Orbit Post Sitemap
$ETH Is this rally a real bull market return? Or just a fake pump to lure buyers?
This wave of ETH rising from 2245 to 2430 looks more like a short squeeze rebound, not a bull market comeback.
Three main reasons to suspect a fake pump:
The rise is not driven by ETH itself — the US midterm election clarity triggered a collective rebound in risk assets; ETH just bounced sharply, pushed up by shorts, so sustainability is doubtful.
The midterm structure is broken — after breaking below the ascending channel, the rebound to the 2440–2520 supply zone was suppressed, showing lower highs and lower lows.
Institutions haven’t returned — in October, spot ETH ETFs saw net outflows of about $1.35 billion, bleeding for 23 consecutive trading days.
Key levels:
Support at 2410; holding this barely maintains the rebound structure.
Breaking below 2360 basically ends this rebound, with targets down to 2323 or even 2250.
To prove this is not a fake pump, volume must increase and hold above 2520 to absorb the supply zone; two failed attempts at 2480–2520 likely mean the third will be a distribution phase. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ Wow, that's a lot of information.
Bitcoin mining company MARA has an address cluster that sent 1,650 BTC to institutional platforms in the past 12 hours, which was about $132.8 million at the time.
On-chain data shows the destination is institutional OTC desks like Galaxy and Copper, with large internal transfers in between. Some are shouting that it's another sell-off, while others say it might be OTC turnover or freeing up funds for AI infrastructure. Transfers don't equal transactions or market dumps; the hard data stops at the transfer out step.
Someone counted that over the past roughly 4 weeks, more than 2,600 BTC have been moved out. BTC's current price is still hovering around $80,600. When mining companies move, the market tightens up a bit, but don't imagine they've sold everything.
Newbies are advised to watch more and trade less; when buying coins, only buy $BTC ETH Short Squeeze Rebound: Mainly Driven by Liquidations, Spot Funds Lack Follow-Through
ETH price volatility reached 6.89% intraday, with a total network liquidation of 209 million in 24 hours, of which short liquidations accounted for 126 million, or 60.33%, showing a typical short covering-driven market.
The peak liquidation occurred between 23:00-00:00 on November 4, with the largest single liquidation amount close to 38 million; the current liquidation scale is 1.9 times the 7-day average. Short-term sentiment has reached an extreme range but is only 0.59 times the 30-day peak, not yet reaching a full market frenzy.
Funding signals are bearish: the futures market shows net inflows only in ultra-short cycles of 5-15 minutes, while 30 minutes and longer cycles show net outflows across the board, with a 12-hour cumulative net outflow of about 159 million; the spot market is weaker, with net outflows across all cycles except a small inflow in 30 minutes, and a 12-hour spot net outflow exceeding 31 million.
Overall, this rebound is driven by short stop-losses, lacking incremental spot funds to support it. Mid-term holders are exiting on the rebound, and short-term caution is advised for a potential pullback after the rally. $ETH On the same day, Fidelity bought $237 million, and BlackRock sold $201 million.🔄
BTC ETF had a net inflow of $74.6 million yesterday, ending a three-day outflow streak.
Fidelity's FBTC absorbed $236.7 million in a single day, usually just twenty to thirty million.
BlackRock's IBIT, however, saw an outflow of $201.2 million.
I don't think this is a change of heart; it's the same batch of money switching places to take sides.
BTC is holding at $80,000, with $82,000 as the next hurdle.
$BTC Bitcoin is showing signs of recovery, but the bigger question is: where is the fresh capital coming from? US Spot Bitcoin ETFs have recorded three consecutive days of net outflows, including approximately $116M on November 3. Although selling pressure has slowed, institutional inflows have yet to return. Another concern is corporate treasury accumulation. Companies that were major $BTC buyers earlier this year have gradually slowed their purchases since August, making ETF demand even more imporETH rebounds 6%, but Wall Street has been withdrawing for 37 consecutive days!
ETH rebounded about 6% today, currently priced around $2,428. But Glassnode's data is harsh: the US spot Ethereum ETF has had no net inflows since September 29—37 full days, with 23 consecutive trading days of outflows, marking the longest streak since its launch in July 2024; about $1.6 billion outflow in October, while September still saw a net inflow of $832 million. The fastest to run was BlackRock's ETHA, which alone saw $156 million outflow on October 30, accounting for nearly half.
On-chain activity is also quiet: the 14-day moving average of active addresses dropped to about 365,000 on October 17, the lowest since December last year. Prices are rebounding, but users haven't returned.
Whales are selling too: an address dormant for a year just woke up, first redeeming coins from Aave, then selling about 2,618 ETH and stETH at an average price of $2,428, pocketing $6.36 million. Throughout October, dormant whales transferred over $140 million worth of ETH.
This bullish candle mainly relies on post-election sentiment and short-covering, with over $500 million in short liquidations in 24 hours. Prices are rising, institutions are withdrawing, whales are selling; before the first net inflow day for the ETF appears, consider this a sentiment repair. Just like my dieting: moving on the surface, but actually gaining weight.
$ETH $BTC I see many friends worried about the prospects of Crypto after the midterm elections, but I believe that the Democrats taking control of both houses of Congress is not an absolute positive or negative for Crypto. Although the market often compresses political outcomes into a single candlestick, like yesterday's sharp drop of $TRUMP, the transmission speed of laws, institutions, and budgets is much slower. Banks and payment companies will not directly stop building financial infrastructure just because political uncertainty increases; they will just pay more attention to compliance boundaries and policy reversibility. Therefore, I suggest everyone focus on the following aspects that are more relevant to our interests:
Whether stablecoin regulations will continue to advance;
Whether the market structure bill will be rescheduled;
Whether regulatory appointments will change;
Whether tokenization and prediction markets will face stronger scrutiny
That's all, DYOR #USMidtermElections: Democrats win control of both houses of Congress The Dow Jones rose 3.03%, and many people interpret the post-election rise in this observation as a general positive signal. I think about it differently: it seems more like a retreat of uncertainty rather than a signal that the entire industry is benefiting.
