Orbit Post Sitemap
#Coinbase integrates Deribit, can Q3 revenue improve?
$COIN Q3 2025 summary
Revenue $1.9 billion (+25% QoQ). Trading revenue $1 billion (+37%) on $295 billion volume. Deribit contributed $52 million in 47 days; institutional revenue $135 million (+122%). Derivatives contracts reached $840 billion notional value.
Optimistic: USDC $15 billion on-platform + $53 billion off-platform = stablecoin revenue $355 million.
Yet?💡PCE beats expectations, funds ignore negative news, five assets recover simultaneously.
$BTC｜81511 📊
Battled back and forth around the 80000 mark for a whole week; after the data release, funds actively tested upward. Macro negative factors no longer suppress the market, short-term sentiment warms up.
$ETH｜2358 ⚡
Rebounded in sync with the broader market. The staking ecosystem continues to accumulate, with validators and staking pool sizes steadily increasing, representing a long-term gradual buildup; this round of rise is mainly driven by risk appetite recovery leading to a Beta rally.
$SOL｜102.25 🚀
Firmly holding the 100 support level. After the new consensus went live, network stability has significantly improved, on-chain active addresses continue to recover, fundamentals are quietly repairing, and the resilience is worth ongoing tracking.
$OKB｜113.69 🔴
Shows an independent trend with three consecutive gains. The positive impact of OKX collaborating with ICE and Trade.xyz to launch perpetual contracts continues to ferment, carrying its own narrative drive, no longer fully dependent on the major market.
$RE｜0.375 🛡️
Maintains sideways consolidation today. An insurance protocol focusing on automatic compensation, the compensation fund pool is still expanding; however, low trading volume and weak order book liquidity mean that to break away from the broader market for an independent trend, a major on-chain event catalyst is still needed.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 Who exactly caused the 5000-point drop last night? I went through three suspects.
First, earnings reports. The Nasdaq fell 1.38% last night, Amazon dropped 4.25% right after its earnings report, and tech stocks have been getting hit all week. They played a part, but only as accomplices.
Second, inflation. The core PCE for September rose to 3.1%, overall PCE rose to 3.6%, and there were still two votes in the decision for an immediate rate hike. This is the mastermind because it changed expectations for December. Everyone thought the rate hikes were over, but now they see there’s more to come.
Third, leverage. This is the amplifier. The rates have been positive continuously, bulls kept paying the rent and refused to give up. They couldn’t break through 82,000, and once 79,200 was broken, forced liquidations triggered in a chain reaction. More than half of the 5000-point drop was caused by this group stepping on themselves.
So don’t just blame earnings reports. Earnings alone can’t cause such a deep drop. It’s a combination of expectation reversal and leverage clearing out, working together.
But there are two good signals today. Bitcoin has pulled back from 76,519 to 78,371, the old dense area at the end of September, showing real support. HYPE is even more ridiculous; despite the market crash, it’s still up 17 points, indicating that funds are not fleeing entirely—some are hiding, and some are entering.
My view is this is a clearing, not the end of the world. But don’t rush to go all in right after the clearing; wait until prices stabilize.
What do you all think? Has this drop bottomed out?
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 $BTC $ETH $HYPE ETF is coming in, leverage is retreating, the "bottom" of this rebound has changed hands
A quick look at the market: BTC is hovering around 78,391, ETH at 2,247, SOL at 97.37. On the surface, it’s a rebound, but breaking down the capital structure, the flavor has changed.
BTC: 78,200 is the boundary between bulls and bears. Above that, watch the 80,000 round number. ETF inflow of 137 million in one day is short-term fuel, but the cumulative net outflow in October means the rally lacks volume and is a false breakout.
ETH: 2,250 is the psychological bottom line. ETF has had net outflows for four consecutive weeks, with BlackRock’s ETHA seeing a single-day outflow of over 100 million. If 2,250 doesn’t hold, the next support is at 2,200.
SOL: 100 has turned from support into resistance. ETF bleeding + shrinking on-chain transaction volume; if 97.37 doesn’t close back above this level intraday, the cost-effectiveness of chasing longs is very low.
Summary
Macro is holding steady, capital is internally divided, don’t mistake the rebound for a reversal.
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
#OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场
#英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 Has my on-chain balance increasing really meant I've made a profit?
When organizing on-chain assets, I also open the borrowing page. Just looking at wallet balances sometimes makes me mistake borrowed funds as my own growth.
For example: originally having $10,000 in assets, after collateralizing and borrowing $4,000 in stablecoins, the stablecoins remain in the wallet. Combining the collateralized assets and wallet balance shows $14,000 in assets, but there is also a $4,000 liability. Ignoring interest and fees, net assets have not actually increased.
If the borrowed funds are then used to buy other coins, the asset page might look busier, but the price volatility risk also changes.
So in my review, I record assets, liabilities, interest, and new deposits simultaneously, and also check for any double counting between deposit certificates and the underlying assets they represent.
Borrowing itself does not generate profit. To determine if I actually earned during this period, I first exclude changes caused by deposits and borrowed funds.
When you calculate on-chain earnings, do you include liabilities across different protocols together?Including this Lazarus Group attack on Binance, this hacker organization has caused more than $13 billion in damage to the financial world.
Starting from 2009 with DDoS attacks on US and South Korean government websites and Sony Pictures, then mid-term attacks on Vietnam, Ecuador, and Bangladesh Bank.
Then, with the rise of crypto, they fully shifted to generating revenue through the crypto space.
Their advanced technology is certainly terrifying, but the most important thing is that Lazarus Group is backed by the North Korean government and is completely fearless of any law enforcement agencies.
This time Binance was hacked, marking Lazarus Group's biggest haul yet, but it definitely won't be the last.Gemini co-founder said that Zcash doesn't need to redo its governance mechanism; the core is still privacy protection. My first reaction was that the privacy narrative has someone backing it again, but has the market already priced this in? Just looking at this statement, I really can't say. The interesting detail is this: agreeing that privacy has value is not the same as being willing to buy ZEC. After reading this, do people want to study the privacy features or just check the price directly?I see large position openings like watching someone move a piano: it's very loud, but you can't judge the strength just by the volume 😂. Core Trader 31 just opened a long $BTC position with 20x leverage, nominal position about $600,200, this time moving the price volatility.
My judgment: this is an amplified directional bet, not a market confirmation. Estimating margin by dividing nominal value by leverage, the margin is about $30,000, not equivalent to putting out $600,000 cash to buy coins; if the price moves 1% against the position, the loss is about $6,000, which is 20% of the margin above, excluding fees for now. The material also doesn't provide stop-loss arrangements, so I wouldn't interpret the long position as able to withstand drawdowns directly.
