I tend to see it as a window to observe credit conditions rather than rushing to label it as negative news; the key still lies in how deep the actual exposure is.
When I usually look at this kind of news, I put price aside first. What macro factor do people care about most now: the funding cost brought by interest rates, or financial institutions' willingness to extend credit to crypto businesses? The load-bearing walls of a building starting to show diagonal cracks will never automatically heal just because the top floor is still adding a glass curtain wall. Bitcoin retraced 7.3% in October, currently hovering between seventy-seven thousand and eighty thousand, compounded by a single-day ETF net outflow of $643 million and Coinbase premium index being at a discount for thirty-eight consecutive days—this is not a problem of dimmed showroom lights, this is the basement water level continuously rising, while the ground floor is still propped up by mining revenue hitting a new eleven-month high of $121.5 billion. However, the revenue per unit of computing power has collapsed by 17.5%. To put it in construction terms: the scaffolding area keeps expanding, but the concrete revenue per square meter is getting thinner and thinner, and the contractor's cash flow has already bitten fine cracks on the load-bearing beams.
What really makes me uneasy is the structural language fracture. Five consecutive inflows in spot trading suddenly break off, indicating that the client side has started to withdraw advance payments, and the market's demand for immediate delivery is showing a wind tunnel effect. The premium index has dropped to its lowest since November 2022 and has been negative for thirty-eight consecutive days, like the strain curve on a structural monitor that has long been below zero—not a brief wind load, but foundation settlement that hasn't been arrested. Miners' total income hits a new high but single-machine output plummets, meaning the construction area of the whole building is expanding, but the rent per unit area is shrinking. Once this scissors difference continues, the selling pressure from the mining side will no longer be noise from the neighboring site but the rebar inside the load-bearing wall starting to be dismantled.
What requires even more caution is the decoupling between the US stock-mapped targets and the native assets. ETF cash flow is the fuel for the tower crane, the premium is the adhesive strength of the structural glue, and miner income is the concrete curing period—any one of these going wrong can be repaired, but if all three are out of balance simultaneously, it’s not maintenance, it’s a re-calculation of the structural model. Currently, spot demand is absent, premium discount is solidified, and unit computing power revenue is declining; the axial force redistribution of the three pillars has already been drawn into the blueprint, while the market is still discussing the facade color.
My judgment is straightforward: the current problem of this building is not its height, but the match between foundation depth and reinforcement ratio. Thirty-eight consecutive days of negative premium have exposed the connection node between the commercial podium and the core tube as a hinge. As long as the stiffness on the spot side does not recover, the shear wall on the miner side will sooner or later shift from bearing pressure to cracking. What truly determines whether this building can continue construction is not whether the tower crane is still turning, but whether new horizontal supports have entered the basement slab. #btcmarketsignalsdiverge One disclosure contains two things that need to be viewed separately.
The first is the backstop. In last week's $6.3 billion attack, the platform used its own funds, the SAFU fund, and the futures insurance fund together to cover about 95% of the losses, and withdrawals reopened on November 1. Note the order: it wasn't about discussing a plan and then dragging it out for three months; the money was in place and the channels were opened first.
The second is revenue. In the same disclosure, the revenues of the main industry players over the past year were laid out: self-estimated $5 billion to $10.7 billion, Tether $5.96 billion, Coinbase $5.65 billion, Circle $2.38 billion, Hyperliquid $663 million, Tron $334 million.
Putting these two things together is interesting. $BNB holders are not buying fee discounts, but the solvency of this set of assets and liabilities; $BTC and $ETH holders care about whether the channels will close. Covering 95% of $6.3 billion shows that the top reserves are thicker than most imagine, and SAFU plus the futures insurance fund essentially internalize counterparty risk.
But don't rush to applaud. 95% means there is still 5% not clearly accounted for who will bear it. The revenue data is similar; the range from $5 billion to $10.7 billion is too wide to look like a financial report, more like a self-stated scope.
When "being able to backstop" becomes a competitive advantage, will the industry start rewarding "too big to fail"?After reading, I noted three things: Compared to the outflow amount, I care more about "five consecutive trading days of net outflow." I usually like to check the data, but this time, there wasn’t a single day with net inflow in the whole week, which indeed made me pause a bit.
1. According to Farside Investors data, the US Ethereum spot ETFs had a total net outflow of about $431 million last week; my judgment is that this is negative for ETF demand, and continuity is more important to track than a single large outflow day, because at least for this week, net subscriptions did not form a reverse buffer.
2. But I wouldn’t directly translate this table as "institutions are completely bearish on $ETH." It records the fund flows of these products, not the attitude of all holders; the source also didn’t explain the reasons for redemptions, so taking fund flows directly as motivation can lead to overinterpretation.
3. I will add "whether outflows are concentrated in a few products" to my observation list, rather than just focusing on the total amount; this is my speculation: if outflows are concentrated, then the judgment on the entire ETF channel demand should be more cautious than when outflows are widespread across products.
My summary is: this is a demand signal that needs tracking, but it’s not a verdict on the entire Ethereum ecosystem yet; what will everyone add as a fourth point, the distribution of outflows among products, or the duration of continuous outflows?On the radar echo, a strong front spanning finance and regulation has formed above Capitol Hill: 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are simultaneously entering a countdown. This is not an ordinary shower; it is a deep trough capable of rewriting the policy pressure field. With a complete turnover in the House and 35 Senate seats to fill, once control flips, Trump's legislative, fiscal, and oversight agenda will shift from a tailwind to a crosswind, and policy visibility will sharply decline. The key data from the observation station is: as of October 23, political donations related to crypto companies amount to about $233 million. This funding acts like a low-altitude warm and moist conveyor belt, continuously adding moisture to the election cloud cluster; it does not determine the typhoon's path but changes the probability of local convective outbreaks.
It is more accurate to view the midterm elections as a circulation adjustment. The fiscal side is a subtropical high intensity: the game of tax cuts, spending, and debt ceiling determines the lower-level temperature field; the regulatory side is wind shear: congressional oversight, hearings, and legislative scheduling will directly cut market expectations for policy continuity. If Congress is divided, legislative progress is like a vapor channel cut off by a cold vortex, turning continuous precipitation into scattered thunderstorms, increasing volatility and reducing directional clarity; if one party dominates, fiscal pulses are more likely to form a sustained southwest jet stream, amplifying the elasticity of semiconductor triple-leveraged mapped targets, making rises and falls steeper. These high-leverage mapped targets essentially compress the policy pressure gradient into short-term price trajectories: fiscal expansion expectations heat up, risk appetite rises like sea surface temperature, and leveraged funds surge first; regulatory and oversight upgrades raise discount rates and volatility simultaneously, causing echo tops to break through rapidly, and strong convection follows.