First, a divided government may limit policy changes, but fewer policy disruptions do not necessarily mean companies will earn more; second, healthcare is rising while oil is under pressure, indicating that capital is still selective about industries. I am more cautious about directly interpreting the index rise as a positive for US stock RWA. Does putting assets on-chain really mitigate the underlying industry risks? Those who disagree are welcome to debate.When the U.S. stock market adopts Crypto-style trading hours and tools, how much boundary remains between TradFi and crypto finance? Written by: Frank, MSX Mactong While the U.S. midterm election stirred global market nerves, a major news that could rewrite Wall Street trading history was overlooked by many. On November 3, Mike Selig, Chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), announced that single-stock perpetual contracts were approved for trading on a regulated U.S. exchange for the first time, under a dual regulatory framework of the CFTC and SEC. This means that the "perpetual contracts"—previously popularized mainly by cryptocurrency trading platforms—have finally crossed into the regulatory framework of the traditional U.S. securities market. To put it plainly, Wall Street has started learning from Crypto, "borrowing" its most successful financial invention of the past decade—the perpetual contract (Perps). Even more interestingly, this change is not entirely led by Wall Street. Over the past six months, Crypto trading platforms have successively attempted to bring U.S. stock assets like Apple, Nvidia, Tesla, etc., onto the blockchain, reorganizing the trading of these assets with perpetual contracts, stablecoin margin, and even 24/7 order books. Now, even the New York Stock Exchange parent company ICE is considering introducing Hyperliquid's perpetual contract infrastructure into the U.S. A year ago, we discussed whether U.S. stocks could "never close" like Crypto; a year later, "Behind BTC's Four-Year Cycle: Why Should the Crypto Community Be Cautious Every U.S. Midterm Election?"
The so-called "four-year cycle" in the crypto world and the U.S. midterm elections do indeed coincide in timing, and there may be indirect connections through U.S. monetary policy, fiscal policy, regulatory expectations, and market risk appetite.
However, one point must be clarified: BTC's four-year cycle is mainly driven by Bitcoin's halving mechanism and market liquidity, while midterm elections more significantly influence macro policy expectations and short-term market sentiment.
The two may resonate, but it should not be simply understood that whenever the U.S. has midterm elections, the crypto market will inevitably enter a bull or bear market.
#美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 $BTC $ETH $ZEC $BTC is now around 80,700, basically moving sideways between 80,200–80,900 since this morning. The 24h high is 81,200, about +3.5% relative to last night's low.
There is finally some activity in the spot market: According to Trader T / CryptoBriefing data, the US spot BTC ETF had a net inflow of about $74.61 million on Wednesday, ending several days of continuous outflows; IBIT had a single-day outflow of $201.2 million, but FBTC's inflow of $236.7 million supported the market.
$ETH ETF simultaneously had a net inflow of about $53 million, breaking a 7-day streak of net outflows. ETH is currently priced around 2,430, with a 24h high of 2,451.
OKX perpetual fee rates are 0.01% for BTC and about 0.0044% for ETH. Contract leverage is not very active, with BTC contract open interest around $2.695 billion.
My view is that after the short squeeze, the spot ETF finally turned positive, which is more meaningful than shorts continuing to be squeezed, but there has still been a cumulative outflow of about $1.07 billion over 5 days. Don't rush to call a reversal before holding above 81,500.
$BTC $ETH【 $BTC Bear Market Reaches Day 396, Historical Bottom Window Has Arrived, Is It Time to Buy the Dip?】
BTC has fallen from the $126,000 high on October 6, 2025, and has now reached day 395, which is indeed close to the historical bear market bottom time window. In the past three major bear markets, the time from peak to bottom was 406 days, 364 days, and 378 days respectively, averaging about 383 days. According to this statistic, BTC has entered the historical bottom time range.
The most notable feature of this correction is the significant contraction in the decline. At the end of June, BTC bottomed at about $58,500, with a maximum drawdown of about 53%, then rebounded to around $80,000. Currently, it is still about 38% below the historical high. The participation of ETFs and institutional funds has indeed changed the market structure, and large holders have also continuously increased their positions. However, institutional buying has not been strong enough to prevent the market from falling again.
Recent fund data is actually not very optimistic; the US spot BTC ETFs had net outflows on October 30, November 2, and 3, totaling about $1.158 billion. On November 4, BTC was still near $78,000, still some distance from the key $80,000 to $82,000 range.
Personally, I think BTC has entered the second half of the bear market, but the bottom confirmation is still one step away. The historical time window provides a reference for buying the dip. What is truly worth looking forward to is a firm stand back above $80,000 to $82,000, along with a resumption of net inflows into ETFs. Now is a good time to start paying attention to opportunities for phased accumulation, focusing on your own comfort zone.Some family members say the crypto industry is cooling off, but where is it cooling off? This is just the rotation of bull and bear cycles. They also say now is a good time to bottom-fish Web3; I even doubt if I heard it right, with Bitcoin at 81,000 and Ethereum over 2,400. The all-time highs in 2025 are 126,000 and 4,900 respectively.
Has it dropped a lot? How is this the time to bottom-fish? It's precisely because of people like you, plus these data companies constantly going all-in buying, that the bear market shakeout for Bitcoin and Ethereum hasn't been thorough enough. How can it rise afterward?
It has only dropped a little; even if it rallies later, it will all be selling pressure. How much can it really rise? This bear market is completely different from the despair of 2022. Back then, when FTX collapsed and went bankrupt, I was doubting if the industry was going to perish.
When bottom-fishing and going all-in at 18,000, everyone was worried it might drop to four figures. This round, the lowest was only 57,800. Is there any pain? None at all. I'm increasingly feeling that the next two or three years will have moments of bloodshed and turmoil. I hope that by then I still have the courage and confidence to go all-in like in 2022, waiting for my own miracle moment.Altcoin profits have dropped to just over 10%, and even short-term traders are losing money. After reading this, I feel it looks more like a short-term profit effect fading away, so we can't directly draw conclusions about the long-term prospects of the crypto industry yet. However, if the downturn drags on, new projects issuing tokens and raising funds might be affected. Just making the odds look attractive doesn't necessarily mean people will buy in. I'm a bit curious whether those projects lined up to issue tokens next still plan to launch at their original valuations?$BTC That mining company owned by Trump's family, American Bitcoin involving Eric Trump, released its Q3 financial report showing a net profit of $126 million, whereas the previous quarter had a loss of $57.2 million.
Turning a loss into profit sounds almost like cheating.
