Orbit Post Sitemap
A weekly decrease of $3.903 billion in stablecoins. When I see this number, a familiar feeling from the last cycle pops into my mind: everyone is watching the price for direction, but the liquidity pool is quietly shrinking. According to DefiLlama data, this time the contraction is mainly in USDT, while USDC has slightly increased.
However, I wouldn’t directly translate this as "funds collectively running away." Compared to the past habit of treating the total stablecoin supply as a bull-bear switch, this time I want to break it down: different stablecoins are changing inconsistently, and just looking at the total volume doesn’t clarify whether it’s short-term redemption demand or a sustained withdrawal. Still, a shrinking pool is indeed a headwind for a market that relies on new capital inflows; strong sentiment doesn’t equal sufficient buying power.
My judgment is that this looks more like a yellow light on the funding side within the cycle, not a verdict on the end of the market. If the net decrease continues, I will be more cautious about the strength of any rebound; for now, I’m watching to see if the contraction can stop, and I’m not rushing to label it bull or bear.The horrifying hacking incident initiated by the Lazarus hacker group swept across the entire market, but Binance's on-chain data presents a completely different picture. By checking the CryptoQuant charts, you can see how strong the liquidity of this exchange is.
The rumored loss is as follows:
- $6.3 billion
In fact, Binance's core reserves remain intact:
- 682,000 BTC
- 3.3 million ETH
- 36.4 billion USDT on the ERC20 network
- 2.47 billion XRP
The BTC reserve chart even shows a slight upward trend toward the peak. Holdings of ETH and XRP remain stable, with no signs of large-scale sell-offs or runs as seen in previous market crashes. However, USDT reserves remain unusually high, indicating that whale funds are still staying within the ecosystem as a defensive investment, waiting to buy at the bottom.
Panic, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) erupted, but on-chain wallets do not lie. Retail investors panic-sold on social media, while large institutional investors stayed calm and kept funds on the exchange. Since the available capital reserves remain very ample, the systemic risk brought by this incident is almost completely offset.I'll make a bold prediction:
While you’re all worried about how hackers will launder those billions of dollars they stole,
I’m telling you—they don’t need to launder it at all!
Before this guy struck Binance at 4 a.m. to steal the coins,
he definitely already placed 100x super short positions on other platforms!
He emptied Binance’s hot wallet here,
causing panic and a massive crash across the entire network.
Even if all the coins on the chain are frozen and returned to CZ,
he’s already legally made hundreds of millions of dollars just by closing out those external short positions!
This is called a feint,
high-level players are playing a dimensionality reduction strike!!💻 I'll start with a code review of this information: The input is DefiLlama data, showing that the total USD stablecoins across the network are about $299.9 billion, down $831 million daily and $3.903 billion weekly. Among them, USDT is about $179.8 billion, down $2.617 billion weekly; USDC is about $71.9 billion, up $67.48 million weekly.
My judgment: This is somewhat negative for incremental liquidity, but directly translating it as "everyone is withdrawing" is a logical leap. For markets relying on new capital inflows, this signal is more useful than directional judgments on individual coins.
Logically, a decrease in stablecoin supply means the available USD token pool shrinks, so the narrative of capital expansion should be discounted. But supply is not the same as demand; you can't directly equate the reduced amount with how much buying power the market lost—these two variables can't be forcibly linked.
The potential bug lies in the structure: USDT contracts while USDC slightly increases, indicating asynchronous changes. However, the increase in USDC is far from enough to offset the USDT contraction, so you can't flip this into a story of a full capital switch to comfort yourself.
If I were to revise this judgment, I would separate and verify total supply, coin-specific changes, and redemption destinations; if the destinations are unclear, I would withhold conclusions. Please help me review: To verify "funds are exiting," what additional data would you add to close the gap between supply changes and actual buying demand?I just checked OKEx ETH perpetual contracts; the price difference from this time yesterday is less than two dollars, but the contracts have decreased by nearly 40,000.
Open interest dropped from about 661,000 contracts at 11 AM yesterday to 622,000 at 11 AM today. The funding rate settlement at 8 AM this morning was -0.008%, the most negative in three weeks, meaning shorts are paying longs.
At first, I also thought that if the price doesn't move, no one is trading. But it doesn't add up; some of the crowd pushing long positions have withdrawn, the long-short ratio has fallen back from the four-day high yesterday, yet the funding rate keeps getting more negative, and the perpetual price is still below spot.
Let's first check yesterday's hook: if the 8 AM settlement this morning had flipped positive, I'd admit I was wrong, but it got even more negative, so I stand by my view.
Price is sideways, leverage is quietly retreating. If you hold perpetuals, don't just watch the price; funding settles every eight hours, and when negative, shorts are paying out. If by this time tomorrow ETH perpetual open interest returns above 650,000 contracts, I'll admit I was wrong. About $20,000. At first glance, this loss doesn't seem too big, but I also need to account for the cost of the protocol shutdown. Hifi Finance disclosed that Hifi DAO suffered a governance takeover attack; token holders have effectively lost control over the protocol, governance contracts, and token supply. The final loss is yet to be determined.
What concerns me more is whether it can still function normally in the future, rather than how much is lost. The DAO's own liquidity has been permanently withdrawn, and the protocol no longer issues new debt, affecting not only the users impacted this time; the RWA unpaid debt is now managed directly by the core team, indicating that the underlying assets have capital backing, but that doesn't guarantee stability in on-chain execution. The team says they will compensate all affected parties, but compensation promises and protocol recovery are two different matters.
When it comes to choosing between stability and risk, I choose the former: not mistaking a small estimated loss for a small problem. Next, I will closely watch the full investigation report, especially to see exactly how control was lost.I barely hesitated on MicroStrategy, I just said Yes.
Many people are still focused on whether the software business made money or how much revenue dropped. For me, this is not a software company's earnings report issue at all. Its GAAP profit is almost entirely pulled by the fair value of Bitcoin. In quarters when Bitcoin rises, EPS can soar to the sky; in quarters when it falls, it can crash into negative territory. If you dig into operating profit, you might get the wrong direction.
What really convinced me was the 8-K on October 5. The company itself estimated the fair value gains of digital assets for Q3, reaching the scale of around $200 billion. No matter how you deduct taxes, preferred stock dividends, or diluted shares, you can't deny this fact: the bulk of the profit was already written on paper. The subsequent official earnings report was just handing in this already solved arithmetic problem.
