Orbit Post Sitemap
How much funding does Oklo currently have, and when will its power plants be able to generate stable profits still need to be answered separately.
As of the end of September, the company had approximately $3.131 billion in cash, cash equivalents, and marketable debt securities; net cash outflow from operating activities in the first three quarters was about $111 million. The book liquidity can indeed alleviate some of the recent financing pressure, but you cannot simply divide these two numbers to estimate how many years the company can operate in the future.
The reason is specific: as construction progresses, equipment and engineering investments will change, and operating cash flow does not include all investment expenditures. The speed of fund usage may vary at different project stages.
My focus on nuclear power commercialization is shifting from "whether there is demand" to "how much money and time are needed to sustain power supply." Customers needing electricity is one thing; the company delivering according to agreed costs and timelines is another challenge.
Having sufficient funds is certainly an advantage, at least allowing the team space to advance engineering and approvals. But ultimately, it depends on each project's budget, construction milestones, and actual power generation performance.
This is also where my patience with companies like this lies: willing to wait for engineering progress and hoping for increasingly detailed disclosures. The cash balance brings peace of mind, but where the subsequent funds are spent and what progress is exchanged for will determine how long that peace of mind lasts.
#Oklo推进核电项目建设，商业化进展受关注 Elysium mainnet hype cools down before launch, MEV controversy adds pressure
Elysium's mainnet launched on the evening of November 9, but the hype backed by Hyperliquid did not carry through to the starting line. The testnet recorded over 6.379 million transactions, with cross-chain bridge inflows exceeding 210,000 HYPE tokens, worth about $15.48 million. The inflow was 12.4 times the outflow, yet market enthusiasm had already begun to wane before launch.
The most directly affected are the early investors and the Launchpads rushing to go live. In the past 24 hours, Elysium's Launchpad trading volume was about $21.19 million, with over 66,000 tokens issued. The scale expanded quickly, but the wealth creation effect did not keep pace.
A key point to watch is the MEV bot controversy. The fairness of transactions is being questioned, which adds pressure to the most fragile trust link of the new chain. Whether the on-chain transaction and token issuance pace can hold after the mainnet launch will reveal more than just the initial opening spike.Are U.S. retirement accounts really about to become a new source of funds for the crypto market? The U.S. crypto market may be on the verge of a noteworthy policy change. On November 5, the U.S. Department of Labor submitted a final rule regarding 401(k) retirement plan investments in alternative assets to the White House for review. The scope of investments includes private equity, real estate, and the potential allocation of digital assets through related investment products. To briefly explain: 401(k) is a very common employer pension plan in the U.S., where employees can regularly contribute from their wages to accumulate funds for retirement. Because these accounts are large in scale and have long investment horizons, any change in the investment scope could have a profound impact on the capital markets. Of course, this policy is not without controversy. Previously, Senator Elizabeth Warren and others expressed concerns about the arrangement, believing that including highly volatile assets like cryptocurrencies in retirement investment options could expose ordinary workers to risks beyond their expectations. The Department of Labor's push for rule adjustments aims to give retirement plan managers more investment choices, provided they meet prudent evaluation requirements. What truly deserves attention is not that U.S. retirees will immediately start buying Bitcoin, but that crypto assets may gain a broader institutional allocation channel in the future. If the final rule is successfully implemented, some 401(k) plans may indirectly gain digital asset exposure through target-date funds, asset allocation funds, and other investment products. These funds typically target long-term retirement savings, with investment horizons thatThe early morning spike hit 73,500, with over 800 million blown up in four hours, and longs held on to 740 million. But $BTC funding rate is only 0.0028%, and the long-short ratio even rose to 2.86; what was pushed out were leveraged positions, the positions themselves haven't fully cleared.
$ETH liquidations reached 358 million, even more than Bitcoin, so weak it didn't even bother to struggle.
The Shanghai Composite Index rose 0.32%, with turnover shrinking by 175.2 billion to 1.48 trillion. Coal, winter sports, PCB, and robots took turns leading gains, but over 3,100 stocks fell, the board lock-up rate was just over 50%, volume is retreating, and the rotation is so fast it feels like exhaustion.
US nonfarm payrolls came in at 165,000, far exceeding expectations, with December rate hike bets pushed to 78%. The Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumped 4.21%, AMD rose 11%, but the Dow was in the red, core assets didn't keep up, making this rebound look more like a technical correction after overselling.