Further offshore, there is an unnamed typhoon: unnamed sources say Netanyahu urged Trump to strike Iran after the election, though neither side has confirmed. Such geopolitical disturbances are like distant tropical disturbances at sea, with current path uncertainty very high; ensemble forecasts include both coastal brushes and turns, but once entering the midterm circulation, energy prices, risk sentiment, and defense spending expectations will simultaneously change boundary layer conditions. For semiconductor high-leverage mapped targets, this is not a single thunderstorm but a background field that may trigger cross-market wind shear.
How will policy outcomes reshape? First look at congressional control, then fiscal pulses, then oversight intensity. After these three factors combine, the volatility surface of semiconductor triple-leveraged mapped targets will be repriced. Once congressional control flips, a fiscal front will generate strong convection above semiconductor triple-leveraged mapped targets, and wind shear has already risen. #usmidtermspolicyoutlook#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ Will the December rate hike change with the arrival of the non-farm payrolls? Will the December rate cut change? My answer: "The weak consensus has already shown cracks, and the non-farm payrolls hold a veto power." Currently, the derivatives market prices the probability of a 25 basis point rate cut in December at about 71.5%, but this is not an unbreakable certainty. The entire legitimacy of the Fed's rate cut is based on the single pillar that "the labor market is cooling down in an orderly and moderate manner," against the backdrop of inflation (CPI) easing being blocked and the stickiness of super-core services. Once this period's non-farm payroll additions and wage growth both come in strong, the Fed's dual mandate balance will be instantly reversed, and the probability of holding steady (pausing rate cuts) or even signaling a longer period of maintaining restrictive rates in December will surge explosively, triggering a sharp liquidity repricing in the crypto market. Why do I say the non-farm payrolls hold a "veto power" over the Fed's December decision? The "balance tipping" of the dual mandate of inflation and employment: Since the Fed started cutting rates in September, it has publicly claimed that inflation is moving toward 2%, and the core logic of rate cuts is "to prevent unnecessary deterioration in the labor market." This means that as long as employment data remains strong, the necessity of rate cuts is substantially removed. If this month's non-farm payrolls surge (>180k), it not only proves that the US economy can achieve a soft landing without excessive support but also will ignite alarms for inflation rebounding from the ashes. Average hourly earnings (AHE) and the deadlock of service sector inflation: Traders watch the non-farm payrolls not only for the headline number of new jobs but also closely monitor the month-over-month average hourly earnings (MoM). Currently, the market This OKX liquidation heatmap is more intuitive than the ordinary liquidation map, and I'll break it down for you guys. The current price is around 78300.
First, look at the colors: the yellower, the stronger the liquidation intensity. The two brightest yellow bands are the heaviest chip stacks in the entire market.
The first band is near 79000, with an intensity of 20.54 million, the brightest on the whole map. This is the strongest liquidation magnet above; once the price hits here, the stop-losses of short positions and trapped long positions will explode simultaneously, creating the greatest pressure. This exactly matches the 78903 short pain point from the pain point list just now.
The second band is near 77000, also a bright yellow band, representing the strongest long position chip stack below. If the price truly retraces here, there will be support, but it might also trigger another wave of long liquidations.
Looking further up, around 80000 and 81000 are blue weak liquidation zones with low intensity, indicating fewer leveraged positions there. Once the heavy resistance at 79000 is broken, the upward movement will be smoother because there are no dense chips blocking the way.
The current price of 78300 is exactly between the two liquidation bands at 77000 and 79000, with magnetic attraction both above and below.
My judgment: In the short term, first test 79000 to trigger the short liquidations above, but 79000 is strong resistance; if it can't break through, the price will be pushed back down, retracing to 77000 to find support. At the middle position of 78300, neither longs nor shorts should chase; wait for the price to reach the edges of the two yellow bands before taking action.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $ETH $BTC $SOL $BTC As the October market comes to a close, the BTC spot ETF delivered a surprising report: a total net outflow of $516 million for the month. This sharply contrasts with the $2.648 billion net inflow in September and also reflects a clear cooling of the previously high institutional allocation enthusiasm.
Reviewing the capital flow in October, it was quite a rollercoaster. In the last week of the month, there was a continuous four-day net inflow, giving bulls a glimpse of capital replenishment. However, on October 30, the situation reversed sharply, with a single-day large redemption of $643 million acting like a heavy blow, not only wiping out the earlier inflows but also turning the monthly capital flow from positive to negative.
This data exposes the great instability of current institutional funds, with a strong short-term speculative nature. The foundation of short-term capital return is very fragile; once faced with concentrated redemptions, the previous inflows are quickly consumed. The sharp turn in capital at the end of the month suggests that institutional confidence in BTC has weakened, and the stability of capital is far less than in September. Going forward, it is crucial to be highly vigilant about the impact of concentrated ETF redemptions on the market and to closely monitor daily capital flows.Brothers, $SNDK rebounded overnight, but the real issues after the earnings report are still unresolved
$SNDK $1,190
SNDK closed down sharply by 13.47% to 1150.89 on Friday, then recovered about 2.6% overnight to around 1190. From the June peak of 2354, the retracement is still about 50%.
The earnings numbers themselves are crushing. Q1 revenue was 11.03 billion, a year-over-year surge of 378%, adjusted EPS 49.51, both beating expectations. Data center revenue was 4.8 billion, accounting for about 44% of total revenue. Gross margin surged to 85.1%, and the company also announced an 8-for-1 stock split effective November 20.
But the market sell-off reason lies in the growth rate. This quarter's revenue sequential growth dropped sharply from 51% last quarter to 23%, with Q2 guidance midpoint at 12.4 billion, implying a further sequential growth slowdown to about 12%. More importantly, about 40% of this quarter's growth came from price increases, 60% from shipment volume, whereas last quarter price hikes contributed two-thirds. The price increase engine is slowing down.