For this kind of monitoring, I prefer to see how the position is managed afterward. Would you choose A to watch if this address reduces its position, or B to watch if the price can follow the bulls—watch the piano mover's hands, or listen if the market provides accompaniment?In this 4-hour contract statistics, BTC, ETH, and SOL all recorded gains, but the position directions were not consistent: BTC and SOL longs slightly dominated, while ETH leaned toward shorts. The original description noted a slight rebound after long liquidations, narrowing the gap between longs and shorts, and judged that shorts entered during the rebound to suppress the market. BTC: Price at the time was 78339.4, up +1.73%; longs 9.82 billion, accounting for 51.07%; shorts 9.41 billion, accounting for 48.93%. Longs lead, but the advantage is small. ETH: Price at the time was 2243.2, up +1.51%; longs 6.66 billion, accounting for 49.38%; shorts 6.83 billion, accounting for 50.62%. Price increase and short dominance appeared simultaneously, with direction divergence still present. SOL: Price at the time was 97.29, up +4.64%; longs 890 million, accounting for 50.75%; shorts 860 million, accounting for 49.25%. The gain was higher than the other two coins, but the long proportion was lower than BTC. My view. This contrast is worth noting: faster gains did not correspond to a higher long proportion. Positions for all three coins are close to balanced, and based on this ratio alone, it is difficult to judge which side will dominate next, nor can position size be directly taken as new capital flow. The original text tends to expect continued oscillation and warns of the risk of two-way spikes. I am more focused on whether subsequent price and positions can continue to coordinate: if SOL maintains relative strength, will the long advantage expand? If ETH continues to rebound, will the short proportion decline? These changes are more helpful than a single ratio in judging the divergence.Does receiving coins at an address mean a purchase has been made?
When I look at an on-chain address, I remind myself: receiving coins only indicates that coins have come in; whether they were bought or not requires further investigation.
It could be transfers between my own addresses, receiving allocations, rewards, or assets withdrawn from a protocol. Taking just one incoming transaction and labeling it as a “whale accumulating” skips too much information.
What I really want to know is what was given in exchange for these coins. Was there a corresponding swap? Did another asset flow out? Were there multiple transfers in the same transaction? If it’s just a one-way incoming transfer, I’ll note it as “tokens received” and won’t rush to estimate the purchase cost.
Even if I find a swap record, I still need to distinguish between this single address and the full position behind it. Whether someone hedged elsewhere usually can’t be answered by a single on-chain record.
I’m willing to treat it as an observation clue but won’t directly copy it as my own reason for opening a position.
When you see a screenshot of a “whale buying,” do you check the original transaction?The ETF buying stopped above the "cost line" of 81,500
Looking at the capital flow, this is the most despairing detail for the bulls.
Glassnode estimates that the average cost basis for holders of the US spot Bitcoin ETF is about $81,500. And in the 30 days ending October 26, the ETF saw a net outflow of $254.7 million. BlackRock's IBIT had an inflow of $962 million, but this was offset by $772.5 million outflow from Fidelity's FBTC and redemptions from other products.
Think about this structure.
The ETF money has a "cost line" around 81,500. When the price drops near 81,000, ETF holders are overall close to breakeven. At this position, new buying has no reason to rush in. And the $423.6 million inflow from October 26 to 28 was 93.9% concentrated in a single BlackRock IBIT fund, with Fidelity and other products barely following.
A breadth-lacking buying force cannot hold a panic liquidation driven by "rumors + macro disappointment." $BTC $ETH $ZEC #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 #StrategyQ3净利润创单季新高，数字资产收益贡献显著 This morning (October 30), A-shares and Hong Kong stocks showed completely opposite operational logic: A-shares opened sharply lower dragged down by the overnight plunge in U.S. tech stocks, then funds flowed into defensive and domestic demand sectors such as pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and shipping, driving the index to bottom out and rebound; Hong Kong stocks, on the other hand, strongly rebounded with a collective surge in large tech and consumer stocks, with technology and domestic demand becoming the dual main themes.
🇨🇳 A-shares: Bottoming out and rebounding, funds switching between pharmaceuticals, consumer goods, and shipping
A-shares opened sharply lower in early trading, with the Shanghai Composite Index briefly falling below 3600 points (lowest at 3595.26), and the ChiNext Index initially dropping over 3%. Subsequently, funds withdrew from high-level tech sectors and flowed into low-level defensive and domestic demand sectors, causing the index to fluctuate upward and the decline to narrow continuously. The Shanghai Composite and Shenzhen Component indexes both closed near their daily highs at midday. By noon, the Shanghai Composite was down 0.30% at 3640.54 points, the Shenzhen Component down 0.58%, and the ChiNext down 1.18%; half-day turnover was about 1.01 trillion yuan, an increase of approximately 21.5-23 billion yuan compared to the same period the previous day.
The pharmaceutical sector was the strongest offensive direction in the morning session, with CXO and innovative drugs showing the greatest elasticity. Aoyang Health hit a 3-day limit up, Bidu Pharma hit a 20% limit up, and Wanbang Pharma, Haoyuan Pharma, Ruizhiyi Pharma, and Nearshore Protein all rose more than 11%. The catalyst was the overnight U.S. biopharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly’s Q3 net profit growing 16% year-on-year, exceeding expectations, boosting global pharmaceutical sector sentiment, combined with individual stocks benefiting from Q3 earnings realization being heavily chased by funds (Guilin Sanjin hit a 2-day limit up, Lingrui Pharma hit limit up).
The consumer sector (baijiu, food) was the core carrier of defensive clustering. The baijiu sector rose 2.13% by midday, with Huangtai Liquor, Gujing Gongjiu, and Yingjia Gongjiu hitting limit ups, Luzhou Laojiao up 8.35%, and Jinshiyuan up 5.92%. The driving force came from stock battles amid Q3 earnings divergence—Yingjia Gongjiu’s Q3 revenue grew 4.25% year-on-year, net profit grew 8.58%, becoming a key target for fund accumulation. In the food sector, Qingdao Food hit a 5-day limit up, with Black Sesame and Quanyangquan hitting limit ups.
Shipping and ports strengthened against the trend, with Jinjiang Shipping hitting limit up, and the sector rising 3.01% by midday, forming cross-market resonance with Hong Kong port and transportation stocks.