But looking into the details is amusing—did this profit really come from mining, or from the appreciation of the coins held on the books? Mining companies' financials are often like this: when coin prices rise, changes in fair value get stuffed into profits, which is much easier than actually running mining machines. If you say they earn from electricity and computing power, I don't quite believe it.
Crypto companies are like this now; the business is just a shell, holding coins is the essence. What's the relationship with the holders? The coins they hold represent a market force that won't be easily sold, effectively an invisible lock-up. But on the flip side, if coin prices fall, their next quarter's financials can flip back to losses.
This story tells me one thing—don't treat mining companies' profits as industry demand; many are just paper riches. At the 80,780 level, don't get carried away just because of a financial report headline. $BTC Looking at the amount VS looking at the withdrawals, I care more about the latter. CoinDesk reported that Zcash's Sprout privacy pool, launched in 2016, is about to be frozen, with about 12,200 $ZEC remaining in the pool, valued at approximately $16 million. About 10,000 were withdrawn in the past week, with only about 40 withdrawn on Wednesday.
Looking at the amount, it's easy to interpret this as a negative for the entire privacy sector; looking at the withdrawals, I judge that the direct impact is more concentrated on old pool users: the freeze relates to whether assets can be accessed, which is more concrete than sentiment labels. But the freezing of the old pool does not mean the failure of privacy technology; the weekly and daily withdrawal volumes are also insufficient to prove that users have fully exited.
I will not equate "significant withdrawals" with "remaining assets being safe." What I will focus on next is the freezing rules and the handling instructions for the remaining assets, rather than prematurely judging the entire sector's success or failure. A cumulative net outflow of $1.07 billion over the past five days. Compared to yesterday's rebound, I pay more attention to this figure. In the futures market, when there is a day of increased positions after consecutive reductions, I usually first check whether the pace of capital withdrawal has changed; I don't rely on just one day's data to conclude that the trend has reversed. However, changes in open interest and ETF subscriptions/redemptions are not the same thing and cannot be equated.
According to Trader T data, yesterday Bitcoin spot ETFs had a net inflow of $74.61 million, with inflows into Fidelity's FBTC and outflows from BlackRock's IBIT, so the directions were inconsistent. I see this more as a replenishment during the withdrawal process. There is a single-day positive factor, but it is not enough to prove that the support has stabilized.
The difference in the crypto market is that ETFs are just one window for capital inflows and outflows and cannot represent the entire market's buying and selling forces. My judgment is that this five-day outflow figure serves as a reminder against the claim that "institutions are continuously increasing their positions," rather than evidence that prices must fall. If subsequent net inflows can continue, then I will raise my recognition of a capital shift. This is my observation approach.
With my old futures mindset, I prefer to confirm more slowly rather than treat a one-day rebound as a trend. Are there any friends who have also transitioned from traditional markets? When encountering such a situation of single-day inflows but still large outflows over five days, do you look at continuous subscriptions/redemptions or combine price support to judge?The number of companies opposing OKXICE stock token trading has increased to 62, which made me pause 👀 This is somewhat interesting, but I see it more as a risk warning for the stock token narrative rather than a bearish signal for the entire tokenization sector. The midday news also mentioned banks like HSBC promoting tokenized financial infrastructure; these two things should not be interpreted together.
I think traditional finance's willingness to build infrastructure does not mean that listed companies approve of their own stocks being tokenized. If the market directly treats the former as a positive for related small tokens, I guess short-term sentiment might get overheated, but this logic may not hold. Highly volatile assets have opportunities for sentiment misalignment, but also risks of liquidity drying up after the narrative fades.
I would separate the advancement of underlying infrastructure from the compliance and authorization issues of specific products, and not rush to label the entire sector. Which direction in tokenization are you all focusing on recently: stock mapping or financial infrastructure?October's 86K ADP gain and a 51.4 ISM services employment reading suggest hiring has not stalled in the private economy. That makes the roughly 60K payroll consensus worth watching as a test of whether weakness is truly broad.
A stronger print could revive December hike expectations and pressure Treasuries and the dollar, though ADP and ISM remain imperfect guides to payrolls.
#USJobsReportInFocus When I see this message, what comes to mind is a common question from newcomers: "If I set a stop loss, does that mean I'm safe?" Absolutely not. My judgment is that this time, what needs to be supplemented is a lesson on protocol risk, not guessing short-term price directions.
Zcash NU7 is expected to take effect around 9:30 PM EST on November 5. At that time, about 12,226 ZEC in the Sprout pool will no longer be spendable; at $1300 per coin, that's about $16 million. The upgrade will phase out the old transaction format, reducing complexity and security risks, but these coins will still be counted in the total supply, and whether access can be restored remains uncertain.
📌 I highlight two key points for newcomers: stop loss addresses price volatility but cannot control whether on-chain assets are usable; a network upgrade benefits the system but does not mean every holder automatically benefits. The most common misconception is equating "coins still exist" with "can be moved anytime." Newcomers, what's the difference between checking your balance and confirming asset usability? What else is unclear? Leave a comment and let's discuss.After the V-shaped reversal, Bitcoin and Ethereum have entered a sideways consolidation phase. That statement from Wintermute is worth repeating: no new money is coming in
"There is almost no evidence of new funds entering the market to support a sustained recovery." Recent buying has been concentrated in leveraged derivatives, not spot. Those leveraging to bottom-fish have been liquidated round after round; genuine spot demand has not picked up. This is the core issue right now. For BTC to hold above 80,000, bullish bets in the contract market alone won't be enough.#NonfarmPayrollsAreComing, Can Employment Data Strengthen December Rate Hike Expectations? The US October Nonfarm Payrolls are out! Is there still a chance for a rate cut? I believe
that the current Federal Reserve is probably more conflicted than investors!
If employment is too strong, there's no reason for a rate cut; if employment is too weak, worries about an economic recession will resurface. The most awkward situation is when employment cools down, but inflation refuses to settle.
I have always held the view that the market really needs is not the Fed desperately cutting rates, but the economy being able to withstand rate cuts.
Why do I say this?
If nonfarm payrolls weaken moderately and the unemployment rate remains stable, it indicates the labor market is cooling without obvious loss of control. This is the scenario that the US stock and crypto markets prefer to see.