Analyst target prices are still sky-high. Among 25 covering analysts, most have buy ratings, with an average target price around $2029 to $2086. But Wells Fargo cut its target from 1550 to 1300 and downgraded to "hold," citing "the market needs to continue digesting the growth slowdown."
Technically, 1115 was Friday's intraday low and is a key short-term level to watch.
Let's discuss in the comments: with growth halving and 85% gross margin, which do you trust this time?👇
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $BTC As the October market comes to a close, the BTC spot ETF delivered a surprising report: a total net outflow of $516 million for the month. This sharply contrasts with the $2.648 billion net inflow in September and also reflects a clear cooling of the previously high institutional allocation enthusiasm.
Reviewing the capital flow in October, it was quite a rollercoaster. In the last week of the month, there was a continuous four-day net inflow, giving bulls a glimpse of capital replenishment. However, on October 30, the situation reversed sharply, with a single-day large redemption of $643 million acting like a heavy blow, not only wiping out the earlier inflows but also turning the monthly capital flow from positive to negative.
This data exposes the great instability of current institutional funds, with a strong short-term speculative nature. The foundation of short-term capital return is very fragile; once faced with concentrated redemptions, the previous inflows are quickly consumed. The sharp turn in capital at the end of the month suggests that institutional confidence in BTC has weakened, and the stability of capital is far less than in September. Going forward, it is crucial to be highly vigilant about the impact of concentrated ETF redemptions on the market and to closely monitor daily capital flows.A major institution has unstaked about 2.55 million tokens in the past two days
This does not mean they will immediately dump them into the market
A few weeks ago, a similar operation was followed by re-collecting and restaking
This time the arrangement is not yet finalized
Watch whether they will transfer to a recharge address or restake them again
$HYPEForced liquidation of stocks is not the same as liquidation in the crypto world
Woke up to $GOOGL triggering forced liquidation, half the position gone.
What does this number mean: forced liquidation doesn't happen just because the price drops to a certain level.
US stock margin accounts have maintenance margin requirements.
If it falls below the threshold, the broker takes action.
Who is placing orders here: in plain terms, the borrowing limit for buying stocks has been withdrawn.
It's not that someone is dumping the stock; it's that the account's own leverage has maxed out.
What did he actually do: the short-term position used borrowed money.
The long-term $SUI position has no leverage, so it's still held.
The risk of these two funds is not comparable.
Both are fully invested positions, but one is sold by the system, and the other can still be held.
#美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化
#$GOOGL $SUI BTC 78385: The upper short pain point is 78903, only +0.66% from the current price, and the lower long pain point is 77241 at -1.46%. The upper short position is closer, meaning that if the price surges slightly, it will first trigger the stop loss of the upper short positions, so the short-term momentum to test 78903 upwards is stronger. The upper side was touched 73% in 24 hours, indicating that the upper short positions have already been swept once.
ETH 2292: This is the most interesting. The lower long pain point is 2286, only -0.27% from the current price, and the lower side was touched 91% in 24 hours, indicating that the dense area of long positions below has basically been tested once. The upper short pain point is 2319 at +1.16%, which is the reason ETH surged just now — breaking the short positions upwards, a short squeeze pushing the price up, with 2319 as the next target.
SOL 95.0: The upper short pain point is 96.268, +1.33%, and the lower long is at 93.012, -2.09%. The gravity is biased upwards, following the market to push towards 96 in the short term.
HYPE 87.979: The lower 86.5 long pain points are dense, gravity is biased downwards, avoid this coin, it can break long positions downwards at any time.
ZEC 1276, XRP 1.253: Both have heavier long positions below, gravity is biased downwards, after the rebound they will still go down.
Gold 3913: The upper 3934 short pain point is only +0.53%, very close, will test 3934 first.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $ETH $BTC $SOL $BTC MicroStrategy keeps fueling retail investors' faith on Twitter every day, but its main business is short on cash, so it keeps dumping to exchange for USD.
When the financial report came out, the truth was exposed: to raise money for paying dividends, it quietly sold $432 million worth of BTC spot reserves, and even the CFO left early and fled.
This move completely shattered the illusion of "die-hard institutions that only buy and never sell." The grandest bullish narrative is secretly unloading to cash out, and the market's slow decline is totally justified.
#BTC
$BTC
👇There is a huge whale still holding on hard in the $SOL market.
Holding a high-leverage short position of 250,000 SOL.
This guy has given back more than half of his profits within a week, relying solely on the last bit of margin to hold on.
The liquidation price is at $123.
The shorts are completely holding firm at this level.
As soon as the price pulls up slightly, this massive short position will instantly become the juiciest fuel for a pump.
It's just a matter of when the market maker will pull this liquidation trigger.
#SOL
$SOL
👇Galaxy Digital says the phase bottom may have passed, but the ETF ledger gave a different answer on the same day
$BTC reported around $77,990, with a fear and greed index of 34, still in the fear zone. Galaxy Digital's head of research pointed out that BTC has reclaimed the 50-week moving average, the $80,000 level support is strong, positions are not crowded, and sovereign wealth funds and asset management institutions' participation is increasing. However, spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $643 million last Friday, IBIT attracted funds against the trend, with capital concentrating at the top; overall net outflow this week is about $202 million.
$ETH: around $2,267. Related products have seen capital outflow for 23 consecutive trading days, the longest record since listing, with over $1 billion lost in October; ETHA bore most of the pressure; but on-chain staking hit a new high, products are withdrawing while staking is locking.
$SOL: around $95.5, below the hundred-dollar mark. Related products have had capital outflow for 5 consecutive days, totaling about -$72 million in October; but the Solana Foundation and a consortium including Standard Chartered Hong Kong have agreed that HKD stablecoins will be put on-chain for payments. Issuing stablecoins does not equal buying SOL; that is usage, not buying.
On the macro side, midterm elections and non-farm payrolls fall in the same week, with December policy expectations still above 80%.
