Orbit Post Sitemap
Why didn't the FOMC results at 1 AM this morning make the market volatile?
Well, because the market moved first before the news was announced and that's normal. $BTC this morning looks weak again to 80.9k expecting it to sweep 78.4k before going up The decision landed at 2 a.m., with the interest rate unchanged by a single word; the only change was one sentence.
The Federal Reserve held steady at 3.75%-4.00%, and 90% guessed the result correctly; but Chairman Walsh added, "Inflation remains too high," quietly shifting the December script from a rate cut to a possible rate hike. According to the textbook, this is bearish, yet BTC did not fall, currently at 80,926, back above 80,000, and the Nasdaq also closed up 0.27% overnight.
My insight: The hawkish words couldn't move the price, indicating that the buying above 80,000 is real money — the weekly low only reached 80,151, the level never broke, and sentiment stabilized before price.
I am watching short-term: as long as 80,000 holds, shorting is not advisable, but the December rate hike expectation may not be fully priced in, so volatility might just be delayed. Do you think there will really be a rate hike in December, or is Walsh just throwing a smokescreen?
The above is my personal market observation, data as of today, not investment advice; crypto assets are highly volatile, please judge independently and bear your own risk (DYOR).
$BTC $ETH #欧意星球 #BTC行情 #美伊再交火、油轮遇阻，布油重返90美元 Federal Reserve decision #cryptocurrencyWhen I explain collateralized loans to newcomers, the thing I most want to correct is the idea of "borrow as much as you can." Seeing this message, I thought of another easily confused concept: the borrowable limit is not the safe limit.
Aave has raised the borrowing limits for Bitcoin and Ether collateral in V3 and V4. Among them, borrowers of WBTC and cbBTC in Core can get about 11% additional borrowing capacity with the same collateral. 📌 To illustrate this 11% with a simple example: if you borrow out the entire new limit, the collateral does not increase, but the debt does; according to the material, the price drop buffer you can withstand after borrowing fully will shrink.
I believe this adjustment helps with capital turnover, but for newcomers used to borrowing to the maximum, risk education is more important: the increased limit offers choices, but borrowing to the max compresses the buffer. The most common misconception is treating the platform's allowed maximum as your own risk control line. What else do newcomers not understand about the difference between "borrowing limit" and "liquidation threshold"? Leave a comment to discuss.$SOL
The deposit for a token account on SOL is being reduced from 0.16 to 0.016. Don't underestimate this amount; every token account on the chain has to pay this "rent," and there are hundreds of millions of accounts across the entire network.
This rent reduction is called SIMD-0437, cut in five steps, with the final step slashing the cost per byte from 6960 lamports to 696, a total reduction of 90%. Anza is urging validators to move 20% of their stake to the Agave 4.4 candidate version for trial runs before October 30, with the official rollout scheduled for November.
The market has completely ignored this. SOL is currently at 101.6, fluctuating between 100.5 and 103.9 over 24 hours, with a fee rate of 0.01%, neither bullish nor bearish.
My view is that this rent cut is to save money for token issuers and app developers, not to provide buying pressure for the secondary market. Cheaper on-chain costs and affordable token accounts are good news for entrepreneurs. For those holding SOL, supply and demand remain unchanged.
Anyway, I haven't placed a single long order this month. Watching its technical upgrades one after another while the price remains stagnant, I can only wryly say: they are cutting rent, but I am losing on the price difference.
#10月FOMC利率决议即将公布 FOMC decision landed at midnight! Hidden hawkish divergence, the overall market trend is set🔥
This time, the Federal Reserve kept the interest rate unchanged at 3.75%–4.00%, passing the vote 10:2. It is worth noting that two officials advocated a 25bp rate hike, and Cook even cast a dissenting vote for the first time, making the hawkish divergence fully explicit.
The decision upgraded the economic assessment from "solid" to "strong expansion," confirming the resilience of the economy, consumption, and capital expenditure, while clearly stating that inflation remains high and retaining flexibility for monetary policy adjustments. The press conference was hawkish throughout, denying expectations of easing inflation and not releasing any rate cut guidance, emphasizing that current rates are only tightening, not tightening aggressively.
The macro landscape firmly locks in the logic of higher interest rates for longer: the 10-year US Treasury yield stands firmly above 5%, the dollar fluctuates at a high level without deep declines, gold is pulled between bulls and bears in a range, US stock sectors are increasingly divergent, and high-valuation assets continue to be under pressure.
The core focus for the subsequent market is on three major data points: tonight's PCE inflation, next week's non-farm payrolls, and international oil prices. If inflation again exceeds expectations, the probability of a rate hike in December will soar; only a weakening employment situation can reverse the hawkish trend, which is also a key turning point for the future trend in the crypto space❗
⚠️ Macro risks are rising, market volatility is increasing, strictly control positions! This does not constitute investment advice
#10月FOMC利率决议即将公布 $BTC is moving sideways around 80,898, with a 24h amplitude of only 1.8%. The Fed's hawkish stance combined with disappointing tech earnings has barely moved the coin price. The liquidation data further illustrates the issue: shorts were liquidated for $16.86 million, while longs only $9.7 million. Positions chasing shorts after dipping to 80,355.4 took losses. The funding rate for three periods ranges between 0.0062% and 0.0080%, and the bulls haven't taken the opportunity to leverage up. The options side shows a different attitude. DVOL at 37.3 is not high, but the put/call volume ratio reached 1.22, indicating some are buying protection cheaply amid volatility, guarding against a chain reaction from the US tech stock market open. The put/call open interest ratio is 0.80, so overall positions remain bullish. My judgment is that $BTC will continue to oscillate between 80,355.4 and 81,800. This round of macro shocks mainly pressures the US tech sector and has not yet transmitted to the crypto market. The bearish trigger: breaking below 80,355.4, with put/call volume continuing to rise and funding rates turning negative, indicating that risk-off sentiment has arrived and the decline will continue. Conversely, if it stands above 81,800, the shorts in this round will have been in vain. $BTW I even suspect that this pump has trapped itself at a high level, neither going up nor down. A new coin with such a high market cap, fully unlocked, ranks in the top ten by market cap. They want to blow up the short sellers, but the higher the market cap, the more shorts there are. Other operators would aggressively pump once to blow up the shorts and then quickly exit, but this one pumps hard each time without dropping, hovering at a high level for a long time, giving others chances to short. Such a baffling coin with such a high market cap keeps pumping and attracting more shorts.I don't touch high leverage, and even when I see an increase in exchange outflows, I don't rush to treat it as a bullish signal. CryptoQuant analyst CoinNiel stated that Bitcoin exchanges had a net inflow of 7,278 coins on October 26, which turned into a net outflow of 12,702 coins on the 27th, but the current evidence still supports a neutral stance.