But if employment suddenly deteriorates sharply, even if rate cut expectations quickly heat up, don't rush to call a bull market! Because what the market worries about next could be corporate profits and economic recession.
Conversely, if employment remains strong and wage growth is overheated, why would the Fed rush to ease?
For $BTC, I pay more attention to three signals: the US dollar index, US Treasury yields, and the market's pricing of the next rate cut.
Rising rate cut expectations do not necessarily mean Bitcoin will rise; real liquidity improvement is more likely to support a sustained rally.
My judgment is clear: the rate cut window has not completely closed, but relying on a single nonfarm payroll report to ignite a bull market is probably too simplistic.
Going forward, more important than guessing rate cuts is judging whether the market is trading a soft landing or recession risk.
Do you think the next rate cut will come earlier or continue to be delayed? The top trending topic this afternoon is $CARDS (Collector Crypt).
At 15:03 Beijing time on November 5, OKX spot price is 0.3008 USDT, up about 16.7% from the 24h opening price, with a range of 0.2481–0.354; CoinGecko reports a 24h total network trading volume of about $19.86 million and a market cap of about $270 million.
The hotspot is on listings: On November 3, Coinbase added it to its listing roadmap (opening time not yet determined); Upbit launched KRW, BTC, and USDT trading pairs today at 15:30 Beijing time, with a sharp 30% surge within 15 minutes in the morning. The project’s Q3 card pack sales reached $433.5 million, a record.
My view: This wave is driven by listing expectations and Korean traffic push. The period around Upbit’s launch is usually the most emotionally charged. I am more focused on whether it can hold near 0.278, the intraday starting point, after the launch. About 59.3 million tokens will unlock on November 29, accounting for about 6.7% of circulation. Supported by real revenue, it is more solid than pure narrative coins. Why did BTC rise instead of fall when the Democrats took control of both chambers? Bears may have misjudged the expectation gap.
The Democrats secured both the Senate and the House, meaning Trump's subsequent fiscal and regulatory agenda will face more constraints. Normally, this should suppress crypto assets, but BTC did not continue to decline; instead, it quickly rebounded from below $76,000 to around $78,000.
The market is not pricing in a single policy negative. With the election results finalized, the dollar weakened, risk appetite recovered, and funds began to reallocate. On election day, BTC options saw a large nominal volume of about $660 million, with call buying dominant, combined with short covering, accelerating the rebound.
History shows that BTC has averaged about a 53.7% increase in the 12 months following the last three midterm elections, but the sample size is small, so this is only a reference and should not be linearly extrapolated.
My view: short-term shorting is not cost-effective; short positions near $79,488 should have clear stop-loss and invalidation conditions preset. Going forward, closely watch ETF fund flows, the dollar index, and whether the price can effectively break key resistance. Strategies can have biases, but risk management cannot rely on luck.
$BTC
#美国中期选举：民主党赢得国会两院控制权 There's really no need to think that AI has no future just because the Democratic Party won.
To be clear, whether it's the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, they are both American political parties. Although the two parties often argue fiercely, AI relates to the future technological strength and global competitiveness of the United States. Such an important industry will not be easily abandoned regardless of who is in power.
Of course, the two parties definitely have differences in regulation, taxation, and specific policies, but that doesn't mean the U.S. will stop developing AI.
For ordinary investors, what truly matters in the medium to long term is the state of the U.S. economy, as well as the revenue, profits, and future growth potential of companies like Microsoft, Google, and Nvidia.
Is it really a joke to think that if the Republicans govern, you should go all-in on U.S. stocks, and if the Democrats take power, you should completely sell out?
Looking back at history, the U.S. stock market has experienced long bull markets under both parties. Some long-term statistics even show that the average returns during Democratic presidencies are higher. Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean Democratic governance is better for the stock market, since economic cycles, corporate earnings, and Federal Reserve policies all influence the market.
Ultimately, buying stocks is about the future earning power of companies, not betting on which American party wins."UNI and OP: With technical upgrades, should the coin price really rise?"
Whenever the market rebounds, everyone starts looking for the next coin to double. But what I care more about is: after a project upgrade, are there actually new users and revenue? Today, looking at UNI and OP, both are working on trading infrastructure, but they follow different investment logics.
First, UNI. On October 29, Uniswap announced the TJAR on-chain fee conversion system, and on the 30th released a technical explanation; previously launched aggregator Hooks can incorporate external liquidity into routing. What’s worth watching is the aggregated trading volume, actual protocol fees, and whether UNI token burns continue. The risks lie in declining trading activity, competitors siphoning off volume, and the fact that launching features doesn’t mean token holders immediately benefit.
Next, OP. On October 9, Uniswap announced Unichain’s migration to OP Enterprise, with the mainnet migration planned for October 29. Note, this was a previously announced schedule and should not be written as if completed today without verification. The focus for OP is on network stability post-migration, cross-chain interoperability progress, demand for OP Stack usage, and token value capture. The risk is that technology adoption does not necessarily translate into increased demand for OP tokens.
These two projects remind me: in a bull market, you can speculate on expectations, but what sustains valuation long-term is verifiable usage. Do you favor the trading gateway UNI, or the underlying infrastructure OP?
#UNI #OP Not investment advice Seeing net inflows, the common interpretation is that institutions are back. Yesterday, Bitcoin spot ETFs had a net inflow of $74.61 million, with Fidelity's FBTC inflow at $236.72 million and BlackRock's IBIT outflow at $201.2 million.
Thinking about it the other way, I don't agree that this necessarily means institutions are bullish: the two have opposite flows, so there's no consensus; if funds are migrating between channels, then the inflow may not all be new demand, this is my speculation. Do you think the opposite subscriptions and redemptions of the two can indicate institutional sentiment? Those with opposing views, come argue.Starting from 12 noon, Binance began gradually restoring withdrawal services for some assets in batches, while deposits have remained normal throughout. This is the 8th update on the progress of recovering from the security incident, with very careful wording: it’s not "resuming withdrawals," but "gradually opening withdrawals for some assets."
Look at the granularity of the list. Six chains with 19 withdrawal entries: on ETH there are UNI, AAVE, PAXG, MORPHO; on BSC there are ASTER, PROM, FIL; on BASE there are AERO, VIRTUAL, AVNT; on TRX there are JST, SUN; MATIC only has GNS, and SUI only has MMT.