The PCB sector showed localized anomalies, with Jin'an Guoji, Aohong Electronics, and Hongchang Electronics hitting limit ups, and Jin'an Guoji receiving net main force purchases exceeding 600-700 million yuan. Against the backdrop of a sharp overnight drop in U.S. computing hardware stocks, PCB, as a tech rebound pioneer, was the first to attract funds.
The bleeding sectors concentrated in internet finance (Compass down over 10%), short drama concepts (Wen Investment Holdings hit limit down), and electronics, computer, and communication sectors, with the electronics sector seeing a net outflow exceeding 3.1 billion yuan by midday.
🇭🇰 Hong Kong stocks: Dual engines of tech and consumer, semiconductor chain weakens
Hong Kong’s three major indexes collectively rebounded, with the Hang Seng Index up 1.64% by midday, the Hang Seng Tech Index up 1.43%, and the China Enterprises Index up 1.63%. Unlike A-shares’ "defensive bottoming and rebound," Hong Kong’s rise was driven jointly by large tech and domestic consumer stocks, reflecting more positive sentiment.
The collective rebound of large tech stocks was the core driving force. Meituan and Xiaomi Group rose over 4%, Alibaba, JD.com, Tencent Holdings, NetEase, and Kuaishou all rose more than 2%. The tech stocks’ rebound sharply contrasted with the weakness of A-shares’ tech sector, reflecting a regional divergence in risk appetite for the same asset class between the two markets.
Domestic consumer demand was fully active, resonating cross-market with A-shares’ consumer logic. Dairy stocks led gains, with Mengniu Dairy up over 7%; mainland education stock New Oriental rose over 6.5%; home appliances, catering, and alcoholic beverages all trended upward.
Shipping, ports, and financial heavyweights strengthened simultaneously. COSCO Shipping Holdings rose over 7%, Orient Overseas International rose over 3%; oil stocks, Chinese securities firms, and insurance stocks all rose, with HSBC Holdings up 0.4% and Standard Chartered following suit.
The weakening sectors concentrated in the semiconductor chain. Optical communication concept stocks, storage semiconductor stocks, and PCB concept stocks all declined collectively, forming an inverse trend to the localized anomalies in A-shares’ PCB sector, indicating a clear phase mismatch in pricing of tech hardware between the two markets.
💎 Summary
A-shares are "making high-low switches in passive defense," while Hong Kong stocks are "actively attacking to restore sentiment." The overnight sell-off in U.S. tech stocks was amplified in A-shares as a low open, but funds quickly found support in low-level sectors such as pharmaceuticals, baijiu, and shipping, leading the index to bottom out and rebound, though more stocks declined than rose (over 2,800 stocks down). Hong Kong stocks directly benefited from the collective rebound of large tech stocks and broad consumer activity, with the Hang Seng Index rising over 1.6%, showing clearly stronger sentiment. The only consensus between the two markets is that domestic consumer demand (baijiu/food/dairy/catering) has gained cross-market fund resonance, while tech hardware (PCB/semiconductors/optical communication) shows opposite directional fund pricing between A-shares and Hong Kong stocks. Whether this divergence narrows in the afternoon will depend on further guidance from tonight’s U.S. tech earnings reports.Conclusion first: $BNB's highest in the past 24 hours was 759, lowest 677, currently 716. The $6.3 billion Binance incident is preliminarily concluded not to be a private key leak, but an engineer's hacked laptop that allowed the attacker to gain container permissions and submit unauthorized withdrawals (Blockaid also judged it as signature misuse).
But what concerns you is "being stuck," not "being stolen":
① Binance has suspended all deposits and withdrawals, promises full compensation, and has frozen about $3 billion; Arbitrum's security committee has additionally frozen $30.5 million.
② Aave has also suspended new deposits and loans on V3/V4, contracts are fine, withdrawals and repayments proceed as usual.
③ If the money is on the exchange, you are a creditor; if the money is in your own wallet, you are the owner. This is the real dividing line.
Market situation: At 04:00 Beijing time, on the 1H chart, $BNB perpetual futures dropped from 744.63 to 677.47 (-9%), with a trading volume of $86.5 million, 126 times that of the previous hour; 24-hour perpetual futures volume was $307 million, 9 times the spot volume—leverage moved first. Funding rate has reached -0.0634%/8h, shorts are paying longs. The Fear and Greed Index is 30, the lowest since August 14.
Is your position on the exchange or in your own wallet? Being frozen for 3 hours and being frozen for 3 months are two different things. $BNB#英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 $INTC
The most easily misinterpreted part of this earnings report is attributing the plunge solely to the "Q4 guidance below expectations" surface fact.
A more accurate interpretation is: Q3 proved that Intel's server business has genuine structural demand, and the foundry's technological progress is real, but the time needed for these two positive signals to translate into financial profit has been simultaneously extended by the PC cycle downturn, supply incidents, and a peak in capital expenditures. The detail that “the ETF intends to directly hold ZEC” made me stop halfway through reading and go back to check the spokesperson’s identity. Having just entered the circle for a year, I originally took this as a dispute over privacy philosophy, but seeing that the applicant is a company under the Winklevoss brothers, I felt I needed to think a bit deeper 🤔
This time Cameron advocates that Zcash does not need to redo governance, putting privacy back at the core, and calls for the termination of ZCG; the related ETF has currently submitted a registration application. My own judgment is: when one party with potential holdings talks about governance, their views can be heard, but they cannot be directly taken as the common answer for all users.
My understanding is that holding $ZEC and using privacy features do not necessarily fully overlap in demands. If holders prefer to reduce governance disputes, while users care more about the availability of privacy features, then “less fuss” and “making the product better” are not necessarily the same thing. This is my speculation, not saying that a conflict has already occurred between the two sides.
I haven’t figured out yet how this indirect holding method via ETF will affect actual governance participation, and the materials do not clarify whether it participates in voting. For me, what needs to be observed next is whether the needs of different users can be heard, rather than who shouts the “privacy mission” more forcefully."Privacy is the core goal," I agree with this statement, but I won't use it as a reason to leverage. I don't play with high leverage; I prefer to step back from the hype and see if it actually changes the long-term value. What I care about most this time is whether clearly stating the mission can prove that the governance plan is also the right choice.
My judgment is: the mission statement alone is not yet a long-term positive; for now, it is more a voice in the governance debate. In the materials, Cameron also advocates no need to redo governance or terminate ZCG, and his asset management firm has previously submitted a Zcash ETF registration application. These moves carry weight but cannot serve as a report card for the actual progress of privacy products.