I see this as a small signal on the supply side, not proof that the long-term value has changed. In the past 7 days, there were 4 days of net inflows, so a single-day reversal doesn't show sustainability; the LTH-SOPR of long-term holders dropping close to breakeven also doesn't directly prove a reduction in selling volume. Coins moving out of exchanges and there being continuous buyers willing to take them are ultimately not the same thing.
Anyway, I'm holding steady and watching to see if the net outflow can continue; I don't rely on one day's data to boost my confidence. Leverage amplifies judgment errors, and when signals aren't solid yet, I'd rather be slower.Google Cloud business surged 103%, but the stock price was hammered nearly 10%! Microsoft only rose 48%, yet it was favored by the market.
Both are AI giants, both are desperately building data centers, but after-hours stock prices went in completely opposite directions.
① Microsoft's earnings report is indeed solid
Quarterly revenue was $92.3 billion, up 19% year-over-year, with net profit of $36.6 billion.
The highlight is Azure, with revenue growth of 48%, exceeding market expectations.
Microsoft not only proves there is demand for AI, but also that this demand can continuously convert into cloud business revenue.
After the earnings report, the stock price rose briefly in after-hours trading.
② Google is even more interesting, doubling cloud business isn’t enough
Google's quarterly revenue was $127.6 billion, up 25% year-over-year.
Google Cloud revenue was $30.7 billion, up 103% year-over-year.
Looking at just these two figures, who would dare say Google's AI business is not doing well?
Google's overall revenue missed Wall Street expectations, net profit dropped about 25% year-over-year, and quarterly free cash flow was negative $9.07 billion.
Fast-growing cloud business and how much cash the company ultimately has left are really two different things.
③ What exactly is Wall Street worried about this time?
I think it’s not that AI is unused; on the contrary, Microsoft and Google's cloud business data both show very strong demand.
The problem is whether the speed of making money can keep up with the speed of spending money. #谷歌云业务增长82%，AI投入回报如何？ $GOOGL $MSFT Short positions were liquidated, not because the direction was wrong
$ETH had over $37 million liquidated that night.
Of that, short positions accounted for 80%, while long positions were only over $6 million.
How is this calculated: liquidations are recorded on both sides.
One side is longs being sold, the other is shorts being bought back.
The price only rose less than 2%, yet shorts accounted for 80%.
This indicates the liquidated positions were recently opened.
What exactly were they doing: shorts bet on the price falling.
If the price moves up a bit, the margin is insufficient.
The system buys back to close the position, and the buyback pushes the price higher.
The next batch of shorts also becomes insufficient.
Once most shorts are liquidated, the buying pressure pushing the price up also diminishes.
#BTC现货ETF资金反复，市场买盘能否企稳？
#$ETH $UNITREE "Unitree Robotics Q3 'Revenue Up but Profit Not Increasing,' but the Negative Funding Rate on UNI Contracts is 'Punishing' Shorts"
Hold on! As long as the funding rate remains negative, the short-term trend is still bullish!
Last night, Unitree Robotics (688836) released its first Q3 financial report since going public. The data itself isn't very impressive: revenue of ¥665 million, a year-on-year increase of 69.93%, but net profit attributable to the parent company was only ¥113 million, down 17.37% year-on-year and a sharp 49.55% drop quarter-on-quarter, far below the market expectation of ¥224 million. The main drag came from soaring R&D expenses—Q3 R&D expenses alone were ¥127 million, up 249.6% year-on-year, accounting for 19.1% of revenue; coupled with a gross margin decline from 59.75% to 54.02%, the contradiction of revenue growth without profit growth was amplified.
Fundamentally, this is a financial report that makes short-term bulls uncomfortable. But the reaction in the UNIUSDT contract market is even more interesting than the report itself.
Here we see a typical structural mismatch: the negative earnings report suggests "price should weaken," but the extreme negative funding rate is "punishing shorts." Shorts are correct in direction but may be forced to close positions due to unsustainable continuous funding payments, which in turn passively supports the price with buy orders. The low of 92.38 was quickly pulled back to around 96, which to some extent reflects this battle on the market.
The earnings report is a slow variable; the funding rate is a fast variable. Today's UNI contract market respects the fast variable more than the slow one.Calculating, if WBTC and cbBTC users in Core borrow up to the new limit, the collateral per unit of loan would be about 10% less. This quantifies the approximately 11% additional quota from another perspective; the news is that Aave has raised the borrowing limits for Bitcoin and Ether collateral on V3 and V4.
① The adjustment covers V3 and V4, but the roughly 11% increase clearly corresponds only to WBTC and cbBTC borrowers in Core. I wouldn’t directly apply this partial parameter to all assets; the scope and scale of this news’s impact should be viewed separately.
② The same collateral can borrow about 11% more without needing to increase the collateral amount first. My judgment is that this is more significant for borrowers who already have turnover needs, representing an improvement in capital use efficiency rather than a direct benefit for all users.
③ If this roughly 11% new quota is fully borrowed, the buffer against price drops will shrink. The quota is optional, and the risk depends on how it’s used; if it’s just kept as a backup quota, then it shouldn’t be equated with already increased debt, which is my speculation.
I see this as a positive for making borrowing tools more flexible, not directly as a positive for coin prices. My habit of doing these calculations might be a downer, but what I want to see next is the safety margin corresponding to the specific parameters, reminding myself not to confuse “can borrow” with “should borrow.”💻 I want to break down this piece according to code review. Input: CryptoQuant founder Ki Young Ju said that this year ETF net inflows are close to zero, and Bitcoin has only dropped 7%; he expects that after the uncertainty of the US midterm elections subsides and ETF inflows resume, bullish momentum will return.
The logic is that demand is weak, but the price holds, so old whales and miners probably haven't sold much. I think the inference of "selling pressure exhausted" lacks sufficient evidence and that the election narrative should be reviewed more thoroughly.