The grouping logic is noteworthy: it’s divided by "chain × token," not by opening entire chains at once. For example, only 5 tokens are open on the ETH network; the token called $UNI is released on both ETH and BSC chains. The recovery progress follows the security checks of individual assets, not the network.
More importantly, look at what’s missing from the list: $BTC and $ETH themselves are not in the first batch. Priority is not based on market cap; relatively new names like AERO, AVNT, and MMT are actually ahead on the list. Deposits have been normal throughout, indicating the entry point is intact, and the bottleneck is on the withdrawal side.
For holders, don’t consider this a full recovery. For assets on the list, first try a small withdrawal to verify the chain; after it arrives, then move larger amounts. What’s really worth watching is whether there will be withdrawal queues in the next few days and whether mainstream coins will be included in the second batch.#索尼财报前瞻：游戏与音乐业务表现如何？ Sony Earnings Preview: Music is the Ballast, Gaming is the Option to be Realized. Music is becoming the most certain profit engine: streaming, copyrights, live performances, and visual media are all flourishing, with Q2 sales revenue up 21% and operating profit up 28%. Through acquiring music catalogs and increasing holdings in "Peanuts," content assets have been strengthened, and cash flow visibility is far higher than hardware. Gaming is in a "profit shifting period": Q2 operating profit decline mainly comes from non-recurring items like Bungie impairment; excluding these, actual growth is 23%. Hardware is pressured by storage price increases and declining sales, but PS Plus price hikes, subscription tier upgrades, and increased average user spending are transforming gaming from hardware sales into a continuous commission-based service business. "GTA VI" is a potential catalyst. If the market only looks at console sales, it will underestimate music's compound returns; if it dismisses gaming due to a single quarter's impairment, it will also misread the situation. Music is the realized ballast, gaming is the option not yet fully priced.$CAP current price 0.099, close to the 24h high of 0.1003, 15-minute EMA shows a bullish alignment, but volume is clearly shrinking, with strong resistance at the 0.10 whole number level.
Liquidation heatmap: long liquidations below total $6.53 million, short liquidations above only $370,000, ratio about 95:5. The largest concentration zone is between 0.0888 and 0.089 (around $350,000), about 10% below the current price, posing a risk of a downward wick to sweep liquidity.
4-hour chart: price pulled from 0.066 to 0.099, up 30% in 7 days, with previous high resistance at 0.1018 and 0.1175 above.
Personal advice: do not chase the high. Consider going long only after a volume-backed close above 0.1005. Buy on dips stabilizing between 0.0935 and 0.095. If it breaks below 0.0975 and EMA turns bearish, look to short with targets at 0.093 and then 0.089.Oil prices crashed nearly 9% in a single day! Inflation is easing, so why is $ETH stuck at 2429 and not rising?
Crude oil has really taken a beating these past couple of days. Brent crude plunged directly to around $94, dropping nearly 9% in one day, plunging for four consecutive days and wiping out most of the previous geopolitical premium. The core logic is straightforward: the Democrats took control of both houses of Congress, and the leader immediately stated the intention to push for ending the Iran war, using military funding as leverage to apply pressure. The market instantly priced in a cooling of the war risk, and the risk premium caused by the Strait of Hormuz blockade was mostly wiped out in just a few days.
Logically, this should be a solid positive for the crypto market. Oil prices falling means energy inflation eases, reducing pressure on the Fed to raise rates, which should benefit risk assets somewhat. But in reality, ETH got stuck at 2429, oscillating without rising, and $BTC only rose slightly by 0.39%, showing no sign of catching this wave of good news.
Actually, this is normal. The whole market’s focus is pinned on tonight’s nonfarm payrolls. The oil price drop is a slow variable affecting long-term inflation trends; but whether the Fed hikes rates in December depends on the employment data right now. Earlier ADP employment exceeded expectations, and the service sector employment index is also rising. The market still worries that employment is too strong, so the Fed will continue tightening. This big boot hasn’t dropped yet.
I previously opened a 100x long position at 2331, which was losing badly a few days ago, but these past two days, riding the momentum from the election results, it turned profitable. I originally hoped the oil price crash would push it further for more gains, but it seems I was too optimistic. No more reckless moves.$LIT Observation: The 6.2% rise relies on expectations of a CFTC application; the application itself has not yet been submitted.
LIT is currently priced at $3.49, up 6.19% in 24 hours, with a high of $3.57 and a trading volume of $17.9 million.
This rally started on October 21, when the founder of Lighter said in the Q3 investor call that they plan to apply to the CFTC in November for two licenses: an exchange (DCM) and a clearinghouse (DCO). On that day, LIT surged 21%.
As of today, the application has not been submitted, nor has any approval been granted. According to the CFTC's review cycle framework of about 180 days, the earliest result would be in spring 2027.
Another factor supporting the price is buybacks; Lighter spent about $4.1 million on LIT buybacks in October.
Pressure is expected on December 27, when the team and investors’ shares begin to unlock. Out of the total 1 billion, about 250 million are in circulation, with roughly three-quarters still locked or reserved. Before regulatory implementation, the focus is on whether the application can be submitted as scheduled.When I saw this message, my first reaction was: the stock price is pricing in panic, but the bills in the data center might be telling a different story. Rather than "tech stocks fell, will crypto follow?", I want to understand whether the market is actually selling demand or selling expectations of expansion being blocked.
Trader degentrading mentioned that on the previous trading day, cloud giants rose about 10%, semiconductors fell about 10%; H100 rental prices rose 26% year-over-year, GB200 rose 50%, and ORCL disclosed AI infrastructure utilization reached 98%. He is also optimistic about Chinese tech stocks and the crypto market.
My judgment is that this set of data seems more like a rebuttal to "compute demand has collapsed" and is not enough to prove that the crypto market will benefit. Rising rental prices and high utilization indicate that existing compute power is still tight; if new data center construction in the U.S. is blocked, then existing resources become more expensive and incremental chip sales are under pressure, which can happen simultaneously. This is my speculation, and the two are not contradictory.
As for trapped positions limiting the rebound, I think this is a trading-level resistance and cannot replace fundamental judgment. Chinese tech stocks and crypto each have their own pricing logic, and we cannot assume that funds will move over just because U.S. semiconductors are under pressure.