In short: Galaxy sees structure, ETFs see redemptions, SOL sees usage. Three ledgers await post-non-farm to see who turns first.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ About $6.3 billion was stolen, yet the price of Bitcoin only dropped by 5%. Previously, it was predicted that if Binance was hacked and $6 billion was stolen, the market would drop by 15-20%. In reality, the price of Bitcoin eventually fell to $76,400, indicating Bitcoin's strong resilience, as the decline was so small despite such a massive hack. However, panic among short-term holders reached extremely high levels, and even the Coinbase premium hit its lowest point since the 2022 FTX collapse. According to on-chain data, within 24 hours, 36,600 bitcoins were sent to exchanges by short-term holders at prices below their purchase price. Over the past seven days, short-term holders deposited a total of about 45,400 bitcoins into Binance. The prices of these deposited bitcoins were in a downtrend, with many already sold at a loss. Within 24 hours, the actual loss amounted to as much as $1.115 billion, far exceeding normal market levels. This indicates a huge volume of bitcoins deposited to exchanges and corresponding actual losses, which is exactly how the market reacts when facing black swan events or the formation of new lows.Binance's $6.3 billion theft pushed BTC down from 80,000 to 76,000, with a weekend hold at 78,000 marking the first rebound after the bearish sentiment was exhausted.
The US stock market also cooled off simultaneously, with the Nasdaq dropping 2% for the week, Intel down nearly 26%, Google down 12%, as AI spending scared off funds.
Both sides are actually being held down by the same macro factors: the Federal Reserve holding steady, over a 70% chance of a rate hike in December, and oil prices breaking 100 pushing up inflation expectations.
BTC is now stuck above the 200-day moving average at 73,000, but the 20 and 50-day moving averages are pressing above 80,000, so the rebound will first look at whether it can surpass 81,000.
In the short term, it looks more like a pullback within a downtrend rather than a reversal; ETFs are still seeing net outflows, waiting for Binance's reserve proof and Friday's nonfarm payrolls to provide answers.
$BTC $SPY $NVDA #加密行业协同守护资产安全 Only $OKB, which was opened yesterday, is profitable. I suspect a certain exchange lost faith and withdrew nearly 6 billion USD after enabling withdrawals.
Some users withdrew funds to OKX, buying $OKB or the market makers took this opportunity to pump the price.
After all, the market cap is too low, so it's easy to pump it up. Among so many exchanges, OKX has never been hacked, showing its technical strength.
Hold with peace of mind and confidence.
#OKX.ai：一个人就是一家世界级公司 How to build your own trading system#Palantir财报前瞻：高增长能否支撑高估值 Palantir's most dangerous moment may not be a crash, but rather that the better its performance, the harder it is for the stock price to rise! On November 2, Palantir is set to release its third-quarter results. The market expects revenue to reach around $2.18 billion, continuing its astonishing growth rate. But I want to say something that might not sound pleasant: for Palantir now, good performance is no longer enough; it must be better than anyone's imagination! Why? Because when a company's valuation is already high, the market is no longer buying how much it earns today, but how many miracles it can create in the next three, five, or even longer years. This is the real divide between bulls and bears on Palantir. Bulls believe that AI commercialization is just beginning. Palantir's true strength is not just telling an AI story, but embedding AI into the actual operations of enterprises and governments, turning technology into orders, revenue, and cash flow. If this capability continues to deliver, it has the chance to become a key infrastructure of the AI era. But bears also have their reasons: no matter how good the business model is, it cannot withstand infinite borrowing against the future. If the market has already priced in years of rapid growth, then even if this revenue beats expectations, as long as the management's future guidance is not strong enough, the stock price may still face pressure. This is the harshest part of the capital market: doing well is expected; if you are not as good as the market imagines, then you are... BTC rates have not turned negative yet, ETH whales and ETFs are completely opposed, ZAMA rises 8% while shorts are still paying fees
$BTC rotation, not exit
Volume shrinks and consolidates sideways. Funding rate remains +0.009%, longs are paying fees, deleveraging is not over. 76,000 is the bottom line, 78,000 is the first recovery target, if the rate does not turn negative, bottom fishing is just catching a falling knife.
$ETH ETF is running, whales are buying
ETH spot ETF has had net outflows for 23 consecutive trading days, the longest record since listing. Whales previously distributed about 160,000 tokens near 2,400. But 10 minutes ago, one address spent 34.69 million USDC on-chain to buy 15,216 ETH at an average price of 2,279. 2,200 is a psychological barrier; the opposition between ETFs and whales will eventually have one side concede.
$ZAMA price rises, shorts are still paying
ZAMA is around 0.0698, up 8.3% in 24 hours, open interest increased from 3.49 million to 4.2 million tokens, a 20% increase. Abnormally, the long-short ratio dropped from 1.6 to 0.88, price rises while retail investors are topping out and shorting, funding rate has been negative for 8 consecutive periods, latest -0.0090%, shorts are paying longs. The short squeeze structure is not finished, but with small market cap and thin liquidity, pullbacks can be irrational.
Summary: For BTC, watch when the funding rate turns negative; for ETH, watch 2,200 and the sincerity of whale buying; for ZAMA, watch if shorts will stampede under negative funding rate
#加密行业协同守护资产安全 Where is the bottom for $AKE???
A large group of people in the square say it's the bottom, but Old Liu clearly stated that it is not the bottom yet, so no one has really bottomed out, right??
The market does not show signs of the main players pushing the price up; what we see is just a small rebound brought by bottom-fishing funds.
Overall, the market remains bearish in the short term because the unlock date is at the end of the month, so speculation is unlikely to happen so quickly. Moreover, smart money sees that the long positions above have not been fully digested yet, and there is still bottom-fishing sentiment. The main players will not choose to #加密行业协同守护资产安全 at this time The most alarming signal today is not that Ripple has unlocked another batch of $XRP, but that the on-chain payment volume on the XRP Ledger had already dropped to 119.5 million before the unlock, far below the monthly average. Institutions are replacing XRP with RLUSD for settlements—this undermines the fundamental assumption that the "payment narrative inevitably drives up XRP demand," yet almost no one in the market is seriously pricing this in. The contraction in on-chain payments starkly contrasts with the holdings structure of six Ripple ETFs: these ETFs collectively hold 1.19 billion $XRP, with a paper loss of $503 million. The MACD has turned negative, the $1.28 support is precarious, and the downside target is $1.24. This is not an ordinary pullback but a simultaneous breach of the "institutional cost line" and the "real on-chain usage"—when payment scenarios are diverted by their own stablecoins, the ETFs' passive buying loses its fundamental anchor. The bearish logic here is more coherent than the bullish: if $1.28 is confirmed broken, stop-loss orders will create a negative feedback loop with the ETFs' paper losses. The situation for $SOL is even more delicate. $SOL ETFs have a cumulative net inflow of $1.469 billion, but net assets have dropped to only $1.399 billion, a $700,000 gap indicating all holders are in a paper loss position. The RSI is only 35.16, with the 7-day, 20-day, and 30-day moving averages pressing at 99.01, 102.47, and 106.57 respectively, and yesterday's low of 95.15 has been breached. More critically, the trading volume of $39.6 million is only half the 7-day average. This is a typical "no one is stepping in to catch the fall" scenario #非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ $BTC 是否迎来转机？
The non-farm payrolls are coming, will the December rate hike expectations change? Will $BTC see a turning point?