There are two potential bugs: net inflows close to zero do not mean no funds moved in or out during the period; a firm price reflects the result of buyers and sellers, so you can't directly pinpoint who didn't sell, and there may be other buy orders absorbing sales—this is my speculation.
If I were to revise this logic, I would check the transfer data of long-term holders and miners, then discuss selling pressure, rather than using price as a sales log. Everyone, please help review: what indicators can distinguish between "not wanting to sell" and "sold but someone else bought"?87.07% reserve coverage, I would regard it as a basis for trust discount, not as proof of a positive realization. To pour some cold water first: an improvement in coverage does not mean L-BTC should be priced based on full reserve backing. According to the news, a 50 BTC transfer reduced the shortfall to 550 BTC, allowing user redemptions to continue, but regular federated pegged redemptions remain restricted. My bearish bias is on the sentiment premium of this news, not on shorting just because reserves are replenished.
I am stuck on two logics. If coverage is not full, there is still a gap between reserves and corresponding liabilities; if the market interprets "still redeemable" directly as "reserve risk is resolved," I think that is a misreading. Also, a single transfer proves funds have come in, but it cannot alone determine whether subsequent repairs are sustainable. In my speculation, if fund replenishment is unsustainable, the confidence built on this improvement may still be interrupted by the next reserve change.
Of course, the bulls might be right: if subsequent disclosures can verify continuous reserve replenishment with clear sources, and redemption restrictions are substantially eased, I will retract my bearish interpretation of this news. My habit is to rather admit repair later than prematurely treat the problem as solved. Regarding this coverage improvement, is everyone bullish or bearish? Share your reasons: do you value the ratio rebound more, or the sustainability of fund replenishment?#BTC spot ETF funds fluctuate repeatedly, can the market buying hold steady?
The fund data is very divided. There was a single-day inflow of $110 million, but the cumulative net outflow in October is still $202 million; 774 million was just dumped in the previous two days, then flowed back the next day. ETF funds swing like a pendulum, following the price, not the "smart money" actively supporting the bottom.
Behind the fluctuations is a shift in participant structure. Galaxy Research data shows that after cash arbitrage trading dried up, 9 hedge funds and banks reduced their ETF exposure by about 68,000 BTC, while wealth platforms and sovereign funds took over. Fast money is withdrawing, slow money is entering—the buying hasn't disappeared, just changed hands.
The key to stabilization is not in the ETF weekly report, but in the price itself. BTC current price is about 80,500, the first resistance above is 80,600-81,000 (old support turned resistance), reclaiming this level counts as recovery; below, 78,500-79,500 is the current trendline support, losing this means 75,500 becomes the decisive level.
Two operational points: those with positions should set stop loss below 78,500; those without positions should wait for a pullback near 79,500 with reduced volume to stabilize before buying, or wait for a volume breakout above 81,000 before considering right-side entry. Hedge funds are withdrawing, sovereign funds are buying—don't rush to take sides before the direction emerges. $BTC $ETH $ZEC $RLS topped twice but was strongly pushed back both times, followed by an extreme volume contraction, though overall holdings haven't dropped much.
Is the supply all being absorbed, or has the main force switched direction? Besides the two major pullbacks after the rallies, it has also dropped about 10% in the past two days. This means the returns from shorting have decreased significantly, but holdings remain high, implying that if a crash happens, it could still create a deep liquidity pool.
Going forward, volume should be monitored. This kind of altcoin might see a direct surge of funds pushing it up, or it could be slammed straight down. Currently, the overall trend is bearish, and there's no reaction to the interest rate landing.
Don't be greedy with small leverage; compound slowly—that's the real capital for surviving in the market. The Supreme Court of Thailand has ruled that Bitcoin is considered property.
This ruling addresses a very practical issue: what exactly Bitcoin is legally regarded as.
Being classified as property means it can be inherited, divided in divorce, seized by courts, and included in bankruptcy asset pools. If not considered property, these procedures cannot be applied.
Thailand has been filling this gap over the past few years. In May this year, it issued regulations on the custody of seized digital assets, expanding the definition to "any property that can be stored in the same way."
This ruling by the Supreme Court has elevated the status.
By comparison, when the UK High Court handled a batch of 61,800 Bitcoins in October this year, under Chinese law, victims could not claim the appreciation in coin value. Chinese courts recognize virtual currency as property in criminal cases but do not acknowledge its currency status in civil cases.
The same issue receives different answers in different jurisdictions. People holding assets across borders need to know which set of rules they are under.
$BTC $ETH $SOL
#BTC现货ETF资金反复，市场买盘能否企稳？ This is why we must continuously track politicians' trading records! ✍️
Remember April 7? At that time, we noticed that U.S. Senator Fetterman bought Micron Technology ($MU), right around the stock's low point.
As of the original post, $MU has risen another 4% today, and the shares he bought at the end of March are reportedly up over 200%.
What’s even more noteworthy is that Fetterman’s Commerce Committee oversees matters including the CHIPS Act, and Micron reportedly received $6.165 billion in funding from this act, the largest amount in the program.
This trade is certainly eye-catching, but the timing alone does not prove insider trading.
Tracking public trading records is the best way to better understand politicians' investment behavior.
$BTC $NEAR
1. Current Core Contradiction
NEAR is currently priced between $4.6–4.7, with a circulating market cap of about $6 billion, ranking globally between 17th and 19th. It is still about 77% below its all-time high of $20.44 in 2022. The year-to-date increase exceeds 200%, but it has dropped about 9% in the last 30 days. After peaking at $5.97 in October, it retraced about 25% and is currently hovering near the 50-day moving average.
To sum up the current situation in one sentence: fundamentals are genuinely improving, marginal buying is weakening, and macro has shifted from rate cut expectations to rate hike pricing. The result of these three opposing forces means this is not a position to go all-in, but rather to accumulate in batches.
2. Macro: This round is not NEAR's own problem
First, the Federal Reserve turning hawkish is the key variable. The October meeting maintained the federal funds rate at 3.75%–4.00% with a 10:2 vote, two members advocated a 25bp hike, the statement upgraded the economy description to "strong expansion," and the chair refused to provide forward guidance. The market prices in over an 85% chance of a rate hike in December. Note this is a rate hike expectation, not a rate cut expectation, which directly suppresses valuations for high beta altcoins.