So the threshold was almost no question for me. It's not that I understand MicroStrategy better, but the information was already sufficient before the official release. The rest, during the conference call, everyone cared more about reserve funds, preferred stock, buybacks—these storylines are different from "passing or not passing the line."
The result came out, diluted EPS over forty dollars, consistent with my judgment at the time. The lesson from this stock is actually very simple: when you encounter a company that marks Bitcoin into the profit and loss statement, first see what it has disclosed in advance, then decide Yes or No. Don't get hung up on software revenue.
$MSTR
#StrategyQ3净利润创单季新高，数字资产收益贡献显著 To put it simply, this wave is the entire market liquidity being drained, with indiscriminate deleveraging going on. Brothers, now that the 10-year US Treasury yield has fallen and bond prices have surged sharply, this is the clearest signal that funds are all rushing to earn risk-free interest; US Treasuries are the only big boss.
Look at $BTC, the big coin, dropping below 77,000. Don’t keep fooling yourself with the idea of digital gold; under high interest pressure, it’s just a high-volatility risk asset. When Wall Street runs short of money, it’s the first to get smashed. On the charts, long leverage positions have been completely wiped out.
Look at $XAUT gold, plunging more than three points, directly breaking through 3,900. Do you think the safe-haven logic is completely dead? Wrong, this is institutions using gold as an ATM to cover stock market margin holes—a classic liquidity squeeze. The underlying central bank buying and geopolitical logic remain, but this kind of short-term stampede makes no sense; don’t rush to catch the falling knife.
Now look at $QQQ, representing tech stocks; the Nasdaq plunged nearly three points, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index dropped over seven points. This is the hardest hit area, the valuation-cutting slaughter has begun. The previous AI hype was over the top, inflation isn’t coming down, the Fed isn’t cutting rates, and the valuation models for tech stocks with dozens of times P/E ratios all need to be rewritten. In a high-interest environment, all the big promises will shatter. #美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 BTC crashed from 81,970 down to 76,300, with about $1.65 billion liquidated across the entire network in 24 hours, and 237,000 people liquidated.
The trigger wasn’t the Federal Reserve, it was Binance — a $6.3 billion hacking incident that directly created a liquidity hole.
But the real key isn’t Binance. It’s the position BTC dropped to: 77,000.
Glassnode has a model called "True Market Mean," which tracks the average acquisition cost of active on-chain Bitcoin.
Right now, this number is between $77,200 and $77,900.
In plain terms: around 77,000 is the average buy price of a large amount of chips.
Above this level, the vast majority of people aren’t losing money, so chips are relatively stable. A decisive break below is the signal of a trend weakening.
On October 30, BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of $409.5 million. FBTC cut $283.8 million, ARKB cut $182.6 million. The $400 million inflow accumulated over the previous four days was fully given back in one day.
This is not panic. This is institutions recalculating.
The FOMC just finished, with December rate hike expectations still above 80%, oil prices remain high, and the institutions’ first reaction isn’t to bottom-fish but to reduce positions to get a clearer view.
So, which is more dangerous: chasing shorts or bottom-fishing?
Chasing shorts, the odds are worsening.
Technically, RSI has entered severe oversold territory, and after a sharp drop, the probability of a technical rebound is rising. Also, around 77,000 is a cost concentration zone; for bears to effectively break this level, a new catalyst is needed — the Binance incident has already occurred, what’s next? Until then, the risk-reward of chasing shorts isn’t favorable.
Bottom-fishing with heavy positions is equally dangerous.
ETF funds just turned from inflows to outflows; institutional sentiment is still unstable. Binance’s withdrawal channels haven’t fully recovered, so liquidity discounts will persist. Catching a falling knife on the left side, catching too early is catching yourself.
So what should you watch?
Two variables, just focus on them:
First, the pace of Binance withdrawal recovery. The official statement says about 80% of stolen funds have been replenished, and withdrawals are expected to resume in phases within 34-45 hours. The moment withdrawals recover is the starting point for liquidity discounts to fade. Before that, any rebound should be discounted.
Second, changes in next week’s nonfarm payrolls and December rate hike expectations. Currently, the probability of a December hike is above 80%. If nonfarm data further strengthens this expectation, the pressure on risk assets won’t disappear just because the Binance incident ends.
At the 77,000 level, bears need new fuel to break through, bulls need real capital to confirm support.
Both sides are waiting.
Before either side gets what they want, position sizing is more important than direction. You can be bullish, but don’t go all in; you can be bearish, but don’t chase shorts. The most expensive thing at this level isn’t direction, it’s margin for error.
$BTC $ETH $SOL #美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 Ethereum Layer 2 Optimum has pushed the official dashboard to about 3.36 million ETH: the staked amount covered is approximately $7.6 billion, close to 8% of the total network stake. The mump2p mainnet launched on October 20 does not change consensus but speeds up block propagation by about 2 to 4 times, allowing validators free access; on the same day, Blockdaemon also had a case listed. CoinGecko spot ETH is about $2238 (snapshot around 12:08 Beijing time).
This looks more like node operators competing for those few milliseconds of arrival advantage, not another new pool requiring locked stakes. The opposing view would remind that TVB only reflects the staking volume behind the access nodes, not money deposited into Optimum; if coverage stops at the initial pulse, the story is thin.
Looking ahead two weeks: whether the official TVB can hold above 3 million ETH and whether a second large-scale operator’s verifiable report will appear. If it can’t hold or the list shrinks, treat this as the mainnet launch pulse, not as the Ethereum network layer having changed its foundation.
$ETH
#ETH #OptimumThe 10-year US Treasury yield dropped to 4.93%, and bonds are rising.
What does this mean? The demand for safe havens is real. Money is moving, panic is real.
But at the same time, gold fell below 4000, BTC dropped below 77,000, and the Nasdaq fell nearly 3%.
Safe-haven funds went to the bond market, but not to gold or BTC.
Buying gold in chaotic times, buying BTC during war—these "common sense" ideas you've heard a hundred times today look like a joke.
But the joke isn't on gold or BTC; it's on your perspective.
QCP's report puts it bluntly, even a bit harshly:
This isn't a safe haven; it's a "cash extraction."
Investors are rapidly selling various liquid assets to raise cash to meet multi-platform debt and margin obligations.
Note one detail: the US dollar index hasn't strengthened.