Regarding $ZEC, I prefer to separate the "goal" from the "method." Privacy is the goal; holding tokens to vote is the method. Agreeing with the former does not mean the latter is inherently effective. In my estimation, if governance adjustments can reduce conflicts and allow development to focus more, then it might become a long-term signal; if it's just a change of people continuing the disputes, ordinary users will not get a better privacy experience as a result.
As for me, I am a slow mover holding steady, not rushing to take sides. Leverage, however, won't wait patiently for debates to settle. My reminder to myself is: don't get carried away by statements; pay more attention to whether privacy capabilities and user experience actually improve.Last night's hacker incident caused a sharp drop, and many people think "the bad news is fully priced in" or "Binance has already bailed out," preparing to use large funds to bottom-fish. Don't be impulsive! Here are some fatal realities to consider:
1. The bailout is only "life-saving," selling pressure is far from gone
Although Binance and Tether quickly froze some funds and promised compensation, this only guarantees "deposits won't be wiped out." The tokens in the hacker's hands that haven't been frozen remain a sword hanging overhead, and they could dump at any liquidity window. The real market selling pressure has not disappeared.
2. Stolen coins become a "financial weapon," long positions become fuel
It's hard for hackers to cash out, but a more sophisticated tactic is to coordinate with massive short positions: selling stolen ETH to create panic and precisely harvesting high-leverage long positions. Your 20x long position is their ATM and liquidation fuel. On a macro level, continuous ETF outflows add to the gloom.
3. Liquidity dries up, beware of "spikes up and down"
Current liquidity is extremely poor; market makers and hackers can easily create fake rebounds to lure longs, then follow with a big bearish candle to dump. ETH and BNB have dropped over 4%, with intense long-short battles. Heavy contract positions now are like gambling on big or small; be sure to control your hands and keep enough cash to wait for the right side. $BTC $ETH $ZEC To start with a reality check, opening a large long position does not mean the direction has been confirmed. Core Trader 14 used 15x leverage to go long 555 ETH, with a nominal value of about $1,211,300. I wouldn’t take this trade as a signal to go long; instead, I want to see: if the price doesn’t cooperate, who will be forced to change their mind first.
I have two concerns. First, the monitoring only shows this wallet’s actions, without visibility into its full assets and other positions; if it also has hedges, then observers following the long might actually be exposed to a completely different risk. Second, the nominal amount is not the invested principal but determines the profit and loss sensitivity to price fluctuations. Roughly estimating with unchanged position size, for every $100 move against ETH, this long position would incur about $55,500 in unrealized losses. My guess is that if the market doesn’t give positive feedback soon, high-leverage longs will suffer more than low-leverage holders, but the exact liquidation point can’t be determined from this data alone.
Of course, it’s also possible they caught the right direction. My bearish bias doesn’t mean I oppose going long. If the price can sustain above this reference price of about $2,182.53 and recover after a pullback, I will reduce my skepticism and see it as a buy-side response rather than just a wallet expressing intent. Next, I will watch how the price responds to this long position, without relying on position size to boost my confidence. $COIN
715 million and 2.2 billion, less than a day apart.
When Coinbase's Q3 earnings report just came out, it was quite lively: net profit of $719 million, turning a profit, a scene of "crypto brokers winning easily." I looked closely — 715 million is the paper unrealized gain calculated from the appreciation of crypto assets held, the actual adjusted operating profit was only 78 million, and trading revenue dropped 44% year-on-year. They did make money, but it was from coin price, not business.
Then this morning they announced that executives plan to sell up to 13.6 million shares, which at the current price is about $2.2 billion. No one knows better than executives whether their own stock is worth anything, so I side with the sellers on this one.
Actually tested the COIN token on OKX at 154.94, which is already more than 3 points lower than the US stock's closing price of 160.59 yesterday, and last night it hit a low of 150.23. This token has near-zero fees, contract positions only $5.2 million, pricing basically follows the US stock, and in the crypto world it's just a shadow.
I just finished writing "Making a good profit is not as good as holding through trouble," and they immediately taught me another lesson: the wealth on the report is not as good as the cash in your pocket. This drama is the same everywhere, and I even laughed after reading it.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 🔍“Operating for hundreds of years” — does that prove token voting is suitable for Zcash? I, Old K, actually become suspicious when I see this sentence: just because a mechanism has been used for a long time doesn’t mean it’s appropriate to put it on-chain. What can be confirmed is that Cameron made this claim and called for the termination of ZCG, while his brother’s company had previously submitted a Zcash ETF application; whether governance should change is still his judgment.
An interesting detail here: the history of capital markets is being used to endorse on-chain governance. I think this analogy lacks sufficient evidence; the key is how voting rights distribution and accountability are arranged. Here’s my speculation: if governance leans more toward token holder voting, then the preferences of large holders may more easily dominate resource allocation; “privacy first” does not automatically eliminate this divergence.
Don’t rush to conclusions yet. I will continue to focus on specific governance proposals rather than treating statements as finalized. Let’s all keep an eye on what follows: what evidence will you use to judge whether token voting truly benefits privacy development? Let’s see whose speculation comes closer.$BTC
Was slammed down to 76000 by hackers, this time I'm leaning bullish—don't rush, I mean don't rush to call the bear market restart.
The panic is indeed scary, the whole market was bloodied last night, BTC bottomed at 76472. But there's a figure I've been watching: Bitcoin spot ETFs had a net inflow of $17.07 million yesterday, four days in a row, with IBIT alone accounting for $12.8 million. The ones being hit are exchanges, not Bitcoin itself; this money thinks more clearly than those shouting trade calls.
On the other side, tonight Deribit has 134,000 BTC options expiring, nominal $10.48 billion, with the max pain point at 78000—current price 78261, right on target. Put/Call ratio is only 0.53; after such a big dump, not many dare to bet on further drops.
The 18,270 BTC stolen, I tend to think it can't be dumped all at once in the short term. Mixing channels have been tightly controlled these years, with KYC and on-chain tracking, laundering out requires a lot of effort. Jiang Zhuoer’s calculations are similar: Binance's gross outflow is 5.64 billion, after freezing 3 billion, 2.64 billion remains, accounting for 1.6% of user assets, not comparable to Bybit's 9% back then; the withdrawal wave is likely more noise than substance.