Aggressive entry points
Around 4.3: open long positions; add at 4.0, 3.8, and 3.5. Start with a small position, nominally 1% of the portfolio.
A safer approach is to enter below 4.0.
This article is a personal research share and does not constitute investment advice. #OKX百万规划师 $BTC The Federal Reserve held interest rates steady at 3.75%-4.00% at 2 AM Beijing time, but the vote was 10 to 2, with Cook and Hammack both wanting to raise by another 25 basis points. This hawkish tone is more noteworthy than the result itself.
Binance reported a trading volume of $126 million in that hour, the largest of the night, then it squeezed down to 81,788 by 4 AM, and now it's back to 80,970, with only a 0.4% increase in 24h.
$ETH also surged to 2,391 before pulling back, now at 2,347. The long-short ratio for ETH accounts remains at 3.15, BTC is at 1.86, and funding rates on both sides are around 0.0045%.
CoinGlass recorded a total liquidation of $200 million across the network in 24h as of 3:30 AM Beijing time, with shorts accounting for 66.9%. BTC liquidations were $65.17 million, nearly 80% of which were shorts.
My view is that this is another wave of shorts being squeezed up and then giving back the gains. Before the meeting, the market priced in over a 70% chance of a December rate hike. The two dissenting votes only make that more certain. I don't think we will see a one-sided move before the November 6 nonfarm payrolls.财报前，从 350 一路加仓到 314，以为是底部了，财报后直接跌到 285！ 昨天看沃什讲话到 3 点多，硬件板块都硬了，我的几个硬件除了 $NOK 浮亏 5%，其他都回到浮盈，连 $ORCL 都涨了超 12%，于是放心睡觉，不等谷歌财报了 醒来打开手机，一看，谷歌跌了 10%，先是震惊，尼玛！一个 4 万亿的公司还能这么跌？又躺回去睡，一边睡一边想，睡不着 冷静思考后，我决定原地加仓： 1. 巴菲特的持仓成本也在 300 左右 2. 谷歌刚发布全球最强模型，云的增速惊人，基本面没有变差，技术依然是领先的顶级团队 3. 周线超卖，击穿布林下轨，这种机会过去 2 年只出现过 4 次 刚好我最近的计划就是减仓 AI 硬件，加仓大科技和加密。在 292 和 291 直接加仓，GOOG 仓位我直接干到 21%，昨晚也刚好减掉了大部分 $META 现在的市场在恐慌性惩罚：资本支出、负现金流、举债和增发 本来是现金牛，现在是现金熊 本来回购，现在是增发 本来是金库，现在是借条…… 大科技在回购和分红之间，选择了举债和增发，必然打破原来多年的现状，谷歌和 Meta 都是这类，市场重新估值是合理的，🔍 Seeing "cost basis composition support," my first reaction is: the average cost on the books—can it really become a defensive line where someone takes over the position? When I analyze this kind of clue, I’m most afraid of mistaking a statistical line for a buy wall. Don’t rush to conclusions.
PANews cited CryptoQuant analyst Darkfost, who said that Bitcoin $BTC short-term holders have been profitable on average for nearly two months, with an estimated cost basis of $76,500 and a current average profit margin of about 5.5%, down from a peak of 20% less than a month ago. He believes short-term holders may intervene near the cost basis to defend their entry price.
An interesting detail here: the narrowing profit is the data-based judgment he provides, but "someone will defend" is only a behavioral expectation. My view is that this position is worth observing, but the strength of the support has not yet been proven. Average cost does not equal everyone’s cost, and having unrealized gains doesn’t mean everyone is willing to keep holding.
Here’s my speculation: if the price approaches the cost line, some may add to their positions, while others may exit to break even. These two motivations are opposite, so just using "still profitable" to infer reliable support, I think the evidence is insufficient.
Next, I will watch for changes in short-term holders’ transfers and selling pressure when the price nears this line. Do you think they are more likely to defend the cost or exit to break even? Let’s watch the follow-up together and see whose speculation is closer.I'll first look at the odds: no matter how good the news is, if the price has already run ahead, it may not be worth chasing with excitement.
CryptoQuant data shows that publicly listed companies hold 1.3 million BTC, a 31% increase over 14 months, with Strategy accounting for 71% of the growth.
I think this doesn't yet qualify as widespread corporate entry; the increase is too concentrated to directly raise the odds of broad adoption. My guess is that if the number of new buyers increases, sustained demand will be more credible. I will watch the breadth of buyers and not treat a single large holder as representative of the entire industry.Microsoft rose nearly 3% after hours, Azure growth at 48%, I won't chase for now.
On Wednesday, US stock market closed with $MSFT around $531, almost flat.
After-hours earnings: revenue $92.3 billion, up 19% year-over-year, non-GAAP EPS 4.89, beating Wall Street consensus.
Azure revenue about $33.17 billion, up 48% year-over-year, Microsoft Cloud $63.9 billion, up 30%, backlog RPO reached $677 billion, up 73% year-over-year.
My view: the numbers look good, especially Azure disclosed in USD scale exceeding expectations, but free cash flow dropped about 27% year-over-year, indicating AI spending is still consuming cash.
Google fell nearly 10% after hours the same evening; the market is questioning "who can really monetize," not blindly lifting all cloud giants.
Watching without chasing the after-hours gap; if it holds above around 531, see if the gap can be digested; if it breaks below the pre-earnings low or near 526, consider this wave of sentiment invalid.
Do you believe Azure can maintain nearly 50% growth, or do you think AI spending will continue to pressure valuation?
$MSFT $GOOGL $AMZN
#USStockEarnings #Microsoft$GOOGLB has entered the oversold zone; a rebound and a bottom are two different things
$GOOGLB 24h -9.42%, current price 294.57. The 1-hour and 4-hour RSI are 19 and 26 respectively. Oversold conditions can trigger rebound demand, but a rebound only indicates a sharp drop, while a bottom requires the price to stop breaking the structure.
Volume does not support the trend: the current 1-hour trading volume is only 0.24 times the average volume of the previous 20 bars. Low volume can also move prices quickly, but sustainability must be proven by the next phase of the market. A single touch or a long candlestick is not enough to draw conclusions.