If it were truly global panic and everyone was fleeing to the dollar, the dollar should rise. But it hasn't, which means this isn't "asset swapping"—it's cash swapping.
Someone is being margin called. It's that simple.
Why specifically gold and BTC?
Because they are the easiest to sell.
You have a bunch of tech stocks down 30% that you hesitate to sell. You have junk bonds that no one wants to buy. You have a house that takes three months to sell.
But gold has good liquidity, heavy positions, and unrealized gains. BTC has spot ETFs and can be sold 24/7 anytime.
When a broker calls for margin, they don't ask your three-year target price for BTC. They ask: how much cash can you provide today?
At this moment, gold and BTC are not "safe-haven assets"; they are ATMs.
US Treasuries hedge economic risk; gold hedges US dollar credit risk.
Today, the market worries about the AI bubble, tech stock valuations, and slowing growth—these are risks "within the dollar system." So money goes to US Treasuries, staying inside the system.
The issue gold is supposed to address—whether US dollar credit collapses—hasn't come into play yet.
And the gold being sold isn't because its long-term logic has failed, but because some can't wait for that long-term logic to materialize.
Distinguish two things:
First, has the long-term logic of gold and BTC failed? No. Dollar credit erosion, fiscal deficits expansion, asset privacy needs—none of these have disappeared.
Second, who is being forced to sell today? Those who are over-leveraged, under-margined, and chased by brokers for cash.
Long-term logic determines what they should be worth. Short-term liquidity determines how much they are sold for today.
These are two completely different games.
$BTC $XAU $XAG #美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 Gold analysis for next week: the market will focus on the U.S. midterm elections. Can the range of $3800-$3900 serve as a short-term bottom for gold? (Short-term refers to a few days before and after the election)
1: Usually, market uncertainty drives investors to buy safe-haven assets, but currently, gold prices are more influenced by interest rates and crude oil prices. If the results meet expectations, such as the Democrats controlling Congress or both sides winning seats, short-term volatility may be limited.
Conversely, if the Republicans perform better than expected, it could trigger expectations of fiscal expansion, thereby boosting the value of U.S. Treasury bonds and the dollar, and further suppressing gold prices.
2: Mid-term scenario analysis
Base scenario: Democrats control the House of Representatives.
This could limit large-scale fiscal stimulus and deficit expansion from the Trump era, potentially easing long-term inflation concerns. However, it would also increase policy uncertainty, reliance on executive orders, and the likelihood of conflicts over the debt ceiling. For gold, the net impact is expected to be neutral to slightly bullish.
3: In the long term, central bank gold purchases, geopolitical risks, and diversification of the global monetary system remain key supporting factors.
#黄金SanDisk I choose Yes
This threshold is basically at the upper end of the company's own guidance, but if you look at the last few quarters, each time it has far exceeded the upper end of the guidance.
I admit the slope of storage price increases is slowing down, which is my biggest concern, but the company's guidance has already factored in this slowdown, so I still think it will beat expectations once more~
#闪迪业绩超预期并宣布拆股，股价跌逾13% LINK around 11, the order book looks quite divided.
Spot on exchanges has seen net outflows for 18 consecutive days, with whales busy moving chips to cold wallets every day.
But the open interest on contracts has shrunk drastically, and the funding rate is very flat. No major players are willing to leverage down here.
The current drop is purely retail panic stepping on each other.
Those moving coins to wallets every day and those cutting losses daily, sooner or later one will have to admit defeat.
Since the shorts are playing dead at this level, I bet those withdrawing coins are not fools.
#LINK
$LINK
👇Gold can drop 3.5% in a single day, and honestly, I’m a bit baffled 😂
On Friday night, spot gold prices plunged to around $3880, down about 3.5% in one day, the lowest in over a year. December futures closed at $3898.9, down 3.3%. In January, it was still standing at the historic high of $5595, so it has retraced about 30%.
Silver fared even worse. It dropped about 6% in one day, falling below $50 to around $49, the first time in 11 months. Silver hit $122 in January, and now it’s less than half that, down about 60%. This week, silver fell about 9%, and it now takes 79 ounces of silver to buy 1 ounce of gold, compared to just 46 ounces in January.
US Treasury yields are falling, and there was an attack on an oil tanker in the Strait of Hormuz—both usually support gold prices. This time, they didn’t hold. Tech stocks crashed, many had to cover margin calls, so gold and silver that could be sold were sold first. Oil prices rose more than 2%, and people are starting to worry that inflation won’t come down, so there might be more rate hikes in December.
People holding gold bars as life-saving money probably spent this week staring blankly at their accounts. Stocks, crypto, gold, and silver all fell together, making it hard to find a safe place to hide.
For beginners, I suggest watching more and trading less; when buying crypto, only buy $BTC A noteworthy on-chain transfer has appeared. After October 30, an address long associated with a16z transferred approximately 118,000 HYPE tokens in batches to three market-making firms: Wintermute, Galaxy Digital, and Cumberland, at an average price of about $90.72, valued at roughly $10.7 million.
The timing is subtle. This set of actions occurred after the Binance hack news broke, with the latest transfer happening only about 10 hours after the report. Security concerns were still high, but the transactions went ahead, pushing this event into the center of controversy.
The disagreement lies in the characterization. One side directly suspects a possible sell-off, reasoning that concentrated chips moving into market makers often imply potential selling pressure; the other side emphasizes that these three firms' core businesses include quoting, matching, and custody, so it could also be a preventive adjustment for risk isolation or liquidity management. Historically, after major security incidents, it is common for large funds to reassess where to hold assets and how much exposure to maintain.
Currently, neither the address nor a16z has explained the purpose, and there is no on-chain confirmation that the recipients have actually sold. Both sell-off and hedging remain speculative. What really deserves attention is the subsequent path—don't rush to take sides: if $HYPE continues flowing to exchange deposit addresses, the sell-off narrative will be reinforced; if it only circulates within market-making and hedging accounts, the hedging explanation holds stronger. Whether selling pressure truly materializes ultimately depends on on-chain transactions, not narratives.#闪迪业绩超预期并宣布拆股，股价跌逾13% Yesterday I said SanDisk hasn't finished falling yet, but some people stubbornly rushed in to bottom fish Everyone is asking if BTC can be bottomed out, but I think now is not the time to rush in.