Fees are still positive now, OI at $2.69 billion hasn't shrunk much. My judgment: this wave is a liquidity shock, not a fundamental breach. But I won't rush to go long here; panic bottoms are always formed by the market itself, wait for it to stabilize before talking.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 The 18,270 BTC worth 1.4 billion USD in the hacker's hands are basically not going to be dumped in the short term; instead, they are effectively locked in the market. $BTC $ETH $SNDK are completely different from ETH. Previously, BTC could still be laundered through mixers like ChipMixer, Bitcoin Fog, and Samourai, but now all of those have been shut down. Mainstream CEXs have strict KYC controls, and any deposits are immediately frozen. Exchanges like BTC-e that accepted everyone are long gone, and the batch of stolen coins from Mt. Gox has no way to be sold off on a large scale. In 2016, when Bitfinex was hacked for 120,000 coins, the hacker took 6 years to launder a small portion, and in the end, the FBI recovered 94,000 coins. Back then, on-chain tracking was almost non-existent. Now, after ten years, companies like Chainalysis, Elliptic, and Arkham monitor the industry; stolen addresses are flagged red within minutes, making any movement impossible. Binance suffered heavy losses this time and will definitely fight hard to recover the funds and won't let it go easily. So these 18,270 BTC are not impossible to launder, but the process is slow, heavily discounted, and can be intercepted at any time. This is probably the only consolation in this incident. #US Core PCE rose to 3.1% in September, keeping rate hike expectations high #OKX, ICE, and Trade.xyz join forces to push perpetual contracts into the US compliant market #Intel Q4 earnings guidance below expectations, stock price plummets Long positions liquidated across the board, ETH long liquidations nearly 57 million U
📊4-hour liquidation data overview
✅ ETH: Total liquidations 70.9748 million U, accounting for 37.4%
Long liquidations 56.9589 million U | Short liquidations 14.016 million U
✅ BTC: Total liquidations 52.6263 million U, accounting for 27.73%
Long liquidations 34.027 million U | Short liquidations 18.5993 million U
✅ XRP: Total liquidations 6.4486 million U, accounting for 3.4%
Long liquidations 5.5697 million U | Short liquidations 0.8789 million U
Key points
This round of downward market movement mainly targets cleaning out high-position long holders. ETH long liquidations lead by a wide margin, with nearly 57 million U of long positions wiped out; BTC and XRP also show long liquidation volumes significantly exceeding shorts.
A large amount of high-position chasing chips stopped losses, panic selling concentrated. After short-term selling pressure is released, the market can easily see a quick wick rebound. Avoid blindly shorting during the downtrend; beware of bear traps and reversals.I just checked OKX ETH perpetual contracts; the long positions have already outnumbered the shorts by more than three to one, yet the funding rate has turned negative.
The long-short ratio peaked at 3.27 between 11 AM and 3 PM, the highest in four days. The settlement funding rate at 8 AM was -0.003%, the first negative rate in over half a month, meaning shorts are effectively paying longs.
At first, I thought with more people going long, the funding rate should rise. But it doesn't add up: while the number of longs increased, the capital hasn't followed. The top 5% of large accounts' position ratio remains near the four-day low, and the perpetual price is still significantly below the spot price.
Yesterday's prediction was to check if the top 5% position ratio would return above 0.87 by this time today; if so, I'd be wrong. But this morning it was still 0.83, so it didn't hit that mark.
Retail investors keep buying the dip, while large holders are pressing on the short side, which is why the funding rate is suppressed into negative territory. If the settlement at 8 AM tomorrow flips back to positive, it means the big money has also jumped in, and I'll admit I was wrong.Meme coins can't hold up without news; once the market drops, their true nature is exposed.
$DOGE fell 6% back to $0.074, while $SHIB and $PEPE all shrank collectively. Before this round of decline, meme sentiment was already low, with the fear and greed index dropping straight from 46 to 37, entering the fear zone.
The issue now isn't which meme to pick, but to avoid catching a falling knife. Historical patterns show that after exchange-level black swan events, meme coins usually need to bottom out for another week or two. If you really want to position yourself, wait for DOGE to confirm a second bottom around $0.07 before considering it. Acting now is most likely just helping the whales.#闪迪Q1营收同比增378%，Q2营收指引强劲 $SNDK $xSNDK SanDisk's earnings report is indeed as I expected, very impressive. But why did the stock still decline today? I believe it's mainly due to the positive news being fully priced in. Since SK Hynix released its earnings report a day earlier, and its stock rose, it drove SanDisk's rise as well. So the market had already anticipated and positioned for SanDisk's earnings beating expectations ahead of time. Therefore, there was a decline today, but this decline is healthy and won't last long; a rebound upward is possible later. Because SanDisk's fundamentals are not bad, everyone can still look forward to it. When I saw this message, it reminded me of an old question discussed in traditional futures exchanges about rules: Should those who put in more money have greater say? In the futures market, no matter how familiar the voting methods are, they cannot replace the inspection of core tasks like delivery and risk control.
Gemini co-founder Cameron Winklevoss stated that capital markets have used stakeholder voting for hundreds of years, and token-holder voting is just an on-chain implementation; Zcash does not need to reinvent governance mechanisms. He believes privacy is the core goal and calls for the termination of Zcash Community Grants (ZCG).
I agree with putting privacy back on the main track, but I do not agree with directly stamping traditional shareholder voting onto on-chain governance. The equity relationships of company shareholders are relatively clear, but the token holders, developers, and privacy users in crypto networks do not necessarily overlap; if opinions are expressed only according to token holdings, the needs of actual users may be overshadowed by financial weight, which is my concern.
On the other hand, terminating a funding mechanism does not automatically mean resources will flow to privacy development. I pay more attention to whether alternative arrangements can take over development support; otherwise, having one less governance process does not necessarily mean more product capability. My judgment is that returning to the mission makes sense, but what exactly to withdraw still needs separate discussion.
Are there friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? If you participate in such voting, would you copy shareholder voting by equity, or reserve separate seats for developers and actual users? #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 先给兄弟们捋捋这件大事。10月29日，OKX的创始人Star发话了，说OKX要和洲际交易所，还有链上永续合约平台Trade.xyz联手，把永续合约正式推进美国受监管的市场。具体的玩法是：ICE已经和Trade.xyz签了协议，未来由ICE建独立的交易和清算体系，并担任独家运营方，然后通过ICE和OKX的合资企业卖给美国散户。最牛的是，这套东西是基于Hyperliquid的技术去建的。消息一出，在全市场大流血的背景下，HYPE直接逆势拉升，24小时涨幅一度超过13%。 小马哥的个人看法是：这是“招安”与“逆袭”的完美剧本。 很多新韭菜可能不明白这有多猛。以前老美对永续合约那是严防死守，觉得风险太大。现在纽交所的母公司亲自下场建清算体系，说明啥？说明传统金融终于承认了链上衍生品是个好东西，想吃这块肥肉了。 而且最戏剧性的是Hyperliquid。一个纯去中心化的草根平台，不仅没被传统巨头干死，反而成了巨头建合规市场的“底层技术提供商”。这绝对是属于DeFi的超级高光时刻。社区里都在传索罗斯量子基金的前操盘A funding rate of 0.0013% per hour caught my attention more than that rising line. Anyone living day to day knows that a slow dripping faucet doesn’t mean the water meter isn’t running. After retiring and learning about digital assets, I’ve gotten used to first looking at those inconspicuous but ongoing expenses.