$SOL's Lujiazui advertisement was taken down before it even got hot, stopped by the central bank for investigation; regulatory gaps have never loosened. There's a trapped position above 75,700; if it can't hold above, it's just a rebound.$ETH daily MA200 (2,154.89) was effectively broken down, with the price running below the BOLL lower band (2,116). The $48.16 million long position forced liquidation just cleaned up leverage, but the funding rate remains positive — this is a trend breakdown, not an oversold panic sell. 11/7 low volume sideways 65,427 units → 11/8 late night collapse → 05:00 spike to 2,060 → rebound to 2,168 → 15:00 broke 2,083 again → 16:00 rebound to 2,125 then pushed back down. Lower highs + lower lows, structure intact. 11/7 low volume sideways 65,427 units → 11/8 late night collapse → 05:00 spike to 2,060 → rebound to 2,168 → 15:00 broke 2,083 again → 16:00 rebound to 2,125 then pushed back down. Lower highs + lower lows, structure intact. Volume: today 10-hour trading 184,690 units, equivalent to full day 443,000 units = 1.92 times volume. 4h sequence: 9,767 → 149,163 (crash) → 55,814 → 81,442 (second kill) → 45,793. Selling pressure not weakening. $ETH leverage cleanup (today's core event) 05:55 Binance ETH perpetual single order $48.16 million long forced liquidation, trigger price 2,096 $BTC market is rotten, no buyers, no one to take over, needs time to digestIn the current cycle, I pay more attention to the depth of the drawdown rather than the time progress,
because time only indicates how long the grinding has lasted, while the depth of the drawdown reveals how much further the decline can go and whether the chips have truly changed hands; we are still in a rate-hiking cycle, ETFs are experiencing net outflows, and leveraged long positions have just been liquidated once. The longer it drags on, the more it drains on on-exchange funds and confidence. Enduring longer does not necessarily mean a bull market will emerge. It's like two people falling into a pit: one falls half a meter and can climb out after a while, the other falls ten meters and no matter how long they wait, they can't get out. First, you need to see how deep the pit is, not how long you've been in it. In the market, a three-month slow decline and a three-day sharp drop cause completely different damage to positions. Therefore, my approach is to first use the depth of the drawdown to determine risk, then use time progress to set the pace. At the current stage, depth is more important than time. #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 "Redeemable at face value" is the detail I care most about in this New Zealand stablecoin news: the confidence of a payment tool should not come from the next buyer, but from whether you can get your original money back.
The FMA is seeking opinions on a proposal that New Zealand dollar payment stablecoins, fully backed by NZD held in New Zealand-registered banks and meeting safeguard requirements, will no longer be regarded as financial products under the Financial Markets Conduct Act. No decision has been made yet, and this positioning is also a transitional arrangement. My judgment is that this means more for payment stablecoins than just adding a "regulatory positive" label to the crypto market.
The logic I understand is simple: for money used to pay, users need certainty most, not a story of appreciation. Redeeming at face value sets the bottom line for this certainty. If the proposal is implemented, issuers will have the opportunity to develop business more aligned with payment use cases, rather than revolving around the positioning of investment products. This is my speculation and does not mean the threshold disappears.
I also won’t get excited just because it’s "no longer regarded as a financial product." Redeeming on paper and redeeming smoothly in practice are separated by operational processes. Next, I want to see how safeguard measures are detailed: whether stablecoins can become everyday tools ultimately depends on how easy the exit door is.Conclusion first: $TRUMP hit a low of 1.102 today, CoinGecko: 7 days -30.3%, 30 days -39.8%, market cap 323 million.
The reason is not the overall market, but the Senate. On November 5, Blumenthal, who will become the chairman of the Senate investigation committee (PSI) after the election, sent letters to Binance, Tether, World Liberty Financial, and the operator of the TRUMP memecoin Fight Fight Fight, requesting documents by January 4, 2027. Trump-related companies will submit documents starting November 30. This is currently just a file request, not a subpoena.
The market is even colder: OKX $TRUMP perpetual contracts had a 24-hour trading volume of 71 million USD, 11.4 times the spot volume; open interest dropped from 20.7 million USD on October 10 to 13.23 million, shrinking 36%; funding rates were negative in 4 of the last 5 periods, indicating shorts are paying.
WLFI is even worse: from 0.0522 on November 3 to 0.0435 on November 5, hitting a record low, down 16.7% in two days, while announcing a buyback of its own tokens during the same period.