Although the price continues to fall, the trading volume has not significantly increased, and the panic sentiment has not truly been released. Just because it seems unable to fall further doesn't mean the bottom has appeared.
Rather than blindly guessing the bottom, I prefer to wait for a volume surge rebound or a confirmation signal from a dip before considering entering.
Are you choosing to bottom fish now, or continue to wait and see? #苹果新CEO迎来iPhone18首份成绩单 #苹果新CEO迎来iPhone18首份成绩单
Apple is about to face a critical moment.
After Cook steps down as CEO, John Ternus will hold his first earnings call since taking office on November 2. This is not only the new management's first test but also an important window for the market to assess demand for the iPhone 18 series.
Let's look at the current data:
The latest report from Counterpoint Research shows that in the first three weeks after the launch of the iPhone 18 Pro series, global sales increased by 3.1% year-over-year.
Among them, the Chinese market grew by 29%, the US declined by 4%, and Japan dropped by 27%.
The data indicates that the iPhone 18 is not struggling to sell, but the global market performance is clearly differentiated, with the Chinese market becoming the main growth driver.
Wall Street currently expects Apple's fiscal Q4 2026 revenue to be about $113.6 billion, with iPhone business revenue around $56.4 billion.
However, I believe the real focus of this earnings report is not whether revenue exceeds expectations, but three questions:
1. Can demand for the iPhone 18 be sustained? Strong initial sales do not guarantee growth throughout the entire upgrade cycle.
2. Can profit margins be maintained? Rising storage chip costs may pressure Apple's hardware profit margins.
3. Can AI become a new growth engine? Apple has a massive $BTC actually held steady this time in the crypto world.
Binance's hot wallet was hacked for about $6.3 billion, the largest exchange theft in history, more than four times the $1.5 billion stolen from Bybit last year. Yet $BTC only dropped about 4% in one day, hitting a low of around $76,400.
Looking back to March 2018, Binance was also the victim then: hackers stole a batch of user accounts and used them to pump a little-known altcoin. Binance said they didn’t lose a penny, but Bitcoin dropped nearly 11% within minutes.
No money lost once, but a drop of over 10%; $6.3 billion lost once, but only a 4% drop.
The difference lies primarily in who covers the loss. This time, the stolen funds were from Binance’s own hot wallet; most user assets were stored in cold wallets and remained untouched. Binance fully compensated the loss with its own funds, having prepared over $6.34 billion, of which $5 billion was originally held in the stolen tokens themselves, so they didn’t need to buy on the market temporarily. About $3 billion of the stolen funds have already been frozen on-chain and cannot be moved by the hackers for now.
The buyers of Bitcoin have also changed. The US Bitcoin spot ETFs now hold about 1.3 million $BTC, roughly 6% of the total supply. These Bitcoins bought in securities accounts are not on Binance at all, so seeing the theft news doesn’t cause panic selling.
The total crypto market cap was just over $400 billion in 2018; now it’s $2.6 trillion. When I look at this kind of election analysis, a scene pops into my mind: the crypto community watches the US Congress like it's watching an air conditioner remote control—whoever gets it, everyone shouts 'cold' or 'hot' in advance, but no one asks if the power is actually on 😂
Odaily's weekly selection mentions that Trump's approval rating remains between 30% and 40%; the Democrats need to win only 3 seats in the House and a net gain of 4 seats in the Senate. My judgment is: for the crypto industry, the significance of seat results is less than policy implementation. The article links the Republicans holding both chambers with short-term strength in CLARITY and others, but election outcomes do not equal bill enactment; the benefit paths for crypto concept stocks and ordinary token holders are also different, so you can't evenly distribute one piece of good news to everyone.
If the results come out, I will first look at legislative progress, then at sentiment heat. Do you stand by "look at seats first" or "look at bill progress first"? Who holds the remote is important, but the air conditioner really counts only when it blows air.$ETH ETH weekly chart has been continuously falling from the high of 4957, with the long-term cycle in a downward adjustment channel. Daily highs are steadily declining, showing a clear downtrend structure, current price around 2240, with the first resistance above at 2580.
The 4-hour chart shows low-level consolidation after a sharp drop; the recent low at 2174 is the short-term key support. The rebound strength is weak, indicating a consolidation after the decline. The 1-hour chart shows slight sideways repair, with nearby resistance at 2392; a rebound to this level is likely to face pressure and weaken again.
Main scenario: The rebound faces resistance in the 2390-2580 range, continuing downward to test the 2174 support. Once broken, the downside space further opens.
Alternate scenario: Holding above 2580 is needed to break the current downtrend structure and start a new rebound.
Overall, the bearish structure has not reversed, so heavy bottom-fishing is not recommended. Priority should be given to shorting at rebound resistance zones or considering long positions only after the 2174 support stabilizes.Dividing the net outflow of ZEC by the total net asset value of the ETF, I calculated it to be about 0.63%. This calculation is more useful than the headline of the total outflow: there is withdrawal pressure, but the asset size hasn't suddenly shrunk drastically. In the material, the XRP spot ETF also recorded a net outflow on the same day.
I think this should serve more as a reminder for those who watch ETF fund flows for short-term trades, rather than to judge a complete shift in the entire sector. Subscription and redemption can reflect the funding demand for such products, but cannot directly prove a decline in the actual usage demand of the coin itself. If the outflow expands later, I will be more cautious; this is my speculation and cannot yet be taken as a conclusion.
I would choose to be more prudent and treat it as a risk warning, not rushing to bet that "funds will return quickly." Missing one judgment opportunity doesn't cost me much. Facing this outflow, would you wait for more subscription and redemption data to be sure, or are you willing to take the risk and treat it as a short-term disturbance? $BTC MicroStrategy only symbolically bought 267 BTC this week.
The liquidity squeezed out from the account was all used to pay off its own debts.
The so-called institutional cost line at 75,000 below
now really doesn't look like a get-out-of-jail-free card.
The head of the bulls himself doesn't intend to hold on anymore,
if it really falls through, who will catch the falling knife below?
#BTC
$BTC
👇$HYPE HYPE spent money on buybacks, but the price still dropped 22% after a month.
What's even more awkward is the supply side: for every 1 token burned, 16 newly unlocked tokens flood the market.
How strong must the buying pressure be to absorb this continuous internal selling pressure?
The project team keeps buying, while those unlocking tokens keep selling. Relying on buybacks to prop up the price in the short term doesn't seem that easy. The selling pressure on HYPE hasn't eased yet.