Looking back at the 24-hour range: low at 287.85, high at 327.65. The current price of 294.57’s position within this range directly affects the meaning of the same signal. Near the high, strength needs to prove it’s not a spike followed by a fall; near the low, a rebound needs to prove it’s not a continuation of the downtrend. The range is not a forecast target, but a way to check if the current narrative is hiding risks.
#GOOGLB$KORU: Today's price performance is very abnormal, unlike Hynix and Samsung stock prices which follow the decline but not the rise. The rebound is very small, not even 3 times, not even 1 time, but the decline is very large. It feels like either the quoting system has a problem or it is being manipulated It's been 18 days, and this group has moved again.
The October 9th incident of stealing Ledger users' data hasn't been resolved yet. The devices sold by Southeast Asian distributor CryptoBilis were tampered with, and Bitquery estimates a total multi-chain loss of $102 million. Ledger confirmed on the 11th that unauthorized hardware implants were found in the victims' devices.
On the 27th at around 2 PM UTC, those addresses acted again. They first split 1200 ETH into two new wallets, 600.1 each, then simultaneously funneled them into Tornado Cash, making 12 transactions in two and a half minutes, each 100 ETH, totaling $2.78 million.
It's been 18 days since the incident, yet the market surprisingly hasn't panicked. $ETH has even risen over two points in 24 hours, as the negative impact seems to have been dulled by previous fluctuations. But since the money went into the mixer, this case isn't truly closed. Whether $ETH can completely wash away the association with this stolen fund remains uncertain.
This kind of incident keeps happening repeatedly; if you use Ledger, check your firmware tonight.Scumbag observation: GOOGLE Google
A few days ago, while browsing X, the scumbag saw an opportunity to copy Buffett, so he checked Google's candlestick chart. The feeling at the time was that it seemed like it hadn't finished falling yet, so he placed a long order near the annual moving average.
This morning, he saw that the long order was executed and is currently slightly profitable.
Let's look at Google's Q3 earnings report. Google's extraordinary Q2 earnings report was supposed to be unsustainable (spcx listing brought nearly 100 billion in investment gains). In Q3, the investment gains on spcx overall showed an unrealized loss.
Looking at the main business growth falling short of expectations, this is quite normal, as AI usage has significantly reduced the demand for search, which lowers the chance of accidental clicks on search ads.
The good news is that the cloud business exceeded expectations To pour some cold water first, raising the collateral loan limit does not mean the market has an inevitable new buy order. Aave has increased the Bitcoin and Ether collateral loan limits for V3 and V4, where Core's WBTC and cbBTC borrowers can get about 11% more loan amount with the same collateral. I tend to see this as a capital efficiency tool rather than directly labeling it as positive for the coin price.
I have two concerns. First, the limit does not equal demand; whether users borrow more and what they use the loans for is not explained; if it's just swapping other debts, then I speculate the help for new buy orders might be limited. Second, efficiency improvements come at a cost: if the new limit is fully borrowed, the buffer against price drops shrinks. More debt on the same collateral means a thinner cushion, which is the calculation borrowers should focus on, rather than just getting excited about the extra limit.
Of course, the bullish view might also be correct. If we later see real borrowing demand increase and users generally do not max out their limits, I will acknowledge that this adjustment has a more positive significance than I initially expected. I'm not bullish for the sake of being bullish; I just don't want to translate "can borrow more" directly into "should rise"; going forward, I will watch loan usage and risk buffers, not just the limit numbers.Meta quietly shelled out $95 billion. $35 billion in additional issuance + $60 billion ATM, but only $12.5 billion will actually be received by October 2026, just 13%, and the $60 billion ATM contract hasn't even been signed yet.
$META has dropped 2.98% in 24 hours, while $QQQx rose 1.02% in the same period. Within the same sector, it is weakening against the trend, indicating that the tight funding situation seems more like Meta's own problem. $SPYx rose slightly by 0.36%, and the broader market did not collapse.
The $12.5 billion subscription shows the financing foundation hasn't fallen apart. If AI capital expenditure can truly translate into revenue growth, this situation can hold. But the uncertainty of the unsigned $60 billion is weighing down the valuation, and the short-term supply pressure has already been priced in by the market.
Do you know anyone holding Meta? What's their current mindset?$GOOGL This drop is really confusing: Google Cloud grew 103% year-over-year, yet the stock price fell sharply!
But breaking down the earnings report makes it clear:
📈 Cloud business revenue grew 103%, reaching $30.7 billion
📉 Total revenue slightly below market expectations
📉 Earnings per share also below expectations
💸 Free cash flow turned negative for the quarter, with huge investments in AI infrastructure
⚠️ Growth in search advertising business also failed to meet market expectations
Investors are not denying Google's AI strength, but are questioning: with so much money poured in, when will the returns truly materialize?
The market trades on future expectations, not just current growth. $BTC [ETH Volume Oscillation, The Real Signal Is to Wait and See]
ETH current price is $2352, up 0.4% in 24 hours, down 4.8% in 7 days. This is not a trend reversal, but more like a directional choice after a decline. My signal is clear: wait and see, don’t chase longs, and don’t rush to short.
Price is squeezed between support at 2277 and resistance at 2432, direction not yet chosen; volume is active, indicating funds are still in the market, but divergence is increasing; the Fear and Greed Index is 51, close to the weekly average of 50, sentiment is neutral, no momentum.
In reality, ETH demand is not purely narrative. Google is previewing a crypto custody security solution, with multiple financial institutions participating in testing, and Alphabet is also using Ethereum to protect digital assets. The first to be affected are institutional finance, custody service providers, and on-chain security teams. The business logic is clear: financial institutions are willing to pay to reduce asset operation risks. But this does not mean short-term funds immediately rush in; a 7-day drop of 4.8% remains, and before breaking resistance, institutional adoption cannot be mistaken for a bullish signal.
A true bullish turn looks for a volume breakout and firm hold above 2432; a bearish turn looks for effective loss of 2277. In the middle zone, patience is more important than direction.
What is your signal direction: long, short, or continue to wait?