What do you think, can the buyback support it, or are the investigation documents the real risk? $TRUMP - The figure of 38 dollars is more honest than any promotional material. Why is an event that was stopped before it even started worth watching? When I saw that Solana's offline meetup in Lujiazui, Shanghai was abruptly suspended, my first reaction was not "another event canceled," but to check if the price had already reacted. On OKX, SOL is currently priced at 87.38, down 1.93% in 24 hours, with a trading volume of about 67.12 million USDT, and the intraday low touched 84.98. The drop is not exaggerated, but the rhythm is subtle—the buying activity clearly became more cautious before and after the news broke. The outline of the situation is actually clear: the relevant party put up an advertisement on the exterior wall of Citibank, planning to hold the Accelerate China 2026 offline meetup, but it was stopped before it started by the central bank together with local financial regulators, public security, and market supervision. The central bank's stance is very direct: SOL is essentially a virtual currency, and its promotion within the country crossed the red line set by the February 8 joint notice from eight departments; the related entities will be further investigated. Note, what was cut off was brand marketing and offline channels, not the on-chain protocol itself—this distinction is very important. The signal I see is that compliance risk has been repriced. In the past period, the market was used to treating "Chinese-speaking community heat" as narrative fuel; advertisements on walls, offline gatherings, and KOL hype were all interpreted as preludes to capital inflows. But this time it reminds everyone that exposure does not equal access, and popularity can instead become an entry point for regulatory attention. For SOL, the short-term pressure is not on the technical side, but $BTC plunged to 73,708 overnight, hitting a new low for August, with 850 million in long liquidations absorbing 90% of the impact, and 140,000 people forced out. However, funding rates are reported variably—some say it's still at 0.0069%, others say it has turned negative. The long-short ratio actually rose to 2.16, indicating that leveraged positions were washed out, but overall positions did not capitulate. 73,000 couldn't hold; 70,000 is the next stop.
$ETH is even weaker, with ETFs seeing outflows for six consecutive weeks, another 365 million fled in a single week, and 80% of liquidations were longs, so no struggle even occurred.
A-shares turnover was 1.49 trillion, shrinking by 177 billion. Robotics, commercial aerospace, and coal sectors took turns pulling up; Yushu Technology rose over 9%, but volume is declining. The faster the rotation, the more it looks like exhaustion.
The US semiconductor index rebounded 4.21%, AMD rose 11%, but nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 far exceeded expectations, pushing the December rate hike probability above 76%. The Dow closed down against the trend, and chip stocks' own rebound couldn't lift the whole market.
$SOL's Lujiazui advertisement was stopped by the central bank before it even got hot, and the involved entities are under investigation. Regulatory loopholes have never loosened.$ATH$ATH
Damn it! This ATH market is making my blood pressure spike. The dog whale is still stubbornly holding at 0.0045, while outside it's as quiet as a graveyard, clearly planning to shake out and harvest. 🔥
The candlesticks are sliding down along the moving average, volume is all fake orders flipping back and forth—a classic move where strong funds pump then dump. I don't care how it plays out, I'll short around 0.0045 first, with a stop loss above 0.0049, and if it breaks below 0.0042, it will accelerate. 💡
Don't rush to bottom-fish in this stealth kill market; follow the dog whale's scythe direction to make profits. For specific entry points and position sizing, check the token market card below. Don't chase highs or hold losing positions, always use stop loss! 👇👇👇#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元 Last week, the combined net outflow of Bitcoin and Ethereum spot ETFs exceeded $1.6 billion, with Bitcoin-only products seeing a $1.28 billion outflow in one week. Ethereum spot ETFs have experienced net outflows for 10 consecutive days, indicating institutional money is moving out.
This morning, before the weekly close, there was another flash crash: Bitcoin dropped 2.77% in 15 minutes, briefly dipping to $73,510. Ethereum plummeted 7.3% in 15 minutes, hitting a low of $2,060, with $715 million long positions liquidated in one hour, almost all longs.
Bitcoin has now bounced back to around $74,800, and Ethereum to about $2,130, meaning half of the dip was recovered. However, the $75,000 level has already been breached once. The support level mentioned last night needs to be reassessed today.
Capital outflows and price declines reinforce each other: ETF redemptions create selling pressure, which pushes prices down, and falling prices scare off more funds. This is a typical negative feedback loop, the most common scenario in a weak market.
The bigger context is the rising expectation of interest rate hikes. The probability of a rate hike in December is close to 80%, the US dollar index has risen above 102.35, and in this environment of tightening liquidity, risk assets are struggling, with the crypto market hit first.
The flash dip indicates there aren’t many buyers below $75,000. Bulls wanting to turn the tide must first reclaim the lost ground. Capital flow data is updated weekly; before a trend reversal, watch if the outflow rate slows down and wait for stabilization signals before considering a bottom.
When capital votes with its feet, first understand the direction, then decide whether to follow.On-chain data providers have started labeling fund holdings, and this time the labels are on a batch of Bitcoin products.