#HYPE
$HYPE
👇💻 I regard Iole's recent adjustment as a code review of capital allocation: This Japanese publicly listed company plans to sell all 151.21 bitcoins, expecting to incur a loss of about 254 million yen. The proceeds will be primarily invested in AI data centers, computing power, and the "Neo Cloud" business, while HYPE will continue to be held.
My judgment: This looks more like a risk repositioning rather than a risk control upgrade. Logically, selling coins frees up funds for the business, but holding HYPE means the crypto asset exposure is not cleared; the potential bug is that swapping more liquid assets for businesses that require construction and operation makes capital recovery more dependent on execution. Changing tracks does not automatically eliminate risk.
If I were to revise the plan, I would set phased budgets and acceptance criteria for AI investments, rather than just focusing on how much money is freed up. I would monitor fund usage and business fulfillment, and not treat the narrative switch as if a bug has been fixed.1031 Morning Market Analysis 🎥
After yesterday's drop, BTC and ETH now seem to be in a recovery phase, but honestly, this rebound feels a bit weak.
$BTC pulled back from 76260 to above 77000, and $ETH also pulled back from 2171 to around 2230, but if you look closely, the volume decreases as the price rises, and the price starts to stall. Simply put, there are buyers at the bottom, but no one is willing to chase at the top.
The most frustrating thing about this market is that it looks like the drop has stopped, but the bulls don't have much strength either.
For BTC, watch around 76800, and for ETH, watch 2220. If these levels break again, the lows from yesterday will likely be tested again.
So my current view remains the same: don't rush to chase the rebound just because you see it. For a real turnaround, the selling pressure above needs to be absorbed first; otherwise, this low-volume sideways movement is better understood as a continuation of the downtrend.In recent quarters, Circle has more commonly experienced the combination of "slightly exceeding or matching EPS + slightly missing revenue expectations." Whether Q3 exceeds expectations mainly depends on the actual performance of USDC average circulation and reserve yield, as well as the progress of Arc revenue recognition. The market expectations are currently relatively cautious, so the probability of significantly exceeding expectations is not high, but positive surprises from continued circulation growth exceeding expectations cannot be ruled out.would lean toward a potential earnings beat, but I would not confidently predict a positive stock reaction. A beat that is already priced in can still lead to a sell off.
The key question is whether Apple can exceed expectations and provide stronger guidance for the December holiday quarter.Kintsu confirmed to have suffered DNS hijacking, which is much more dangerous than a typical phishing site.
What's the difference? A phishing site leads you to the wrong door, while DNS hijacking changes the address label to the official one. The domain name you enter is exactly correct, but the resolution result points to the attacker's server, so the scripts loaded on the page are naturally replaced.
Therefore, the wallet pop-up is real, the signature button is real, but the authorization you are about to sign is not what you think it is. In these kinds of incidents, the biggest losses are often not newcomers, but experienced users who confidently confirm blindly.
Three steps for now: First, do not access Kintsu from search engines, group links, or old bookmarks these days; simply not visiting is the easiest. Second, open wallet authorization management and revoke all Kintsu-related authorizations, prioritizing those with unlimited allowances. Third, if assets are still on the original address, transfer them to a new address first.
Fixing this depends on the cooperation of the domain registrar and usually cannot be resolved within a few hours. During this period, any message claiming "official new domain" or "migration notice" should be treated as suspicious and wait it out.
In the market, such incidents affect sentiment rather than price in the short term; staking and DeFi concepts will shake first, while $ETH and $BTC mostly experience a brief pullback without changing direction alone. What really needs monitoring is whether funds continue to flow out of related protocols: a slight drop in TVL is an isolated case, but several consecutive days of net outflow is a confidence issue.Don't panic, stay calm.
OKX official is waiting for CME Group's Daily Bulletin, which contains the official highest/lowest prices of the WTI front-month contract on Friday. Settlement will begin once it's released.
Polymarket's $105 settled as Yes because the trading periods counted on both sides are different:
• Polymarket follows ICE's schedule, counting Friday up to 18:00 EST, including the 17:10 price of 105.307.
• OKX rules specify that Friday is only counted up to 17:00 EST.
Before 17:00, Pyth's highest was 104.951, CME's Friday high was about 104.99, neither reached 105. According to OKX's own rules, it is most likely No, with the final result subject to official settlement.$HYPE
118,000 HYPE tokens were fully transferred to exchange addresses within two days.
At the current price of 89, this amounts to about 10.5 million USD, linked to a16z addresses. What can transferring coins to exchange accounts mean? Most likely selling off, or using them as collateral to borrow stablecoins.
HYPE is currently priced at 89.2, down 3.7% in 24 hours, with a low of 88.9. Such a drop would be considered a dump for other coins, but for HYPE it's just a normal fluctuation — this coin never followed any logic when it was rising.
Early investors selling off is an old story. Unlocking, shifting positions, dumping, retail investors taking losses, then slowly recovering. Large transfers to exchanges don’t necessarily mean dumping, but definitely warrant attention.
My habit is not to catch a falling knife at times like this; I wait for volume to come out. Anyway, their cost basis is on a completely different level from ours.
#美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧 On-chain data reveals the truth about capital flows: the Bitcoin network is actually stagnant, and the number of real users has not surged.
Santiment's chart shows a clear decline in network activity:
- Daily transaction volume dropped to an average of 271,800 shares (from October 14 to 27), below the short-term peak of 295,500 shares at the beginning of October.
- The number of active wallet addresses fell to about 637,000, even lower than the average level of 662,000 from July to September.
The current market completely lacks retail cash flow. From the trading charts since July, the trend line is just a flat and jagged band with no signs of sustained growth. Insufficient liquidity makes prices highly susceptible to manipulation by sideways oscillation.