This time $ZRO rose briefly but still fell throughout the day; the data provided is from perpetual contract markets. My view is that this is not yet evidence of a trend reversal. For those using leverage, the cost of holding positions is actually more tangible. With a positive funding rate, longs have to pay; if this rate persists, waiting for a price rebound also incurs costs. However, this is a conditional inference—the rate itself can change, so you can’t just keep projecting current numbers forward.
A reminder to young friends: don’t just ask how far the price can go, also consider how long you can afford to wait. When you see this kind of volatility, do you factor the funding rate into your judgment, or mainly focus on price and volume?#OKX, ICE, and Trade.xyz join forces to promote perpetual contracts entering the compliant US market
The leader has something to say
OKX is teaming up with ICE and Trade.xyz to push perpetual contracts into the US compliant market. Moreover, this cooperation is built on Hyperliquid technology. Once the news broke, HYPE surged against the trend amid a general decline in mainstream crypto assets, with a 24-hour increase exceeding 13% at one point, now stabilizing at 3.53%. OKB also rose by 3.10%.
I believe this marks a major turning point in the perpetual contracts sector. Previously, these decentralized derivatives were always pushing the boundaries of compliance recklessly. Now, with the New York Stock Exchange's parent company (ICE) directly stepping in as the exclusive operator, it effectively brings this sector into the mainstream regulatory framework.
Some comments say that the Soros Quantum Fund operator has entered the market, which means capital is voting with its feet. Once compliance expectations open up, the potential for incremental capital emerges. HYPE, as the underlying technology provider, is reaping the most direct benefits.
For the overall market, this indicates that the crypto market's compliance process is accelerating, which is good in the long term. But today, Bitcoin is still hovering near the 80,000 mark, facing short-term pressure from the Fed's hawkish stance.
Let's see if the 80,000 level can hold. If it doesn't, expect a deeper pullback, with resistance above at 84,000 to 85,000. Do not chase the rally or panic sell; set your stop losses properly.
The above analysis is time-sensitive; make sure to set your stop losses. Good luck. $BTC $ETH $ZEC #闪迪Q1营收同比增378%，Q2营收指引强劲
This financial report makes me even more certain that the storage industry is undergoing a boom cycle driven by AI demand!
The most noteworthy aspect of $SNDK is not the revenue growth rate, but the pricing power of NAND flash.
The biggest pain point in the storage industry used to be oversupply; when prices fell, profits quickly shrank. But now, with AI data center expansion, continuous growth in enterprise SSD demand, and manufacturers controlling capacity, there is room for improvement in NAND pricing and product mix.
However, the 378% growth should not be simply interpreted as nearly a fourfold expansion in end-user demand; the financial scope after business segmentation and the year-over-year base must also be considered.
Looking at the supply chain, $MU is simultaneously involved in DRAM and NAND, $SKHYNIX has a clear advantage in the HBM field, and Samsung covers HBM, DRAM, and NAND.
I believe the most critical change in this market cycle is that the market is beginning to reassess the profit elasticity of storage companies.
But be aware, storage price increases are a double-edged sword. Price hikes drive profit improvement but may also stimulate manufacturers to expand production, eventually reversing the supply-demand balance.
Next, focus on Q2 gross margin guidance, enterprise SSD orders, and NAND contract pricing.
If price increases can continue to translate into profits, $SNDK's performance still has support.
The biggest risk in the storage cycle is not poor performance, but that when performance is at its best, the market has already priced in future growth.Is Intel's 22% plunge just the beginning? Storage price hikes are backfiring on the entire PC supply chain
After-hours saw a big bearish candle, with Intel directly hammered down 22%, the market voting with its feet. Chen Liwu also laid it out: PC demand is weak, but memory prices are soaring wildly, and this gap might not be filled until the first half of 2027.
The essence is simple—AI computing power is popping champagne, while traditional PCs are fixing the roof. A couple of years ago, everyone was hyping the “storage super cycle,” but now the aftereffects have arrived: upstream players like SK Hynix, Samsung, and Micron are making huge profits, while downstream PC manufacturers and chipmakers are being ground down by high storage costs. End products aren’t selling, costs won’t come down, and production is becoming increasingly painful.
So, don’t get itchy to catch the falling knife just because the drop is big. A rebound in a declining sector doesn’t mean a turnaround; where the money flows in the supply chain is the key. AI computing power and upstream storage are still attracting capital, and the tough times for the traditional PC chain may not be over yet. Hold your position steady, don’t get carried away. #英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 $INTC ETH is currently fluctuating narrowly around 2220, facing dense rebound selling pressure above, while the strong support zone at the 2200 whole number and 2190 is being repeatedly tested. The short-term trading logic should mainly follow the downtrend by shorting on rallies, combined with long positions on the right-side rebound from the extremely oversold and very weak support zone. Blind bottom-fishing without basis is strictly prohibited. Risk control and configuration discipline: This plan strictly implements a balanced risk control strategy. Single position size is recommended not to exceed 10% of total funds, maximum leverage for opening a position must not exceed 5x, single maximum loss is strictly controlled within 1.0% of total funds, and trading must be unconditionally stopped if the cumulative maximum loss for the day reaches 3.0%. #FedKeepsRatesUnchanged
#USCorePCERisesTo3.1%
🏦 FOMC holds 3.75%-4% Oct 29 vote 10-2 — 2nd straight hold? Actually 2nd cut cycle pause. Miran wanted 50bps cut, Schmid wanted no cut. Powell: Dec cut "not foregone conclusion" meeting-by-meeting. Inflation remains somewhat elevated, job gains slowed, gov shutdown clouds data. QT to end Dec 1 after 3-year runoff. Market pricing Dec cut 67.2% vs 49.9% before minutes. Dow 52,475 +0.19%. Pause = Fed watching tariffs + labor. Next: Dec FOMC. 1930 Market Update: BTC Leads the Correction
BTC is trading near $77.8K, with $77K–$77.5K as key support. Reclaiming $79K could signal recovery, while a breakdown may push it toward $75.5K.
$ETH trades around $2,220, with $2,200 as critical support. $XRP sits near $1.23, with support at $1.20.