The non-farm data is very unlikely to reverse the expectation of a December rate hike; instead, it may reinforce tightening pricing. This means BTC is unlikely to truly "turn around" in the short term and is more likely to continue a volatile pattern.
Currently, the market pricing for a 25 basis point rate hike in December is about 72% to 85%. Two members within the Federal Reserve have already advocated for a rate hike, indicating growing hawkish divergence. The October non-farm payrolls are expected to increase by about 65,000. If the data meets or slightly exceeds expectations, the US dollar and US Treasury yields will be supported, putting pressure on risk assets like BTC. BTC is currently hovering around $77,000 to $78,000. After previously falling below $80,000, market sentiment has been cautious.
The real variable to watch is a significant deviation in the data: if employment cools noticeably and wages fall back, the market may reprice easing expectations, giving BTC a chance to rebound; but if the unemployment rate rises rapidly at the same time, recession fears will suppress risk appetite. Additionally, spot BTC ETFs have recently recorded a net outflow of about $643 million. If the rebound lacks spot fund support, its sustainability is questionable. In short, non-farm payrolls act more like a catalyst for BTC's short-term volatility rather than a sufficient condition for a trend reversal.Calculating, ETHA had a net outflow of $391 million last week, which is about 90.5% of the total net outflow of $432 million from Ethereum spot ETFs. I am more concerned about this concentration rather than just focusing on the "five consecutive weeks of net outflow" to draw conclusions about the entire sector.
① Other products combined had a net outflow of about $41 million, which is significantly less than the net outflow of ETHA alone. My understanding is that this time the capital pressure is highly concentrated, and the total figure should not be interpreted as all products retreating at the same rate.
② ETHA's historical cumulative net inflow is $11.87 billion, and last week's net outflow accounts for about 3.3% of that. This is not a proportion of asset shrinkage, but when compared to accumulated capital, I think it is not enough to prove that the long-term allocation logic has reversed.
③ The overall net outflow has continued for five consecutive weeks, indicating that the negative capital flow did not just appear for one week. If the outflow continues, I will be more concerned about capital absorption; this is my speculation and cannot be used to judge the reason for selling based on this message alone.
My judgment is that the short-term capital outlook is bearish, but "concentrated outflow" and "complete withdrawal" should be considered separately. I will not directly treat ETF flow as the price direction indicator. Going forward, I want to see whether the outflow continues to be concentrated in ETHA or spreads to more products. When I see this message, my first thought is: With the withdrawal of funds, has the price provided enough risk compensation? According to Farside Investors data, the US Ethereum spot ETF had net outflows for five consecutive trading days last week, totaling about $431 million.
My judgment is that this is bearish in the short term, but it cannot yet be directly concluded as bearish in the long term. Continuous outflows make me more cautious than single-day fluctuations; at least this ETF channel has not provided net incremental buying; however, it does not represent the direction of funds in the entire Ethereum market. Taking local data as the whole picture can easily overestimate the probability of a decline.
According to my analysis, if the outflows continue and the price does not sufficiently absorb the pressure, the odds are not favorable; if the outflows converge and the price no longer reacts sensitively to bad news, then it is worth reevaluating. For me, negative headlines are not the conclusion; what matters next is how funds and prices verify each other.To start with a dose of cold water, I'm not very convinced by the narrative that "adding one more asset means the entire sector should be revalued." When I see such news, I usually separate product progress from market benefits: it's true that the shelf is becoming richer, but whether funds will flow in because of this is another matter.
According to Odaily, MSX announced that on November 2, 2026 (UTC+8), it launched DOCN (DigitalOcean) US stock token spot trading. My judgment is that this belongs to product supply expansion and is not enough to be considered a general positive for the crypto market. There are two reasons: the new listing only proves that there is a trading asset; the information does not provide data on user demand or new funds, so supply cannot be directly equated with demand; even if it attracts attention, that attention may only be for the corresponding US stock asset. If users are just switching to a new entry point to access US stock exposure, then I speculate this may not translate into demand for other crypto assets.
Of course, the bullish side might also be right. I won't deny the value of a new entry point just because I tend to be bearish. If later we see sustained usage, genuinely new users, and evidence that demand extends to other on-chain services, I will adjust my judgment. For now, I consider this a new listing and will not prematurely label it as an "incremental capital entry."On November 2, Goldman Sachs gave a figure: the probability of the Democrats winning the House majority exceeds 90%. The figure itself is not new; what is new is the timeline attached to it.
The spending authorization expires on December 11, and the debt ceiling for 2027 immediately becomes a legislative bargaining point. From now until the end of the year, the U.S. Treasury has to pass through two checkpoints. Goldman Sachs also expects that if the Democrats win, spending in 2027 will exceed about 0.25% of GDP — which sounds like fiscal expansion and is somewhat favorable to risk assets.
Looking at tariffs again. The report judges that after the Trump election, it is highly likely that the results of the Section 301 investigation will be announced and new tariffs imposed, with the effective tariff rate net increase slightly below 2 percentage points. The significance is often not in the tariff rate itself, but in that it brings inflation expectations back to the forefront, suppressing the pace of rate cuts.
The AI front is easily overlooked. Congress is focusing on AI regulation, and if the Democrats take either chamber, investigations into large tech companies are expected. When the risk premium on tech stocks moves, the correlation with $BTC and $ETH will return.
So $BTC is currently mixed with two different types of factors: fiscal expansion is the water, tariffs and regulation are the drain. They are in opposite directions and have different rhythms.