So I would separate "compute power is still tight" and "crypto can absorb funds". Which explanation do you agree with more: is this a case of emotional overselling, or is the market beginning to reassess the ceiling of AI expansion? Thursday, 2026.11.05
Due to the Democratic Party winning Congress in the US midterm elections, although the US stock market rebounded yesterday, investors are worried that future stricter regulations, approval restrictions, and local opposition on AI data center construction may slow down infrastructure pace, which has short-term suppressed related stock prices.
Bitcoin's response yesterday was relatively positive, which is a very good sign.
On November 4, Bitcoin ETF net inflow was 75.6 million, and Ethereum ETF net inflow was 53 million. The ETF data is quite average, so it seems that the bulls inside the market are exerting strength.
Market Analysis
Bitcoin rebounded straight to above 81,000 with a wick before falling back. As mentioned earlier, this looks more like a bull counterattack rather than a trend reversal. The drop from 80,000 to 75,000 was largely due to Binance's black swan event, and partly due to the linked decline in US stocks. There were probably quite a few bottom-fishers this time, and 75,000 could very well be a golden pit. But no need to rush; the market won't reverse all at once. There should be more bottom-fishing opportunities later, but probably not at such low levels. Those wanting to bottom-fish should prepare in advance.
The US stock market's counterattack did not continue; futures after hours today almost closed flat. Macroeconomically, conditions for a reversal are still not in place; it's mostly just a rebound. But I think a rebound should still come in the next couple of days, with the index likely to rebound about 3%, returning to last Friday's level.
Cryptocurrency Fear and Greed Index: 43 (Neutral) What I'm focusing on is whether this capital shift will drive sentiment in the Ethereum ecosystem 👀. According to Farside Investors data, after seven consecutive trading days of net outflows, the US Ethereum spot ETF saw a net inflow of about $53 million on November 4. This is somewhat interesting, but I prefer to see it as a signal of sentiment recovery rather than a collective positive for small-cap tokens.
ETF inflows reflect changes in funds for these products, which does not mean the funds have already entered on-chain; given the previous continuous outflows, a single day turning positive is still insufficient to confirm a direction. My speculation is that if inflows continue, the high-volatility assets in the ecosystem might attract more attention, but sentiment can amplify both opportunities and the pullbacks after expectations fall short.
Moving forward, I will look at whether ETF funds sustain and whether on-chain activity keeps pace together, reminding myself not to directly apply large asset capital news as a logic for small-cap token price increases.On November 4th, Brent crude settled down about 8.7%, and WTI fell about 8.3%. This has already gone further than the "dropped over 7%" mentioned in the list.
Interestingly, the US and Iran did not announce any agreement because of this. Previously, Iranian officials still stated that there were differences between the two sides regarding the agreement. What oil prices are trading on is another kind of change: after the US election results, the market increased its judgment that the war might end sooner.
This is the frustrating part about crude oil. The actual supply hasn't changed significantly yet, but the estimate of future risks has changed first, and prices can still fluctuate sharply.
But I separate market bets from political reality. Changes in congressional control will not automatically end military actions, nor can they guarantee that negotiation terms will be quickly agreed upon. Prices have removed some risk premiums, but facts still need to be realized later.
If negotiations stall or transportation security is hit again, this part of the premium may also return.
This drop reminds me that going long on crude oil cannot rely solely on "the conflict is still ongoing," and going short cannot rely only on "everyone wants to end the conflict." When prices have already moved significantly in advance, what follows depends on whether both sides' actions can keep up. Hopefully, the quotes can change first; sustained declines still require supply and policy cooperation.
#美伊谈判未突破，油价为何单日跌逾7%？ NVIDIA has dropped 14% from its October peak, and the whole screen is shouting that the AI bubble has burst.
I dug up Cisco, the top player in the 2000 bubble, and compared it with NVIDIA starting from the same baseline, and the result is quite different from what everyone thinks.
The red line is $NVDA, starting from November 30, 2022, the day ChatGPT launched. The dark blue line is Cisco CSCO, starting from December 1994, the day Netscape Navigator was released. The horizontal axis shows how many trading days each has gone through.
By the 984th trading day, which is today, NVIDIA has risen 1121%.
Cisco reached the same day in November 1998, up 812%.
Then it surged crazily for another year and four months, peaking in March 2000 at 4259%, with a forward P/E ratio of about 131 times.
NVIDIA's current forward P/E ratio is about 17 times.
The several big dips in between are also very similar.
Cisco's Long-Term Capital Management crisis in October 1998 dropped its gains to just 497%, before the main rally phase.
NVIDIA's tariff hit in April 2025 dropped gains to 457%, then it surged again to 1314%.
Bubbles always burst in the end; Cisco fell 89% two and a half years after its peak, shown by the gray dashed line.
But following Cisco's pace, this now looks more like the 1998 shakeout, still far from the 2000 peak.$LINK
Is a $5 million ten-times long position considered bullish news?
A quick update around 2 PM said a whale opened a $5.18 million LINK long position two hours ago, with 10x leverage. The numbers sound impressive. I casually checked OKX's pool; the perpetual positions hold 2.21 million tokens. This position equals 450,000 tokens, which, if it landed here, would account for over 20%. But the position only increased less than 1% in two hours, no money came in.
At 11 AM, the 1-hour candle did show increased volume: 253,000 contracts, $2.93 million, about 2.5 times usual. The price jumped from 11.48 to 11.645, then the next three candles shrank back to around 100,000 contracts, hovering between 11.5-11.56 until now. Currently 11.561, up 4.5% in 24 hours, still 0.2 short of the high at 11.8. The fee rate is 0.0092%, close to the benchmark, longs didn't pay extra. The order book ±1% shows 1.11 million buy and 1.15 million sell, both sides equally thick.
This update only proves some are bullish, it doesn't prove money has arrived. Wait until positions really increase.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ $SNDK
The breaking news only mentions the low close of the Japanese and Korean stock markets, with the Korean stock market down over 5%, but I have been watching the SNDK line since early morning. SK Hynix fell nearly 10% intraday, and the Korea Exchange even triggered a halt due to programmed selling; the storage chain was all pressed down together. The token opened at 1129 and dropped continuously to a low of 990.8, currently at 1016, down 10%.