Genuine sustainable price increases require confirmation from the underlying network. Without new users and large-scale capital transfers, any current price surges are purely derivatives trading among major players. With the on-chain platform still this slow, don't rush into panic selling.BTC's performance after each midterm election
$BTC has experienced 3 midterm elections
In 2014, it first rose then dropped more than 50%
In 2018, it continuously dropped more than 40%
In 2022, it dropped more than 20%In one trading day, sentiment dropped from 51 to 30. Does panic really equal the bottom? 1. News. The Crypto Fear & Greed Index fell from 51 to 30, a single drop of 21 points, directly entering the panic zone; BTC is at $76,885.6, down 5.98% in 24 hours and down 5.87% in the past week. The market is also digesting reports of an abnormal transfer of about $5.3 billion from Binance. The incident is still under investigation, but the price has already traded the worst-case scenario first, which is the core reason for the sharp drop in the panic index. 2. Capital impact. The latest single-day net inflow of ETFs is $152.8 million, 5-day net inflow is $258.3 million, and 10-day net inflow is $682 million. The US dollar index fell 0.30% to 101.74, gold dropped 1.09% to 4,007.6, and the S&P 500 fell 0.30%. Risk assets and gold both retreated, but ETFs continued to attract funds, indicating that trading desks are deleveraging while allocation desks have not yet withdrawn. 3. BTC implications. A sentiment of 30 indicates panic but has not yet entered extreme panic below 20. Historically, panic readings near the bottom area rarely alone constitute a buy signal because a true bottom requires selling pressure exhaustion, sustained ETF absorption, and key price levels being reclaimed. In other words, 30 means some risk has been released but does not mean risk has been completely eliminated. 4. Observation indicators. I will focus on four indicators next: first, whether the Fear & Greed Index quickly rebounds after falling below 20; second, whether ETFs can continue net inflows; third, whether BTC daily candles can reclaim 79,22$BTC $ETH Regarding the recent hack on the neighboring platform, some say it's a bear bottom signal, some say it's a buying opportunity, some advise not to rush to buy but to wait for withdrawal recovery, and some directly criticize "CEX is unsafe." However, I believe this is more like a bottom test after a leverage cleanup rather than a clear bear bottom or buying opportunity. There are three simple reasons: 1. The drop was very restrained. The largest hack in history (about 6.3 billion), Bitcoin only dropped 3-4%, far less than many people feared. Nearly 600 million was liquidated in one hour, 97% of which were longs, so leverage was cleaned out first. 2. Similar incidents in the past were roughly the same: • In 2019, Binance's hot wallet was hacked for 7,000 BTC, and the price only dropped about 4%, then rose over 130% in 7 weeks • In 2025, Bybit was hacked for 1.5 billion, Bitcoin dropped about 5% short-term, and hit new highs 3 months later • What really devastates the market is not "hacks + full compensation," but exchanges going bankrupt or running away (like Mt.Gox, FTX) 3. The key issues are still undecided: The official promise to cover losses fully with SAFU fund + company money—can they really do it? Withdrawals are expected to resume within 48 hours—will it be on time and smooth? Will the stolen Bitcoin (especially the unfrozen ones) be bought back to form buying pressure? These will determine whether this is a "test then stabilize" or "continue to probe lower." The reaction this time is milder than expected, but the amount is the largest in history. Once everyone thinks "it's okay," it may actually move on.To start with a cold splash of water, Vitalik talks about digital minimalism, but I don't think it can be easily counted as a positive for Ethereum or the AI sector. He suggests that in the AI era, we should regain control over our digital lives: use social media less, reduce location data exposure, leverage command-line tools and AI to handle digital tasks, and reduce dependence on internet platforms. I agree with the direction, but having the right concept and having related projects capture value are two different things.
I'm stuck on two points. First is the substitution cost: command-line interfaces have a barrier for ordinary users, and if new tools are more cumbersome, then "less reliance on platforms" will likely remain just talk and fail to become a sustained demand. Second, dependence might just be relocating: if digital tasks are handed over to AI but personal data still needs to be centrally uploaded, then leaving one platform might just mean switching to another entry point. I'm more cautious about interpreting these remarks as a growth signal for the entire AI or privacy sector; user demand and token value are still separated by product and business models.
Of course, being skeptical of this interpretation doesn't mean being pessimistic about the direction. If there are tools that can lower the operational threshold, allow users to share less data, and facilitate migration, I would admit this proposition has a chance to go mainstream and would adjust my judgment accordingly. What I'll be watching next is whether products can truly reduce dependence, not who first puts this statement into their promotional materials. 🥇 Gold trading busier but lower, UNI touched 7 but didn't hold
$XAU 3911.7, down 3.0% in the past 24 hours, gold volume clearly expanded as price moved down 🥇
In the previous two hours, the actual drop was about 1.2%, with trading volume about 3.8 times that of the prior two hours; the increased trading did not translate into price support.
The quote at 3911.70 is also below the closing price of 3930.28 in that period, showing further retreat after the drop.
I see this pressure accompanied by volume and price coordination; the evaluation should not be eased just because the price is near a round number; active trading still leaves a lower quote.
$HYPE 91.14, up 0.1% in the past 24 hours, nearly flat for the day, still moving up over the week 🪁
The rolling 7-day increase is about 17.3%, coexisting with the 0.1% 24-hour rise; the longer-term upward movement has not faded due to the daily gain.
But after a pullback to 93.57 earlier, it retreated back near 91, and recent momentum has slowed.
The weekly position still has an advantage, but local continuation needs to be downgraded; the two timeframes tell different stories, the smaller daily gain is not the actual drop in the two quotes.
$UNI 6.874, down 4.5% in the past 24 hours, high proportion of active buying, but the quote hasn't moved far 🦄
In the previous two hours by trading volume, active buying accounted for about 62.8%, yet the price remained almost flat; the active direction did not convert into a clear upward move.
After touching 7 midway, the quote came down again; the stay near the round number did not continue.
I focus more on the actual position left; active buying does not equal net capital inflow; this time the proportion is relatively high but has not stabilized at the high level yet.Coinbase is undergoing a value reassessment from being a "exchange" to a "crypto bank," and the market can no longer simply rely on Bitcoin's candlestick charts to price COIN.
The Q3 earnings report revealed a key turning point: subscription and service revenue now accounts for nearly half (49%), and the average USDC holdings on the platform have hit a new high of $22 billion. This means Coinbase's profit model has fundamentally changed—while the high interest rate environment has suppressed retail trading enthusiasm, it has unexpectedly become a "fuel" for stablecoin reserve income.
This diversification of business structure requires investors to dissect the nonlinear impact of the macro environment on different revenue streams. Of course, we cannot blindly treat this income as guaranteed "interest" regardless of conditions, since the business composition and USDC scale fluctuations are still constrained by regulation and market competition. But undeniably, Coinbase is no longer just a simple amplifier of bull and bear cycles; its risk resilience core is being reshaped. #美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧 I'm still slowly recovering my investment now, and my mindset has become more restrained than before, but the thought of "waiting to break even before doing anything" is still hard to shake.