The market usually trades "who wins" first, then "what the winner will do." This time, the winner is almost priced in; the remaining space lies entirely in "how those two fiscal checkpoints after winning will be passed." High beta like $SOL will feel the switch first.If I were to write a strategy for $ZEC, I would set a rule: if the same address buys spot and opens leveraged long positions simultaneously, it should be put on a watchlist but not directly trigger a directional judgment. Newcomers learning quantitative trading should impose this restriction on themselves to avoid mistaking "big players taking action" for "the answer revealed" 🤖
According to PANews citing Lookonchain monitoring, whale t1JJnA bought 3,052 ZEC spot, worth $3.8 million; at the same time, established a corresponding 8,000 ZEC, worth $10.16 million, 2x leveraged long position.
My judgment is that this has more observational value than follow-up value for $ZEC. Spot buying indeed brings buying pressure and carries more information than a mere stance; however, since the spot and leveraged positions come from the same address, they cannot be treated as two independent bullish evidences, otherwise the strategy risks double counting.
The loophole in the rule is also obvious: leveraged positions are more constrained by price volatility, and if the market moves against the position, the pressure to reduce holdings may amplify volatility, which is my speculation. The data also does not fully disclose the entire position and hedging situation, so actions from a single address are insufficient to conclude a sector-wide strengthening.
Therefore, I prefer to observe whether there is continued accumulation or if there are reverse operations, rather than scoring signals based on the amount. If you were to write this condition, would you require "continuous accumulation" or "multiple independent addresses acting simultaneously" to upgrade it into an effective signal? $DOGE $BTC $ZEC
ZEC 1279, it is the red one in this sea of green today. On the same day, BTC spot ETF saw a net outflow of 203 million, ETH has been flowing out for five consecutive weeks, yet it still clings to the 24-hour high of 1284.
There was a quick news flash this morning that was scanned too fast: a certain whale opened a $10.16 million ZEC long position and also bought 3,052 coins spot. Contracts and spot moving together, this kind of move doesn't look like a rebound grab.
Contract open interest is $154 million, funding rate 0.01%, not crowded at all. If it were a sentiment-driven market, the rate would have soared long ago. The current structure is someone slowly adding positions.
My inclination is that it’s not over yet, but I won’t chase above 1280. Such liquidity can wash out half the positions with a single spike; I’ll see if anyone steps in around 1210 on the pullback. If no one holds, I’ll consider my judgment wrong.
#非农来袭，12月加息会否生变？ When I saw this message, my first reaction was to separate the two names and look at them individually. Both are called stablecoin shrinkage, but "shrinking together" VS "mainly one party shrinking" represent two different alarms to me; you can't treat the absence of sound as the same thing.
DefiLlama data shows that the total circulating supply of USD stablecoins across the network is about $298.5 billion, with a daily decrease of $463 million and a weekly decrease of $4.457 billion. Among them, USDT is about $179.3 billion, down $3 billion weekly; USDC is about $71.6 billion, down $55.95 million weekly.
My judgment: This is a bearish liquidity signal, but more attention should be paid to the capital changes related to USDT rather than labeling all stablecoins the same way. USDT accounts for about two-thirds of the network's net weekly decrease this time, with changes clearly concentrated on this side.
Looking at relative magnitude, USDT shrank about 1.7% weekly, while USDC less than 0.1%. The difference in scale means that just comparing the dollar amount reduced can be misleading; converting to percentages, the difference remains obvious. However, circulating supply only tells me the balance changed; it doesn't tell me the reason for redemption, nor can it be used to conclude that USDC absorbed the funds.
Therefore, I will use "concentrated shrinkage VS synchronized shrinkage" as a framework for further observation. If USDC also shows significant shrinkage next period, I will be more cautious about shrinkage spreading. Which side do you lean toward: is this mainly a change in USDT itself, or a prelude to a market-wide capital outflow? $ZEC 📅 November 2 · Shorts have stopped on BTC, while longs are bleeding on altcoins
🚨 $44.91 million liquidated across the entire network in the past 24 hours. The total number doesn't seem scary, but breaking it down is quite interesting.
BTC liquidations total $16.33 million, with shorts accounting for $9.86 million — shorts actively closed positions near 77,000 to take profits and secure gains. Ethereum is more balanced, with longs and shorts roughly equal.
But looking down at altcoins, the picture changes dramatically. SOL liquidations are $4.13 million, with longs making up 92%; ZEC liquidations are $3.25 million, with longs at 90%; DOGE longs account for 94%. When prices fall, altcoin longs don't even get a chance to escape.
BTC shorts already feel the drop is enough, while altcoin longs are still being pressed and bleeding. The same market, two completely different positions telling two different stories.
Are your positions the type where shorts have already stopped, or the type where longs are still bleeding? 🐷🐷🐷
@dylanyu88 $BTC $DOGE $ETH Observation: Today it rose a bit more than BTC but is stuck below the 200-day moving average at 2313
ETH is now at 2295, up 1.25% in 24 hours, while BTC only rose 0.81% in the same period, with a trading volume of $194 million
The intraday high reached 2317.98, but it was pushed back right after touching the 200-day EMA near 2313; above that is the 100-day EMA at 2353
This rebound is mainly due to funds flowing back after exchanges resumed ETH and stablecoin withdrawals, combined with short covering; spot buying has not clearly returned yet
At 11 PM tonight, the US October ISM Manufacturing PMI will be released, and on Wednesday there is the Treasury quarterly refinancing announcement; when long bond supply changes, risk assets all fluctuate accordingly
If it really falls back, the next decent support is around 1823, more than 20% away from the current price, and my position can't withstand such a distance. In this round of rally, the liquidations of BTC and ETH mainly came from shorts, while CORE showed a different liquidation structure. The original text interprets this as a concentrated clearing of short positions, but the data shows that the short-term performance of the three coins is not entirely consistent. BTC's short liquidations dominate across all time windows: 1h liquidations at 1.5358 million, with longs at 13,200 and shorts at 1.5226 million; 4h liquidations at 17.6064 million, with longs at 302,800 and shorts at 17.3035 million; 12h liquidations at 29.9581 million, with longs at 3.9635 million and shorts at 25.9946 million; 24h liquidations at 40.4321 million, with longs at 6.6956 million and shorts at 33.7366 million. ETH's 4h liquidations are 19.0564 million, with longs at 1.6293 million and shorts at 17.4271 million; 12h liquidations at 28.4396 million, with longs at 6.8881 million and shorts at 21.5515 million. The 1h window is the opposite, with liquidations at 294,400, longs at 200,800 and shorts at 93,600. The 24h liquidations are 34.8735 million, with no breakdown of long and short amounts in the original text. CORE's 1h liquidations are 2.3128 million, all longs, shorts at zero; 4h liquidations at 5,826.5, with longs at 3,882.78 and shorts at 1,943.72. It has both short liquidations and long pressure, with volatility resembling a two-way squeeze. My view: The data for BTC and ETH supports the judgment of concentrated short exits, but the liquidation scale only reflects the changes in leveraged positions that have already occurred,$ZEC $ZEC The ZEC community is actually proposing to shut down the development fund of over 300 million dollars early.