Interestingly, at 2 PM this candle opened at 997, pulled up to 1015.5, with 43,000 contracts traded, the largest since the sell-off at 9 AM. The US stock market is closed at this time, it’s early morning in the US East Coast, so this price is set by the Asian session itself.
I checked the fee rate again, 0.0795%, eight times the benchmark, and the bulls are still losing money holding on. Open interest is 143,000 contracts, 144 million, 30 million more than at noon. Price down 10%, leverage unchanged, fee rate rising, this is not panic selling, someone is holding on to the death.
At this position, I won’t chase shorts; I’ll wait for the main stock to open tonight for the answer.
#非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？ $BTC experienced a strong surge last night, jumping directly from 78,000 to 81,000, an increase of over 5%! But the big rally is now in the past; what we care about next is how the market will move! Historically, after a single-day surge, Bitcoin usually consolidates for a day or two before choosing a major direction. Don’t just look at technical indicators and assume it will definitely go up, because after big volatility, technical indicators lose their reference value. Last night, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $74.56 million, with Fidelity net inflow of $237 million and BlackRock net outflow of $200 million. Although it’s a net inflow overall, considering BlackRock’s previous large transfers of Bitcoin into exchanges, I judge that BlackRock might be starting to sell, so we need to be cautious about this! As for where $BTC will go next, I think the most important thing is to watch the sustainability of capital, but given the current macro environment, I believe funds are still focused on risk aversion and conditions are not favorable for incremental capital to enter the market. Therefore, the current strategy is to be bullish but not chase the rally! The significance of the StablR incident for perpetual margin: your collateral might suddenly be worth less than 1 dollar
This perspective might be less common, but I think it’s very important.
Most of the margin for perpetual contracts is stablecoins. The pricing assumption for stablecoins is: 1 coin = 1 dollar.
In the StablR incident, USDR and EURR depegged by 50% at one point. Although the scale was small (market caps of 20 million and 10 million), it proved one thing: this assumption is not always true.
What happens if your margin contains depegged stablecoins?
First, calculating margin at face value actually overestimates your safety cushion. Platforms usually price them at 1 dollar, but the market price might be only 0.5.
Second, once the platform adjusts the discount rate, your position instantly becomes under-margined. At this time, the market is highly volatile, and you are forced to liquidate at the worst price.
Third, depegging often comes with liquidity drying up. You want to swap it out, but you can’t.
So my approach is: only use the two or three most mainstream stablecoins for margin, and spread them across at least two issuers.
Not because I predict who will have issues, but because I don’t want a technical problem beyond my control to decide the fate of my position.
The same applies to deposits—HyperFill will compare routes and convert directly to USDC for deposit, without me manually swapping coins in between, reducing one step and thus one potential risk.Yesterday, Bitcoin once dropped 2.8%, falling below 76,000, then rebounded to around 77,900.
The price came back, but the liquidation structure will not return.
In this event-driven decline, I focus on three things:
First, the ratio of long to short liquidations. During the recent drop, longs accounted for 68.5% of liquidations. This indicates the decline was driven by "longs being forcibly liquidated," not "shorts actively attacking."
Second, the concentration price level of liquidations. If the liquidation cluster is near a certain round number, that level will form a "magnetic effect"—prices accelerate as they approach it.
Third, changes in the VIX. This time, VIX futures broke above 20, indicating a re-pricing of volatility. As volatility rises, market makers narrow their quotes, depth thins, and the same position will suffer greater slippage.
Together, these three points explain why I didn’t add to my position today.
Price is the result; position structure is the cause. Understanding the cause is more useful than looking at the result.Only about 40 ZEC was transferred out on Wednesday. Slow. For now, I'm focusing on the sentiment. The earliest privacy pool of Zcash, Sprout, is about to be frozen, and there are still assets in the pool.
I judge this as slightly bearish for $ZEC in the short term: the freeze applies to the old pool, but the word "freeze" tends to amplify localized risk into panic. Transferring out does not equal selling, so it can't be directly counted as selling pressure.
My approach is to wait for volatility to release first. If there is a sharp drop followed by a quick recovery, then I'll consider entering; if the rebound lacks volume, I won't reach in. Remind myself: don't take headlines as trading signals.The market looks a bit lively on the surface, but when you dig deeper, it's still hollow underneath. This rebound— is it a recovery or just a breather before the next dip? Over the past couple of days while reviewing data, I've had a subtle feeling: prices have indeed bounced a bit from the lows, and the atmosphere in the group has relaxed somewhat, but the deeper you look, the more you feel the lack of solid support. BTC's weekly-level correction has dragged on for quite some time, and the rebound strength remains mild; ETH is even more obvious, with short- and mid-term moving averages still pressing down overhead, and RSI for both falling into a weaker zone. The problem is, a low RSI doesn't necessarily mean the bottom has formed; using it as a bottom-fishing signal at this point can easily lead to losses. What concerns me more is the layer of capital preference. On October 30, BTC ETFs saw a net outflow of $643 million, and ETH outflowed $156 million; on November 2, they respectively withdrew another $399 million and $140 million. Continuous large-scale withdrawals don't indicate panic selling but rather that big money temporarily doesn't want to take directional risk at this level. On the surface, it looks like prices are recovering, but underneath, the buying power is retreating—this mismatch is what we really need to guard against. The transmission path is also clear: ETF bleeding first caps BTC's rebound height; ETH, due to higher beta and weaker moving average structure, has greater passive downside elasticity; altcoins have no new preference to support them and can only rely on existing funds for short-term plays, making the rhythm increasingly fragmented. In other words, the market is not trading on the belief that "the bottom has appeared," but rather "the drop has been enough, let's test it first." There is also a somewhat bullish path: prices have already digested one round of adjustment, 7 #BTC enters JPMorgan's long-term forecast, institutional allocation remains cautious
The leader has something to say
When I read this news, I repeatedly cross-checked JPMorgan's 2027 long-term capital market assumptions: for the first time, BTC was calculated — a benchmark annualized return of about 10% over the next 10 to 15 years, outperforming the S&P 500's 7.5% and gold's 5.5%. This is the first time a top Wall Street institution has seriously included BTC as a proper asset in its model, which is symbolically significant. But in the same report, BTC's annualized volatility is 55%, its correlation with the stock market is about 33% and unstable, so it has not yet been included in the main allocation covariance matrix.