$ETH $BTC $SOL
#10月FOMC利率决议即将公布 谈过恋爱的都知道 吵架不可怕 可怕的是对方突然不吵了 回消息只回一个嗯 你说怪不怪 这种时候往往才最该警惕 现在的比特币就是这个状态 美联储这次按兵不动 利率继续停在3.75%到4.00% 消息出来之后比特币重新站回8.1万美元附近 但更值得注意的是另一个数据 据Glassnode的说法 比特币波动率已经回落到2023年以来的低位 你想啊 离12.6万的历史高点还差一大截 价格却越来越安静 多空双方都不想先开口 像两个人冷战 谁先说话谁就先暴露底牌 我的观察有三点 第一 低波动不等于没方向 历史上波动率压到很低之后 往往会迎来一次大的方向选择 只是没人能提前知道往哪边走 第二 宏观这块石头还没完全落地 利率不动只是第一步 市场更关心官员对通胀和后续路径的表态 还有GDP和PCE这些数据会不会改变剧本 第三 8万是这一轮的情绪分水岭 前几天刚跌破又收回来 说明这里有人在接 也有人在等 所以这个阶段最不需要的就是上头 冷静期里死缠烂打的人 结局一般都不太好 仓位轻一点 杠杆收一收 把子弹留给真正的方向 感情里有句话 沉默不是结束 是在攒情绪 市场也一样 以上价格为10月28日当日数据 仅为Let's first do a straightforward calculation: publicly listed companies hold 1.3 million $BTC, a 31% increase over 14 months, with Strategy contributing 71% of the growth.
I think this is positive news, but it doesn't mean institutions are fully entering the market: the growth relies too heavily on one player. If it slows down its accumulation, new demand might weaken; this is my speculation.
I prefer to play it safe and first see if the accumulation spreads; I won't chase the hype based on this news alone. Are you looking for stability and waiting for more companies to follow, or are you willing to take the risk and bet on the big player continuing to increase holdings?Valued at 2 trillion, with 132 billion in cash, the security team was breached and wandered around within 12 hours.
Anthropic really submitted its Nasdaq IPO, stock code ANT. The prospectus looks good on paper: as of the end of June this year, 112.4 billion in cash plus 19.3 billion in short-term investments, totaling about 132 billion, and still holding 15 billion in undrawn revolving credit and up to 77 billion in arranged credit lines. Even more astonishing, the compute power long-term contracts have already exceeded 800 billion dollars, extending to 2045.
After the news broke, Broadcom, AMD, and Nvidia all rose nearly 3% that day. Bank of America led a 63 billion dollar financing round to supply Broadcom with XPU chips; the AI infrastructure arms race has never stopped. But look at stablecoins, with a total market cap just over 302 billion, shrinking 0.68% over 7 days, the crypto market remains unmoved.
Cathedral, founded by former DOGE members, penetrated the internal system within 12 hours through its bug bounty program, obtaining meeting records, payroll, and Slack messages. Anthropic itself admitted that sales, HR, and IT data were accessed, but Claude conversations and model weights were untouched.
A company with more money than it can spend, yet its security pants were stripped off by others in 12 hours. After going public, compliance is just getting started.
#AII believe this BTC correction is nearing its end.
As mentioned before, the buying range for ETH is between 2250-2400, and the lowest pullback reached 2280. Most of what needed to be bought has already been purchased.
$BTC only dropped as low as 79,000, and there’s still some left to buy. I’m preparing to buy it all when it dips again in November. However, the early November dip may not hit a new low.
This is a trading plan based on both price and time dimensions.
My general view is:
If there are no sudden negative shocks in the external market, the bottom price will basically remain stable.
Even if a sudden negative shock occurs and it dips further, I currently only see around 75,000.
There’s no need to be out of the market waiting for that dip. If the opportunity really comes, just add to the position.
Next, focus on when 85,000 will be broken.
This is the high point of the rebound around October 22, and also the B-wave rebound peak of this downtrend since September 22.
If this price can be broken, it should be the right-side confirmation that this downtrend has ended.
Let’s be patient and wait a bit longer.
$ETH has been oscillating widely for 68 days since breaking through 2300 on August 21, and the choice of direction is very close. As for me, I choose to look upward first.
Whether BTC or ETH, as long as it doesn’t break below the 200-day moving average, I choose to hold.Today, five projects emerged simultaneously, and certainty began to stratify, with stratification directly determining where the money should go.
TxFlow is the only one that has crossed into the "Confirmed" stage. Participation belongs to the transaction category, and the entry is still open now. This is not the same as filling out forms or following; it requires real money on-chain interaction. Conversely, precisely because it is costly, the filtered users are cleaner, and their future weight is usually higher. If you want to participate, first calculate the interaction frequency and the margin of fund safety.
The other four are still at the "Potential Clues" level. Fomo has raised about 94 million USD, the most prominent in this batch, using role acquisition, mainly consuming time rather than money. Beezie raised about 4 million USD to build a task reward platform interaction, and Flop Labs only requires filling out forms. These two are early layout probes, not to be taken as guaranteed returns.
The one to watch most closely is legend.trade. It has downgraded from "Confirmed" back to "Potential Clues," but its heat has actually increased. Downgrade in status and rise in heat—such divergence rarely happens without reason. The market is focused on its approximately 5 million USD fundraising background.
The volatility of BTC and ETH directly affects the actual cost of transaction-type tasks. The airdrop density in the SOL ecosystem has also always been high. When lying in wait, it’s better to keep mainstream asset positions on hand rather than going empty-handed and rushing in recklessly. Especially watch $BTC, as it is the anchor of interaction costs.
The fundraising amount is only a reference and does not equal an airdrop commitment. Before the stage leap, keep light positions, low frequency, and closely monitor task paths. My view first: ETH's current position is being propped up by contracts, while spot funds have actually been flowing out continuously. I have no confidence in how long this kind of support can last. These past two days, ETH is the most conflicted one I've been watching. On the contract side, about $46.5 million was liquidated in 24 hours, with over 70% being short positions. The shorts have been repeatedly wiped out. But on the ETF side, on 10/26 and 10/27 combined, there was a net outflow of $149 million. BlackRock's ETHA alone withdrew nearly $200 million, while Fidelity added a bit, but it didn't cover the outflow. The price is stuck in the middle, around 2,355, not moving at all. At 2 a.m. during the Fed announcement, I actually couldn't stay up, so I caught up in the morning. After the meeting, ETH surged past 2,390 once, but quickly came back down. Looking at the 1-hour chart, the price is grinding near the middle Bollinger Band, RSI just above 50, and MACD hugging the zero line. To put it bluntly, no one wants to make the first move. One thing I've been thinking about repeatedly is: who is providing the money when shorts are liquidated? It's not spot buyers. The ETF numbers for those two days are clear. So it must be the longs in the contracts. On OKX, the long-to-short ratio for ETH is now 2.38, compared to 2.24 24 hours ago—while shorts are being liquidated, retail longs are still increasing. Looking at open interest: on the evening of 10/28, ETH contract open interest dropped from around $1.9 billion to below $1.8 billion, but the price barely fell. My understanding is that part of this is shorts stopping out.The Federal Reserve did not raise interest rates early this morning, but the market is already betting on a rate hike in December 📅
According to CME FedWatch, after the announcement, the probability of a 25 basis point rate hike in December is about 87.5%, up from 81.4% before the result. Bets on Polymarket also rose from about 77% to 82%.