They want to directly split the granary and leave, so no one will maintain the code afterward.
This coin's consensus has always relied entirely on technological iteration, and the core team is clearly planning to withdraw now.
There are still funds stubbornly supporting the market.
The rice bowl is about to be smashed; buying at this position is purely paying for the exit fee.
#ZEC
$ZEC
👇$IMX
Gaming adoption in crypto is a different challenge from attracting DeFi traders. Players generally care about gameplay, ownership, transaction costs, and convenience rather than token narratives. Immutable focuses on blockchain infrastructure for gaming, positioning itself in a sector with considerable potential but demanding competition. Sustainable game launches and returning players matter more than temporary ecosystem excitement.$TRUMP A single 12% green candle, is it a reversal firework or a signal light for those exiting? With this kind of pulse, is your first reaction to chase or to see who's selling on the other side? I've been watching $TRUMP's rhythm these past two days, and it feels more like an "event repricing" rather than a trend start: after months of silence, it surged double digits within an hour, but don't forget it has already retraced over 97% from its high. The price is repairing sentiment, not valuation. RSI is already near 97, a reading that usually indicates short-term buying has been completely exhausted at once, and follow-up requires new funds to take over, rather than the same group repeatedly igniting it. The derivatives perspective is even more critical. Rapid rallies often come with a sharp increase in open interest and funding rates turning positive or even overheated, meaning longs are paying to maintain positions. Once spot buying can't keep up, and price stalls or slightly pulls back, high-leverage longs become the most vulnerable crowded trade, triggering forced deleveraging and forming a short-cycle structure of "pump—squeeze—giveback." The overall altcoin risk appetite will also be affected by this pulse, but the transmission is brief; the stability of BTC and ETH is the foundation determining whether this wave can spread. There is also a bullish path: if after the rally open interest moderately declines, funding rates return to neutral, and price holds the mid-range gains without breaking, it indicates turnover rather than pure speculation, and the narrative might regain some attention. But the potential risk is, how much of this rally has already been priced in? One green candle can't change the facts of long-term dilution and fading attention; chasing highs easily makes you the exit counterparty for others. My own rhythm Tomorrow is the U.S. midterm election, so I won't be adding positions this week.
According to the prediction market prices now, the Democrats have about a 94% to 95% chance of taking the House and around 72% for the Senate. If they really take both chambers, the crypto legislation will likely slow down.
My reasoning:
In September, the Senate voted on advancing the CLARITY Act, but it failed 49 to 50, with all the attending Democratic senators voting against it. If legislation continues to stall, the recently hyped compliance narrative will cool off.
Of course, the market has already priced in some of this. The Fear and Greed Index is currently at 37, so sentiment is already somewhat fearful; if the results come out as expected, the drop might not be as severe as imagined.
For ordinary people, don't bet on the election results to open leverage this week. Wait until the results are out and the direction is clear before making moves; it's not too late.
What do you think will happen to BTC when the election results come out—will it rise first or fall first?
#半导体板块集中抛售，韩国KOSPI跌超6%
(Personal opinion, not investment advice)
#BTC #美国中期选举I was wondering why $INTC dropped so much last Friday, turns out the big players were collectively running away.
Goldman Sachs data shows hedge funds have been net selling global AI stocks for 5 consecutive trading days,
returning all the AI positions bought since early 2025, which is a collective deleveraging, not much related to one or two earnings reports.
Last Friday, $INTC fell nearly 29% in a single day,
marking the worst day since 1974.
During such deleveraging, both good and bad stocks are sold together, who can hold on?
I won’t add to my $INTC for now, I’ll wait until they finish selling.😭$BTC continues to face pressure, with a clear divergence between capital flow and market trends. Recently, the price has repeatedly contested the $80,000 level, dipping multiple times near 79k or even lower, overall still in a recovery phase with about a 35% retracement from the October 2025 peak.
The Federal Reserve's maintained tight stance, high oil prices, capital siphoning effect in the AI sector, and risk-averse sentiment ahead of the midterm elections have led to insufficient price elasticity. However, capital flow and price show divergence.
Spot ETFs are not continuously experiencing net outflows; some trading days still record net inflows of hundreds of millions of dollars, but the scale and continuity are insufficient, mostly concentrated in leading products like IBIT, with limited contribution from others. On-chain and position data show that earlier basis arbitrage and macro fast money (some hedge funds and bank trading desks) have significantly reduced positions, CME asset management net longs and leveraged fund shorts have both been cut by more than half from their peaks, and open interest has noticeably contracted.
Meanwhile, wealth management platforms, sovereign funds, and long-term allocation players are absorbing chips, with large holders continuously increasing net positions. This "weak price, core capital intact" structure indicates that current selling pressure mainly comes from short-term and sentiment-driven sources rather than institutional systemic withdrawal. ETF capital flow tends to follow price rather than lead it, confirming the "buy high, sell low" characteristic. #BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧 In the futures market, when a major player runs into trouble, risk control usually traces down through the capital and collateral relationships, rather than just looking at how much the market has dropped. I see this message follows the same logic: investigating whether risks might spill over.
The Bank of Korea is currently investigating 31 financial institutions to understand how the closure of large cryptocurrency exchanges, prolonged market downturns, or losses suffered by other companies might impact their operations. The crypto market differs from traditional futures in that exchanges often also involve asset custody, so closures cannot be understood solely based on market fluctuations.