Seeing the Japanese listed company Iole plan to sell all 151.21 bitcoins, expecting a loss of about 254 million yen, with the proceeds primarily invested in AI data centers, AI computing power, and the "Neo Cloud" business, makes me feel a bit conflicted.
I think this matter is more significant for judging a company's capital allocation than for the direction of the coin price. The company has operational investment needs, which differ from the goals of ordinary holders; the sale plan includes phased selling, so the entire holding cannot be directly counted as immediate selling pressure. As for whether switching to AI is worthwhile, the plan itself does not prove that yet.
What I've learned is: the break-even price shouldn't make all decisions for you; you also need to consider whether the use of funds has changed. To friends who are also recovering their investments, don't get discouraged even if it's slow 💪 How have you been recently? Seeing such loss-taking exits and business pivots, do you care more about how much was lost or how the money will be used next?#闪迪业绩超预期并宣布拆股，股价跌逾13%
Today is October 31, the day the Bitcoin whitepaper was published.
Seventeen years ago, Satoshi Nakamoto released a 9-page document. Today, no one is celebrating; everyone is watching other numbers: Intel dropped 26% in one day, AMD fell 10%, the Nasdaq dropped 2.86%, and SOXL, a triple-leveraged semiconductor ETF, lost 20% in one day.
There is only one reason: the market is starting to doubt whether AI can really earn back that money.
Apple's market cap has surpassed Nvidia, and this is far more significant than price fluctuations. For the past three years, everyone assumed computing power equals the future, but now some are asking: when will that future arrive?
$BTC fell below 77,000, $ETH to 2,240, and SOL even dropped below 100. The crypto market has never been an independent trend; it is the dog of risk assets—when the owner falls, it falls too.
But interestingly, the winners are: $HYPE up 17.7% in a week, $ZEC up 9.5%, and $XMR up 5.7%.
When prices fall, money flows to places with real transaction fee buybacks and to places no one can track.
I think this logic is worth more than all the candlesticks today. When I saw this news flash, my first reaction was: two types of ETFs are both seeing outflows, does this mean funds are all pulling out? I've only been in the circle for a year, so I'm still easily swayed by headlines. After looking through the details, I felt this impression was a bit rough 🤔
According to SoSoValue data, the US XRP and ZEC spot ETFs had net outflows of $496,500 and $4,571,400 respectively in a single day, totaling $5,067,900. My judgment is that this time more attention should be paid to the stability of ZEC ETF funds rather than lumping the two together as the same negative factor.
What I understand is that XRP is not moving in one direction internally: XRPC had a net inflow of $922,000, GXRP had a net outflow of $725,000, which at least shows there are differences in fund choices among different products, and it cannot be directly interpreted as a collective withdrawal by holders. For ZEC, only ZCSH recorded outflows on that day, so the observation focus is relatively concentrated.
Another difference is scale: XRP ETF's total net asset value is $1.419 billion, while ZEC's is $725 million. The latter is smaller in scale but had a larger outflow amount on that day, so I will pay more attention to its subsequent subscription and redemption changes. However, a single day's outflow does not erase the historical cumulative net inflow, so I think the evidence is not enough to say the trend has reversed.
I haven't figured out yet whether this difference comes from product choice or a change in attitude toward the asset itself; next, I will watch whether the fund direction can continue, reminding myself not to draw conclusions about the entire sector based on one day's data.The 2.49% net asset ratio of SOL is the number I most want to put on my watchlist this time. After learning quantitative analysis, I developed a habit: when seeing capital flows, I first ask how large a sample it covers 🤖. According to SoSoValue, the total net outflow of US SOL spot ETF in a single day was $10,742,000, but I don’t want to directly translate this as "the entire market is withdrawing."
If I were to write it as a strategy, I would set a rule: if the ETF shows a net outflow, mark it as "ETF channel demand weakening," but do not automatically upgrade it to "$SOL overall demand weakening." My judgment is that this indicates a somewhat negative sentiment among ETF funds, but the evidence is not enough to represent the whole market.
The advantage of this rule is that it locks the observation scope: the ETF is just one channel for holding and trading SOL and cannot speak for other channels. The flaw is obvious: a small asset proportion does not mean a small impact on price. If marginal support is weak, then this outflow could also have a significant impact—this is my speculation and cannot be used as proof that 2.49% is a very small risk.
I would treat it as a warning condition, not a directional conclusion. If you really want to quantify this warning, would you use "net outflow as a proportion of ETF assets" or "net outflow relative to spot trading volume" as the threshold? How would you write this condition? #Federal Reserve officials signal rate hikes, December expectations still divided Clearing the accounts: The meeting on October 28 kept rates at 3.75%—4%, with two members directly voting for a rate hike. The market's bet on another hike in December has already exceeded 80%. In the same week, US Treasury yields rose and the dollar strengthened simultaneously—when these two lines move, the first to be drained is never stocks, but crypto assets that generate no cash flow and rely entirely on liquidity for pricing. The transmission chain is simple: yields go up, money first buys risk-free bonds; the dollar rises, global dollar-denominated leverage must be repaid; when leverage is repaid, forced liquidation sell orders hit high-beta assets. As of 11:55, Bitcoin is still hovering around 77,100, and when it tries to reach near 79,000, it is pushed back—this is the hand of the drain at work. The political account must be clear: rate cuts can save the fiscal situation and also fuel election years—the White House wants low rates, the central bank wants its own credibility, both want the other to bear the cost. So don't expect anyone to suddenly turn around; the divergence itself is the effect they want. Historical comparison: after the rate hike in December 2018, the market fell into the deepest pit of the year, and the real rebound waited until policy clearly loosened; the difference this time is that inflation is stickier and deficits are larger, so the space for rate cuts is smaller than back then, and the back-and-forth grinding will only last longer. Those who treat rate hikes as fully priced bad news are people who didn't get hit in December 2018. My approach: mainstream coins rebound to 79, Increasing $BTC holdings through its spot ETF is a path that concerns me more than the amount. When seeing Morgan Stanley making a move, many interpret it as "big banks are bullish." On the other hand, I think treating it as the bank's proprietary bottom-fishing lacks sufficient evidence.