Chairman Powell said at the press conference that "tackling inflation is not about focusing on a specific date on the calendar," and also admitted that "price stability has not yet been achieved."
So the next key point is very close: tonight at 20:30 (Beijing time), the US will simultaneously release Q3 GDP and September PCE inflation data. Inflation data provider Truflation expects September PCE year-on-year at 3.6%, compared to 3.4% in August.
This morning at 08:37 (Beijing time), OKEx spot $BTC was about 81,184 USDT, up about 0.5% in 24 hours.
My understanding: the rate decision just postponed the suspense by one month; tonight's data will determine how fully priced December is. If PCE is hotter than expected, rate hike bets will be stronger, and assets like $BTC that fear high interest rates may take a hit first; if cooler, it might be a breather window.
For tonight's PCE, do you guess it will be above or below 3.6%?
Personal opinion, not investment adviceSamson Mow transferred out 2.5 $BTC, leaving a Liquid reserve shortfall of 600 coins
Sometimes in the $BTC community, what’s most worth paying attention to isn’t how much a whale buys, but the significance behind a small transfer.
According to provided information, JAN3 CEO Samson Mow sent a 2.5 BTC test transaction to the Liquid consortium wallet, reducing the reserve shortfall to 600 BTC.
To get to the point: this 2.5 $BTC is a test transaction and should not be directly interpreted as him replenishing a large amount of reserves at once.
But such actions are still worth noting because they involve reserve management and asset transfer verification within the Liquid ecosystem.
For Bitcoin-related networks, whether assets can be safely transferred, whether reserve information is transparent, and whether related mechanisms operate normally are far more important issues than simply calling for price increases.
Especially when market volatility intensifies and investor trust in trading platforms and custodians declines, reserve issues can easily become a market focus.
Of course, the reserve shortfall of 600 BTC means the matter is not completely resolved. The specific reserve status, shortfall calculation method, and subsequent replenishment arrangements all require further verification.
#10月FOMC利率决议即将公布 #SK海力士Q3营收首破100万亿韩元 #RobinhoodQ3营收增长，净利润下降 Four tubes, after the resolution all valves closed, resolution landed BTC ETF net inflow of 16.08 coins about 1.3 million, rebound momentum stopped for five days: out 7562, fill 1376, 2196, latest shrink 16.08; cumulative net inflow 723,700 coins, net value 107.359 billion. ETH continuously out 25909, 38048, latest inflow 1958 coins about 4.6 million, stopped bleeding but no rebound; cumulative 12.534 billion vs BTC 57.926 billion, channel narrow. SOL outflow or zero for five days, latest outflow 56274 coins, cumulative net outflow 771,300 coins, only ZEC has no ETF channel, heat relies on contracts and spot, wild temperament. This line sets the rhythm not the direction, waiting for tonight's GDP/PCE to make a move again, hands stop not rushing to run When I saw this message, the first thought in my mind wasn't "how much can it rise," but a question newcomers often ask me: Since you are optimistic about the price two years from now, why not just open a contract and hold it? Lao Ma wants to clarify this: being right about the destination doesn't mean you can endure the journey.
According to PANews quoting Cointelegraph, American real estate investor Grant Cardone proposed a $1 million bet to angel investor and Bitcoin critic Jason Calacanis, wagering that $BTC will reach or exceed $126,210.50 by October 28, 2028.
My judgment is that such a long-term target price has limited reference value for contract position management. The bet focuses on whether the target is met within the timeframe, but contracts have to face every fluctuation along the way; the higher the leverage, the less room there usually is for price reversals. These are not the same issue.
📌 Using the target price from the material as an example: if Bitcoin falls midway causing the long position margin to be insufficient and gets liquidated, and then later rises to $126,210.50, that position won't be there anymore. This is just a scenario analysis. A million-dollar bet also can't tell us how much principal to risk.
Newcomers often mistake "I believe in this target" for "my position can hold until the target." I prefer to first ask how much drawdown you can endure before discussing long-term predictions. If there's any part you still don't understand: why can a long-term bullish view still lead to an early exit from a long contract? Leave a comment about where you're stuck.Has Wall Street just changed its tune? The "scale difference" of ETF fund inflows is more worth watching than the direction
ETF data on October 21 did show a directional reversal, but when broken down, the structure is much more complex than "all three major coins turning positive simultaneously."
$BTC: $525 million in a single day, but this is not a "small inflow." In terms of volume, it is indeed the main force, but the outflow holes from the previous two weeks have not been fully filled yet. The net inflow over the past 7 days is about $513 million overall, indicating an improvement in fund absorption. If inflows rapidly decline in the following days, it suggests this is more of a one-time replenishment rather than a trend reversal to bullish.
$ETH: Turned positive, but internal differentiation is obvious
ETH ended five consecutive days of outflows, turning to a net inflow of $14.95 million. The products offset each other internally, so the quality of the overall positive net inflow is not high.
$SOL: A "positive" inflow at the $580,000 level, limited reference value
The net inflow for SOL spot ETFs on the day was only $585,300, which is almost negligible compared to SOL’s market cap and average daily trading volume. Among the "three major coins turning positive simultaneously," this tends to exaggerate the signal strength.
Regarding the Federal Reserve: Standing pat, but divergences are narrowing
"No change" itself is not incremental information; the direction of internal divergences is. If hawkish voices continue to grow, the rhythm of fund inflows into risk assets may be interrupted.
Rather than judging "breakthrough or pullback," it’s better to track two verifiable variables
This is only a market record and does not constitute investment advice.