Overall: The market remains bearish, with altcoins showing weakness. Until BTC reclaims $79K, risk management matters more than chasing a bottom.
Healthy correction or further downside?
#USCorePCERisesTo3.1% $BTC just gave everyone a little heart attack with that sudden drop I checked the 4H chart, and price plunged to $76,472 before bouncing back to around $78,285. But the recovery still needs proof because BTC is trading below the 5, 10 and 20 moving averages. I’m watching $76,472 as support and $79,400–$80,265 as the recovery zone. Will buyers step in properly this time, or is another dip waiting? 👀Good morning, crypto friends, this is Mouse's liquidation quick report
Below is the $ETH 24-hour total network liquidation data.
The total liquidation amount for ETH in 24 hours is: $365 million.
Among them
The 24-hour long position liquidation amount is: $304 million.
The 24-hour short position liquidation amount is: $60.8049 million. The transaction keeps loading in a loop, should I click again?
The thing that makes me most anxious about on-chain operations is when the page keeps loading but the price is still moving. But at this time, I first check the transaction status.
The page not updating doesn’t mean the transaction wasn’t sent. If I have the transaction hash, I go to the corresponding block explorer to see: is it still pending, successful, or failed? Before confirming, submitting a new transaction might turn one operation into two.
Take a regular Ethereum account transaction as an example; transactions have an order. If the previous one isn’t processed properly, subsequent operations might be affected. Wallet features like speed-up or cancel also require waiting for on-chain processing; they don’t take effect immediately after clicking.
My records keep the submission time, transaction hash, and final result, making it easier to distinguish whether the issue is on-chain or just a display problem.
The faster the market moves, the more I want to understand what I’ve already done before deciding the next step.
When your transaction gets stuck, do you check the status first or can’t help but click again?S1Quant Research Observation | How Do Exchange Security Incidents Affect Bitcoin?
Exchange thefts do not correspond to a fixed pattern of BTC price rises or falls. The current preliminary sample size is insufficient to confirm a stable directional impact, and post-incident returns cannot be directly regarded as a result of the theft. When assessing risk, focus should be on three transmission channels:
Asset Flow and Potential Selling Pressure
Whether the stolen assets include BTC and whether they enter the trading market provide more explanatory power than the nominal loss amount. It is necessary to distinguish between abnormal transfers, cross-chain exchanges, and actual sales; these should not be equated directly.
Solvency and Liquidity
Whether losses can be covered, whether deposits and withdrawals return to normal, and whether asset and liability disclosures are sufficient determine if the security incident further evolves into a credit crisis. Proof of reserves still needs to be evaluated in conjunction with liabilities and fund availability.
Macroeconomic Environment and Leverage Structure
Interest rate expectations, capital flows, and centralized clearing may amplify price volatility. When analyzing the impact of incidents, it is necessary to distinguish between industry shocks and concurrent market factors.
Core Judgment: The amount stolen determines the scale of the incident, while actual asset disposition, solvency, and market liquidity jointly determine how risk is transmitted. Historical averages should not be directly used as a basis for shorting or bottom-fishing.$ETH Who is buyingSo, from the outside, it looks like Binance's hot wallet transferred the funds out by itself. On-chain, there is no "external address transferring assets" action visible; it just looks like Binance 14 is making a normal outgoing transaction.
The attacker did not know the real-time nonce of Binance 14 (that wallet was still continuously sending transactions). So he stuffed 50 authorizations into one transaction, with the nonce ranging from N to N+49, betting that one of them would hit. In the end, only one took effect.04:41 and 04:59: The attacker called another function 0x043ff9d2 on Binance 14; within the same minute, Hot Wallet 34 transferred out 780 million and 43 million USDC respectively. The attacker borrowed the permissions of Binance 14 for this contract.
05:04: Another sweep, sweeping away 1,699.92 ETH.
05:22 to 06:02: Breaking down the amounts. RLUSD 88.5 million, UNI 7.02 million, PEPE 7.77 trillion, wBETH 29,934, ENA 217.5 million, each sent to brand new addresses, with each address pre-funded with 0.5 to 1 ETH for Gas.
05:44: During this process, another successful sweep occurred on Binance 14, sweeping the newly deposited funds.
Only 3 minutes and 24 seconds passed from the delegation to the first sweep. But Binance's risk control system took no interception action. Main attack: 40 minutes (October 30, 04:21 – 06:02)
04:21:00: Submitted an EIP-7702 type transaction, delegating the code of 0x63e8…6fAe to Binance 14, address 0x28C6…1d60. The same transaction included 50 authorizations, with only 1 hitting the nonce.
04:24:23: Main sweep occurred. Binance 14 initiated the call itself, transferring out 167,464 ETH plus 63 types of tokens to 0x5227…2f8c, including about 1.615 billion USDT. The fee was 0.0004 ETH, less than 1 dollar.
04:24:47: Binance 16 added 28,005.6 ETH to the same address, almost seamlessly.
04:30 to 04:33: Started splitting USDT, 500 million sent to 0x9749…C762, 200 million sent to 0x0Ddf…697e.
04:38: 195,460 ETH transferred in one go to 0x8532…43D4. This was the largest single transfer. $AAVE, can weekend pricing enable Aave Horizon to expand tokenized assets? Aave Horizon uses Chainlink's weekend pricing service for traditional assets, filling the price reference gap for stocks and other targets during market closures. Continuous pricing reduces the risk of collateral valuation gaps but also introduces oracle and liquidation risks when liquidity is thin. If collateral scale, borrowing demand, and protocol revenue grow, business value increases; if weekend prices deviate from spot, triggering liquidations or stagnation in scale, expansion expectations should be lowered.I'm the type to draw lines, but before even drawing them, I remind myself not to be misled by liquidation numbers. 📈 When I encounter such news, I focus on spot volume, changes in contract open interest, and whether the price can hold the breakout zone after a pullback following a surge, without rushing to label the trend.
OKX's public forced liquidation data shows that in the past hour, there were 31 forced liquidations on the $SOL USDT perpetual contract, totaling at least $830,000, with shorts accounting for 97%, and the largest single liquidation about $480,000. This wave is indeed a short squeeze, but I think it serves more as a risk warning for short-term leveraged traders than as a fundamental indicator.
One liquidation accounts for more than half of the total amount, and concentrated liquidations can amplify perception; forced short liquidations do not directly prove sustained active buying. If the price rises while open interest declines, I tend to interpret it as driven by position reductions. This is my observation framework. Next, I will watch whether spot volume can take over; don't mistake liquidation noise for trend confirmation.Is a project financially strong just because its treasury is rich?