My interpretation is: a 10% return with 55% volatility is actually a poor risk-return ratio; this is not a bullish signal, just "finally acknowledging BTC's existence." More realistically, on the other hand — as of November 3, the US BTC spot ETF has had net outflows for three consecutive days, totaling about $1.158 billion, with IBIT alone seeing a $95 million outflow in one day. While the long-term assumptions are being upgraded, short-term funds are withdrawing, and institutions are voting with their feet: they recognize you, but are not yet ready to buy you with real money.
BTC's current price is about 80,400. Today, I took profit on my 30x long position around 10:30, pocketing about 10.15%. My stance aligns with JPMorgan's: not bearish long-term, but not chasing highs short-term. Above 80,000 is yesterday's dense trading zone; until ETF net inflows turn positive, it is normal for the price to rise and pause intermittently; a pullback to 7,900–7,950 to stabilize before resuming is expected. $BTC $ETH $ZEC When I saw this message, the first thing that came to mind was: newcomers easily equate "how much the industry has spent" with "whether the bill will pass." What I care more about is the difficulty of gathering bipartisan votes, which affects regulatory expectations more than simply looking at which party holds the majority.
According to reports, Sherrod Brown defeated Jon Husted on November 3rd to return to the Senate. The CLARITY Act requires 60 votes to advance, meaning bipartisan support is still needed; Brown has previously blocked stablecoin legislation multiple times, so his return means the resistance to gaining support cannot be ignored.
📌 Using this as an example to explain a concept: investment does not equal results. The $30 million promised by Fairshake and the industry's total spending of over $68 million are different metrics and cannot be added together; political investment also cannot be directly converted into votes from legislators. My judgment is that this adds uncertainty to regulatory progress and does not necessarily mean the coin price will fall. Newcomers often make the mistake of treating political news directly as a signal to open positions. I will continue to focus on the actual vote counts and changes in the bill text. U.S. Stock Market Macro Environment and Core Driving Factors
1. Monetary Policy and Interest Rate Pressure:
• The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield has recently remained near a key psychological threshold around 4.9% to 5.0%, operating at a high level. Elevated risk-free yields continue to suppress valuation expansion for high-growth stocks with high valuations.
• The market is closely watching the upcoming U.S. October nonfarm payroll report, ADP employment data, and ISM services PMI to assess the Federal Reserve's subsequent interest rate path.
2. Political Landscape and Midterm Election Effects:
• The counting and finalization of the U.S. midterm election results have become a market focus, with control of both chambers of Congress prompting investors to reassess fiscal policy, AI regulatory frameworks, taxation, and energy policies.
• Historical experience shows that markets often experience seasonal rebounds after midterm elections, but the current macro interest rate environment makes capital highly sensitive to policy changes.
3. Market Breadth and Sentiment:
• Although some major stock indices (such as the S&P 500 and Nasdaq) have rebounded driven by tech stocks, market breadth remains relatively weak. The number of advancing stocks is often fewer than declining stocks, indicating that the market rally is not broad-based but structurally reliant on leading tech stocks. $QQQ The non-farm payrolls for Friday haven't been released yet, but I want to state my position first: the rate hike is basically decided, and this data won't change anything. The real disagreement is whether there will be a second hike in January next year. #非农在即，就业数据能否强化12月加息预期？
Let's first look at last night's small non-farm payrolls, which exceeded expectations by 86,000, higher than the consensus of 69,000, and equal to the revised previous value; the manufacturing PMI is the second highest in four years. Tonight at 21:30, initial jobless claims are expected at 196,000, also lower than expected. The employment rate hasn't dropped, oil prices are still capped at 109, and inflation persists. Under these conditions, why would the Fed pivot?
Looking at the prediction market, Polymarket forecasts a 73% chance of a rate hike, lower than CME's 80%. The money here is betting that if economic data disappoints, the Fed will stop. But non-farm payrolls are highly volatile; over the past year, data has been about half the time much better or worse than expected. Betting on a policy shift based on such unstable data is very risky.
For the crypto community, the real concern isn't December but whether there will be a second hike in January next year. If non-farm payrolls surge above 100,000, the market will immediately start pricing in a second hike, and altcoins will be buried. Bitcoin's $BTC 76,000–78,000 range is a heavy liquidation zone for bulls.
So, the December rate hike is basically a done deal; the real risk pricing is for a second hike in January. If employment exceeds expectations, altcoins will be under pressure, and Bitcoin's $BTC 76,000–78,000 bull danger zone will be triggered. I don't touch high leverage; constantly watching the daily fund reports and flipping back and forth doesn't suit my slow temperament. I just hold and don't move, but the two numbers in this message are only interesting when viewed together.
According to SoSoValue data, as of November 4 Eastern Time, the total net inflow of Bitcoin spot ETFs was $74.5677 million, with Fidelity's FBTC net inflow at $237 million, ranking first for the day. FBTC's historical total net inflow has reached $10.423 billion.
My judgment is: this looks more like a signal to observe funding channels and is not yet evidence of a change in Bitcoin's long-term value. Fidelity alone has an inflow exceeding the net inflow of all products combined, indicating that other products collectively experienced net outflows, so Fidelity's performance cannot be directly taken as new demand for the entire market.
Looking deeper, net inflow records fund movements but doesn't tell us how long holders intend to keep their positions, nor can it distinguish between new allocations and product migrations. If these funds can stay long-term, then in my view, that would be closer to stable allocation demand; this is my speculation, and single-day data can't answer this yet.
Just watch slowly; don't take ETF inflows as a reason to increase leverage, and long-term judgments can't withstand short-term liquidations. For friends holding long-term: what do you want to know more—why Fidelity is attracting funds, or how long this batch of funds can actually stay?$CORE CORE's current market cap is suspiciously light.
The project team just burned 186 million tokens that were not transferred out due to a vulnerability, and now the circulating supply outside is at most just over 20 million dollars.
The harshest part is the dual staking; if you want to earn interest on Bitcoin, you must buy CORE as the entry ticket and lock it in.
They drained the supply aggressively at first, then enforced mandatory lock-up later. With such a small circulating base, even a little capital can leverage it to skyrocket.
#CORE
$CORE
👇