#微软Azure增长43%，AI商业化能否提速？ ETF单日净流入1.115亿美元，这是连续两天流出后的第一次转正。资金在悄悄加仓吗？ 先说新闻。资金侧：最新单日净流入1.115亿（前一天净流出3,260万）、5日净流出2,870万（小幅转负）、10日净流入3.082亿（继续扩大）。价格侧：BTC报80,948.4美元，24小时 +0.49%、近一周 -4.25%；20日区间79,220.1到84,899.6。情绪侧：恐惧贪婪指数从48回升到51。宏观侧：美元指数102.43（+0.10%）、黄金4,065.7（+0.68%）、标普500 7,722.6（+0.60%）。 再看资金影响。三个口径要分开看：单日转正说明当天买盘占优；5日小幅转负说明最近一周资金基本持平；10日继续扩大说明月度资金仍在流入。这种短期震荡、中期流入的结构，通常是筹码换手而非趋势反转。 对BTC的含义：资金面没有恶化，只是在震荡中换手。真正需要警惕的是10日口径转负——目前+3.082亿，还很安全。所以这轮调整更像是周线级别的回撤，而不是新一轮熊市。 我接下来盯四个指标：一是单日流入能否连续；二是5日口径能否转正；三是10日口径是否继续扩大；四是BTC能否站上【Crypto Circle Script】
#谷歌云业务增长82%，AI投入回报如何？
Google really seems a bit wronged here
They are investing in AI
Cloud business is also growing
But when the earnings report came out
The stock price slapped back immediately?
But thinking carefully
This matter is really not that simple
Cloud business growth
Sounds impressive indeed
But the problem is
The hotter AI gets, the more money Google has to pour in
Data centers need to be built
Chips need to be bought
Computing power must keep expanding
Revenue has gone up
But investments are also continuously increasing
What the market really worries about
Is not that Google can't make money now
But how much profit can be recovered in the future from all this money spent
What's more interesting is
AI brings new growth to Google on one hand
On the other hand, it might change the way search makes money
Previously, users searched for things
Google made money through ads
In the future, users will ask AI directly
Can ads still maintain their original monetization efficiency?
So the current AI market
Is no longer just about whose technology is better
It’s also about who can turn technology into profit
Who can maintain their cash flow while investing crazily
What do you think
Is Google's recent drop an overreaction by the market
Or has capital finally started seriously calculating the AI account?
$BTC 📉 Today, $BTC and ETH are generally consolidating sideways, with volatility even weaker than over the weekend. BTC has repeatedly tested the 80,000 level but was met with resistance and pulled back, indicating significant pressure at this level. It is not easy to firmly break above it in the short term.
💰 On October 26, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $110.3 million, but this appears more like a phase of temporary inflow and cannot be directly interpreted as a bullish signal. Previously, on last Thursday and Friday combined, there was a net outflow of $774 million. Funds have yet to form a sustained net inflow, so ETF data should continue to be closely monitored.
⚠️ Ethereum’s funding situation is weaker: on October 26, spot ETFs had a net outflow of $88.6 million. It is clearly diverging from BTC; occasional net inflows are only a few million dollars, while outflows often reach tens or even hundreds of millions, indicating an overall "bleeding".
🧭 When market uncertainty is high, funds prefer to allocate to BTC rather than ETH or other high-risk assets. $ETH’s current trend is weak; only a genuine improvement in funding can strengthen its rebound; otherwise, any rise may remain lackluster. #10月FOMC利率决议即将公布 #SK海力士Q3营收首破100万亿韩元 Seeing this message, my first reaction was a bit discouraged: it turns out that even if the code can run, there are still so many hurdles before a protocol can truly survive. I've only been in the circle for a year, and I used to think "waiting for the mainnet launch" was much simpler 🤔
Diva Staking announced a gradual shutdown and will not launch the mainnet. The team said funds will be exhausted by mid-2024, after which three members will continue development without income or salary for about two and a half years, but ultimately it will be difficult to sustain. Early stakers who pre-deposited in the treasury can withdraw funds from Enzyme.
What I understand is that this is more like a sustainability alarm, and we can't directly conclude that the entire liquid staking sector is failing. According to the team, Hoodi ran for four months without faults but lacked major participants to help launch the mainnet: technical feasibility does not guarantee that launch resources will be in place. New audits and ongoing maintenance also require continuous funding; it’s not just handing in the homework on launch day and done.
I actually agree with their choice not to force it. Normal test runs don’t prove that complex protocols are free of vulnerabilities. However, AI makes vulnerabilities easier to find, which worries the team, but I can’t yet judge that audits have become unreliable based on this.
I still haven’t figured out how ordinary users can distinguish between "temporarily out of funds" and "no longer able to operate safely." I’d like to ask experienced project evaluators: when looking at such protocols, which public information best indicates whether the team has the capacity to continuously bear audit and maintenance costs?Next, keep an eye on these two things; they're more useful than watching the K-line
First, whether there will be a rate hike in December — some are already pushing for it in the decision-making, oil prices are still stuck above $100, and inflation isn't cooperating; second, the U.S. midterm elections on November 3rd, where WLFI and 1789 Capital, linked to the Trump family, are already stockpiling lawyers and lobbyists, fearing the Democrats might come back to investigate. Plus, when Mt.Gox will release the remaining batch of coins, and whether the November ETF funds can be renewed. CryptoQuant's bottom line is between 73,500 and 77,600. My view? Don't guess the direction; first, consider whether you can withstand a 20% fluctuation.Altcoins have no chance, money is flowing back into BTC
Today the fear and greed index is stuck in the neutral zone at 45–51, neither panicking nor excited. BTC market dominance is around 60%, leading altcoins by over 6 percentage points in the past 30 days: ETH -9.4%, SOL -10.6%, DOGE -12%, ADA -13%, LINK has dropped to around $11.5 looking for support, NEAR is holding at 4.3. Only XMR and BNB stubbornly turned positive again. PEPE surged 9%–13% last night following the chip stocks sentiment spike; this kind of pure sentiment bounce comes fast and goes even faster.$BNB Nasdaq bell ringing plus burning, such a big show, but it can't even hold 750.
It surged to 751 just briefly, then was pushed back down to 734.
The ceremony is a ceremony, the buying is buying. Everyone knows how much supply is pressing down from above; even a little heat turns into liquidity for selling.
No one is buying the spot; it's all propped up by contracts. This kind of stagnant market looks weak even at a glance.