When I see a project announce the size of its treasury, I first scroll down to see: what exactly is inside?
Suppose the treasury shows a balance of 100 million, but 80 million of that is the project's own tokens, that's completely different from holding 100 million in cash. If the token price drops, the treasury's valuation will shrink; if they really want to sell tokens to cover expenses, they have to consider how much the market can absorb.
So when I analyze spot holdings, I separate stablecoins, other assets, and the project's own tokens, then look for public disclosures of expenses, liabilities, and fund usage plans. The on-chain balance you can check doesn't necessarily represent the project's entire assets.
If there's only a total amount without asset details, I write "insufficient information" in my observation notes and won't directly label it as well-funded.
For me, what's more worth tracking is whether the project still has resources to keep going after the market cools down.
When you look at a project's treasury, do you pay more attention to the total amount or to what exactly it holds inside? SanDisk's earnings report first surged then fell: What exactly is the market repricing?
SanDisk's earnings report numbers are not bad. Revenue reached $11 billion, a 23% quarter-over-quarter increase; data center business grew 61% quarter-over-quarter. The company's revenue guidance for the next quarter is also higher than this quarter's actual revenue.
But the market did not cheer all the way. In the hour after the earnings release, the price surged to 1378, then fell back; later it dipped to 1261.6 before gradually rebounding.
I think the market's current debate focuses on how long this high growth can last. Strong storage demand and increased profits are already reflected in the report; what investors need to calculate next is whether data center demand can continue to grow, and whether product prices and profit margins can be maintained. A good earnings report does not automatically mean acceleration can continue every quarter in the future.
But here we must also consider a counterpoint: the company still expects revenue growth next quarter, and the data center business is expanding. Simply judging that storage demand has peaked based on contract declines is also untenable. Whether this is a cooling of expectations or short-term capital adjustment still requires subsequent price and operational data verification.
On the chart, I am first watching the hourly high near contract 1312. If it recovers and holds on a pullback, then look at the post-earnings surge near 1378; if the rebound is blocked and it falls below 1261.6 again, it indicates this recovery is not yet solid.
$SNDK #闪迪Q1营收同比增378%，Q2营收指引强劲 #OKX星球话题来啦 $5.6 billion swept away in 40 minutes
The night before: 18 hours of preparation (October 28–29)
From October 28: The attacker’s initiating address 0x7C86…5CA0 received three transfers of about 0.1 ETH each from Tornado Cash, specifically to pay for Gas. This address had no prior connection with Binance.
October 29, 10:29: Deployed the first sweep contract 0x19be…f2bf, which was later abandoned.
October 29, 21:51: Wrote EIP-7702 delegations to two test wallets. Neither wallet belongs to Binance; they were external wallets found by the attacker.
October 29, 22:20 and 22:24: First and second rehearsals, calling sweep to empty these two test wallets. The first attempt may have had issues, so it was repeated four minutes later.
October 29, 23:59: Deployed a revised contract 0x63e8…6fAe, which ultimately took effect on Binance.
October 30, 00:21 to 00:30: Third rehearsal, switched to a third wallet, with two delegations plus one sweep.
Then silence for 3 hours and 51 minutes. Until the attack began. $AMZN Amazon's earnings report indeed did not exceed expectations, consistent with my previous judgment.
Q3 revenue was $20.194 billion, below the market expectation of $20.222 billion; earnings per share were $1.89, also below the expected $1.97.
The brightest spot was AWS, with revenue of $45.98 billion, a 39% year-over-year increase, marking the fastest growth in nearly five years, and AI computing demand remains strong. However, the problem is also clear: the company expects capital expenditures to reach $220 billion in 2026, and further increase in 2027, with the cash flow pressure from huge investments not to be ignored.
Additionally, although operating profit grew 61% year-over-year, overall revenue and EPS still did not meet market expectations.
This is also why I was previously skeptical about the earnings beating expectations: no matter how fast AWS grows, investment costs and profit conversion need to be considered. Amazon's long-term AI story still holds, but in the short term, the stock price needs to face the dual test of performance expectations and capital expenditures.
#亚马逊Q3营收略逊预期，AWS增速达近五年最快水平 Is CORE really done for? I went through today's data carefully.
Screenshot from OKEx at 11:54: CORE/USDT perpetual contract at 0.01543, down 11.42% in 24 hours, high 0.01770, low 0.01403, volume 309 million tokens / 4.7705 million USDT. Back-calculating yesterday's close: 0.01543 ÷ (1−0.1142) ≈ 0.01742, daily high-low range 26.2% ((0.01770−0.01403) ÷ 0.01403). On the 15-minute chart, EMA5 is 0.01537, EMA10 0.01532, EMA20 0.01540—all clustered together; MACD's DIFF −0.00016 crosses above DEA −0.00024, histogram +0.00016—a golden cross underwater, short-term bleeding stopped, trend not reversed.
The real sting is the 0.01403 figure. The historical low recorded by Script Home on October 29 was 0.016358 (spot basis), and today’s wick pierced below that. A new low means no previous low to act as support; below is a blank slate.
Whether it’s done for depends on the ledger. The same project's stage gains: last 30 days −25.27%, last 6 months −52.37%, last year −92.52%; Coinranking’s monthly closes form the same downward line, from $0.206 in October 2025 to $0.0279 in March 2026. Market cap size: CoinMarketCap lists circulating market cap at $23.22 million, ranked 608; CoinGecko lists $25.15 million, ranked 749. Their circulating supply metrics differ, but the scale is around twenty million dollars.
Three events led to this point. At the end of March, Colend liquidation cascade dropped price from about 0.13 to near 0.03 within hours, $130 million volume hitting a $34 million market cap; on September 1, validator over-rewards triggered an emergency hard fork, with Coinbase, Bithumb, Coinone, Bitget, LBank restricting deposits and withdrawals; on October 28, the project officially announced that initial contributors Rich Rines and Brendon Sedo stepped down, handing block production to independent validators. The project calls this the next step in decentralization, but the market reads it as "people have left."
Today’s drop isn’t entirely its own fault. Binance was suspected of a hacker attack early morning, Bitcoin fell below $78,000, down 4% intraday, with over 180,000 liquidations across the network totaling $1.112 billion in 24 hours (China Fund News 10-30). A small cap with 0.88 correlation to Bitcoin fell 11% when the big cap dropped 4%.
I only trust one line: the daily close must reclaim above 0.01742 and hold for three days before we can talk about a bottom; if not, the words "done for" are not insults, but descriptions.