First, ETF holdings cannot be directly equated with the bank's own bets; second, on-chain increase records show purchases but do not explain why they were made. I prefer to watch subsequent capital flows and not assume confidence on behalf of institutions yet.BTC holdings hit a new high, but the price fell: Are retail investors bottom-fishing or is risk accumulating?
Since early October, BTC holdings have increased from 28,000 to 34,700 coins, a 24% rise, with a nominal value reaching 2.681 billion USDT, marking a near one-month high; meanwhile, the price dropped from 87,000 to 77,000, a decline of 11%. An increase in volume with a price drop usually has two explanations: one is that shorts are adding positions with the trend, the other is that retail investors are bottom-fishing against the trend. Considering that 68% of long-short account ratios are retail investors leaning long, the latter possibility is more likely.
The problem is that retail investors are unanimously bullish while the price continues to fall, which is often not a bottom signal but risk accumulation. Market makers may exploit the bottom-fishing mentality to continue pushing prices down, gradually liquidating the counter-trend long positions. Therefore, holdings may continue to rise in the short term; only when the bottom-fishing positions are cleared and holdings sharply drop will it be closer to a true bottom. Currently, more caution should be exercised against the trap of "buying more as prices fall."
#美联储官员释放加息信号，12月预期仍存分歧 The main funds played a trick of a golden cicada shedding its shell here, don't just focus on the small profits in front of you
First look at $BTC short-term (within a few hours) contracts and spot, both are indeed net inflows, it looks like a counterattack is coming. But if you scroll down, contracts have a 24-hour net outflow of 570 million, spot also outflows 570 million, and over 30 days both lines outflow over 10 billion. The short term gives you a little sweetness, but in the long term big money is still retreating crazily. The pump is just to unload, don't be the bag holder
Next look at $ETH spot, it barely held strong with a 24-hour net inflow of 284 million, but contracts ran off 380 million. This is clearly spot supporting the bottom while contracts are dumping. Looking at 30 days, spot outflowed 3.1 billion. This is called a dead duck stubbornly trying to survive; the support can last a moment, but not forever
Finally look at $SOL, quite interesting, spot 8 to 12 hours are all green bars aggressively bottom fishing, but note that 30 days still outflows nearly 30 million. Short-term funds are trading inside, but the big trend has not reversed at all
In summary, short-term data is just a smokescreen used by manipulative traders to draw charts, the big cycle fund movements are the trump card. Without continuous big money entering, the current rebound is all an illusion
Do you usually watch the market focusing only on short-term excitement or on big cycle trends? Have you ever been fooled by such short-term illusions?
#美股与金银同步大跌，避险资金流向分化 $BTC $ETH $SOL PCE again exceeded expectations, the dream of rate cuts shattered, the crypto world can only endure for now
The core PCE for September rose to 3.1%, which is indeed surprising 🙄️. It's even higher than last month; originally, it was thought that inflation was steadily falling and rate cuts were near, but this was a cold splash of water 🤪. The market focus instantly shifted from "when will rates be cut" to "will there be a rate hike in December".
$BTC today is tugging around 80,000. After the data release, it briefly touched near 81,500 but couldn't hold and fell back to around 80,800. The volatility is not as intense as before, indicating the data was mostly priced in advance, and panic selling is limited. $ETH is trading in the 2320–2350 range, showing a more obvious drop, with capital preference still concentrated on Bitcoin.
The macro environment remains tight, and high interest rates may persist for some time. In the short term, the crypto market lacks strong catalysts; going forward, attention can only be on whether data like the non-farm payrolls can bring a turnaround. Until clear signals appear, the likelihood of continued choppy bottoming is high, and chasing rallies or selling into dips is likely to lead to losses. #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 All three coins fell about 3% in 24 hours, prices hugging the intraday lows, yet the long-short ratio remains above 2.4, with bulls not retreating but rather crowding in more.
$BTC: Fell below 78,000, longs feeling the pain first
Current price $77,760.4, down 3.00% in 24 hours. Long-short ratio 2.47 (up from 2.30 four hours ago), open interest 33,350 contracts, about 2.593 billion USD. In the last 73 minutes, 100 liquidations: longs 778,000 USD, shorts 81,000 USD.
$ETH: Following the drop without lagging
Current price $2,248.33, down 3.28% in 24 hours. Long-short ratio 2.70 (slightly down from 2.73 four hours ago), open interest 649,114 contracts, about 1.459 billion USD. In the last 43 minutes, 100 liquidations: shorts 536,000 USD, longs only 193 USD.
$SOL: Largest drop, heaviest volume
Current price $97.0, down 3.42% in 24 hours, the largest drop among the three coins. Long-short ratio 3.02 (slightly down from 3.10 four hours ago), open interest 3,495,890 contracts, about 339 million USD. In the last 286 minutes, 100 liquidations: longs 241,000 USD, shorts 119,000 USD.
Summary: A simultaneous drop does not mean liquidation; long-short ratios remain high, so volatility hurts both sides. This is only a market record and does not constitute investment advice.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 Down 5% to 7%, yet the bulls are getting more and more squeezed
$BTC: Current price $77,660, down 5.02% in 24 hours, close to the intraday low of 76,519. Long-short ratio 2.74, up from 2.45 four hours ago. Open interest 34,065 contracts, about 2.645 billion U. In the last 30 minutes, 100 liquidations: long positions 332,000 U, short positions 38,000 U.
$ETH: Current price $2,229, down 5.87% in 24 hours. Long-short ratio 2.84, up from 2.65 four hours ago, also rising. Open interest 648,553 contracts, about 1.445 billion U. In the last 17 minutes, 100 liquidations: long positions 1.362 million U, short positions almost zero.
$SOL: Current price $94.85, down 7.63% in 24 hours, the largest drop among the three coins. Long-short ratio 3.37, up from 3.00 four hours ago, highest among the three. Open interest 3,404,473 contracts, about 323 million U. In the last 80 minutes, 100 liquidations: long positions 497,000 U, short positions 82,000 U.
Commentary: All falling, long-short ratios all rising, liquidations heavily skewed to longs, leverage not yet cleared.
Summary: Prices near lows, bulls still very squeezed, volatility hurts both sides.
Discussion: With such a big drop, why are long-short ratios all rising? Are more bottom-fishers entering, or is leverage not yet cleaned out?
For record only, not investment advice.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高