My judgment is that this issue is more important for financial institutions' risk management than for short-term sentiment: closures test the availability of funds, and prolonged downturns test the resilience for sustained operations; these two pressures should not be conflated. As for whether business will be tightened, I think that depends on the investigation results; we cannot draw conclusions on behalf of the central bank. For friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets, would you consider exchange closures or prolonged downturns as the more severe stress scenario?To start with the conclusion, Yun Jie is quite bullish. I am optimistic about SNDK, not just because of the AI concept, but because its fundamentals are undergoing substantial changes. First, the data center business is becoming a new growth engine, with related revenue reaching $4.8 billion this quarter, a 61% quarter-over-quarter increase, and shipment share rising from about 12% previously to 38%. As AI inference scales up and data storage demand continues to grow, SanDisk, as a pure NAND and SSD player, is expected to benefit continuously. Second, the company has signed long-term supply agreements with 8 customers, locking in part of the shipments for the coming years in advance. The contracts also include deposits and other financial guarantees, significantly improving the visibility of future revenue. Meanwhile, NAND prices are still expected to rise, enterprise-level SSD demand is especially strong, and industry capacity is unlikely to be quickly released in the short term. Additionally, SanDisk is sharing factory construction costs with Kioxia, keeping capital expenditure pressure relatively manageable; the BiCS series continues to upgrade, and HBF high-bandwidth flash memory is also being positioned for the AI inference market. The company has ample cash reserves, low debt pressure, and continues to repurchase shares, further enhancing its long-term competitiveness. If HBF is successfully commercialized in the future, it could open new growth opportunities, but there are still technical and market validation risks at present. Looking at the K-line, the stock price previously fell from $1421 to a low of $1117, then stabilized around $1150, and has now rebounded to $1194. A short-term recovery signal has appeared, with $1200–$1220 as a key resistance zone. If it breaks through with volume, it is likely to continue challenging higher levels If I were to write a strategy, I would set a rule: if the same address buys spot and opens leveraged long positions simultaneously, it should be added to a watchlist but not directly trigger a directional judgment. Newcomers learning quant should first impose a restriction on themselves to avoid mistaking "big players taking action" for "the answer revealed" 🤖
According to PANews citing Lookonchain monitoring, whale t1JJnA bought 3,052 ZEC spot, worth $3.8 million; at the same time, established a corresponding 8,000 ZEC, $10.16 million 2x leveraged long position.
My judgment is that this has more observational value for $ZEC than follow-up value. Spot buying indeed brings buying pressure and carries more information than a mere statement of intent; but since spot and leveraged positions come from the same address, they cannot be treated as two independent bullish evidences, otherwise the strategy risks double counting.
The loophole in the rule is also obvious: leveraged positions are more constrained by price volatility, and if the market moves against the position, the pressure to reduce holdings may amplify volatility—this is my speculation. The data also does not fully disclose the entire position and hedging situation, so actions from a single address are insufficient to conclude a sector-wide strengthening.
Therefore, I prefer to observe whether there is continued accumulation or any reverse operations afterward, rather than scoring signals based on amount size. If you were to write this condition, would you require "continuous accumulation" or "multiple independent addresses acting simultaneously" to upgrade it into an effective signal? #Palantir Earnings Preview: Can High Growth Support a High Valuation Can a true public chain also go to zero? CORE fell from 6.47 to 0.018, what is hidden behind the 99.7% crash?
As of November 2, CORE was priced at about $0.014, down more than 99% from its all-time high of about $6.14, with a market cap of only about $13.9 million, having fallen into the small-cap high-risk zone.
The crash of CORE is not simply due to a bear market drag. In March 2026, the ecological lending protocol Colend triggered a massive liquidation cascade, combined with a hard fork that temporarily unlinked some tokens from mining power, causing concentrated selling pressure and a single-day drop of over 50%. Since then, issues such as low ecological TVL, lack of hit applications, continuous token unlocking, and weak liquidity have continued to suppress rebounds.
Currently, CORE is still in a bearish trend and under technical pressure. If the BTCFi narrative fails to materialize, and buybacks and ecological implementation fall short of expectations, the price still faces downside risk. This serves as a reminder to all investors: no matter how attractive the public chain narrative is, it cannot withstand liquidity exhaustion and ecological hemorrhage.
Do you think CORE still has a chance to turn around? Share your judgment in the comments.$BTC is still under pressure, but the signals from capital and the market are no longer quite the same. The price keeps hovering around the 80,000 mark, and every rally is quickly pushed back down, looking weak with short-term bulls lacking confidence. The macro environment is indeed unfavorable: interest rate hike expectations persist, oil prices are high, AI stocks have absorbed a lot of risk appetite capital, and with the uncertainty before the elections, capital prefers to wait and see.
The divergence lies in the fact that not all money is running away. Some days, ETFs still see net inflows, though the scale is small and the continuity poor, and the price doesn't cooperate; but the real fast money (those doing basis trading and macro speculation) has basically withdrawn, with positions significantly reduced. What remains more are relatively stable allocation funds slowly stepping in. On-chain data also shows large holders increasing positions rather than selling off together. This indicates that the current pressure is more about short-term sentiment and leverage clearing, rather than a collective institutional sell-off.
In practice, this kind of divergence phase is most prone to whipsaws on both sides. Chasing longs can easily get shaken out, while chasing shorts might be suddenly hit by inflows pushing prices back up. It is recommended to control position sizes more tightly and focus on volume and ETF flow changes during key support tests, rather than rushing to bet on direction. Before macro events unfold, first observe whether capital is truly willing to continue buying at low levels, rather than just watching price movements. Patiently waiting for signals of divergence convergence is more reliable than guessing now. #BTC持续承压，资金与市场走势出现分歧 Hmm, currently 50 companies have opposed ICE-OKX's tokenized stock plan, whereas a week ago, the number reported by Ajian was still 22. Keep in mind the original proposal only covered 62 companies in total. You see, the biggest resistance to tokenized stocks isn't the SEC that we always criticize, but rather the listed companies themselves. The larger the company, the more concerned they are that tokenized shares might bypass transfer agents, affect vote counting, and weaken the company's control over the shareholder register.
They're all a bunch of clever monkeys. The RWA path is still too difficult. At this stage, the expansion speed of tokenized stocks is no longer determined by "how many exchanges are doing it," but by how many companies are willing to be tokenized