Arkham has added tags for about $3 billion in crypto fund assets, from CoinShares, VanEck, Invesco, and Grayscale. Breaking it down: CoinShares' BITC Bitcoin physical ETP is about $1.52 billion, VanEck's VBTC Bitcoin ETN is about $507.2 million, and Invesco's BTIC is about $266.6 million. All three are physical Bitcoin carriers, accounting for the vast majority of the tagged amount.
Mechanically, these products can be tagged because the holding addresses are long-term fixed and single transactions are large. Previously, institutional positions were only disclosed in quarterly reports; now they can be checked in real time. For the first time, the portion of $BTC spot supply locked in these products is visible transaction by transaction.
The only non-Bitcoin product is Grayscale Solana Trust for $SOL, about $125.9 million, which is an order of magnitude smaller than the others. Institutional altcoin allocations remain very thin.
Transparency is a double-edged sword. Tracking costs decrease, making it easier for copycat funds to follow; but large holdings are fully exposed, effectively handing over the timing of position building to the opposing side.
What’s truly worth considering is this: institutional positions have changed from a black box to a map. The scarce resource is no longer information, but who can act first before others see clearly.This is a stock that has dropped 64% from its high, showing a pattern of seven bearish candles with only one small bullish candle after breaking the parabolic structure; the +3.55% on Friday was a long upper shadow with an 11.4% gap up open but closing at only +3.55%, indicating distribution rather than a reversal. Tonight, NVDA is down 5.4% pre-market, which will weigh on the "Big Seven" and the semiconductor sector. SNDK is already down 2.58% pre-market, with a pre-market low of 791. All bullish reasons for $SNDK are on a 6–12 month horizon; none can immediately support the bottom tonight. Cyclical stocks at the peak of the cycle should be valued at 5x PE. The uptrend structure has failed: the drop from 1,909 to 804, with only a rebound to 912 on Friday, is weak—recovering only 9.8%, not even reaching the 23.6% Fibonacci level (1,065). How to trade $SNDK at the 22:30 open tonight — iron rule: no orders in the first 0–15 minutes after open; ATR is 13%. A 5–8% dip within the first 15 minutes is normal, and slippage will consume the entire trading plan. Plan A | Breakout short (main plan, probability ~55%) Trigger: 5-minute close < 791.10, and a pullback that fails to surpass 815 Entry: 800–812 Stop loss: 832 (+3.0%) Targets: T1 770 / T2 750 / T3 735 Risk-reward ratio: T2 ≈ 2.0, T3 ≈ 2.6 Position size 🚨Bitcoin’s biggest danger isn’t the crash — it’s the belief that every dip is a buying opportunity.
$BTC has dropped below $75K, touching nearly $73.7K. Nasdaq weakness, ETF outflows, and over $1B in long liquidations show that broader market pressure is building.
I’m watching one key level: $73K.
If it breaks, are we heading toward $70K, or could Bitcoin surprise everyone with a reversal?
What’s your call? 👇
#BTC #ETH #CryptoMarket
#DailyOrbit "No changes involving the G token," this sentence actually caught my eye more: $G hasn't changed, but that doesn't mean the logic behind it remains the same. Galxe has integrated its team and brand into Gravity, focusing on L1 development and applications. Services like Quest, ID, Passport will gradually be shut down, while the network continues to operate normally.
Token continuity VS usage continuity, I care more about the latter. My judgment is that this adjustment impacts users' re-understanding of the project more than the token name itself. Previously, when looking at growth platforms, one could focus on whether task services had demand; shifting to L1, I need to change my measure and see if on-chain applications have real usage. The code hasn't changed, but that doesn't prove anything for the new direction.
If subsequent applications can meet the demand, only then will I consider the resource consolidation a plus; this is my observational hypothesis, not a concluded result. I won't rely on old impressions for now; moving forward, I'll focus on application implementation rather than brand rebranding.#美伊外交斡旋持续，霍尔木兹通航分歧待解
Is the game in the Strait of Hormuz just emotional disturbance or a trend turning point?
Recently, the US and Iran have been negotiating while applying pressure, but the core disagreement over navigation through the Strait of Hormuz remains unresolved. Many are closely watching this global energy artery.
If the shipping route is truly blocked, oil prices could quickly surge, inflation expectations would rebound, and eventually, this would feed into expectations of interest rate hikes, causing risk assets like the Nasdaq and Bitcoin to experience sharp volatility.
Currently, the market is divided into two views:
One side believes this is just repeated tug-of-war rhetoric, with friction followed by a quick return to the negotiating table, resulting in only short-term pulse movements;
The other side worries that a prolonged deadlock will keep pushing oil prices up, making inflation uncontrollable, delaying the Fed's rate cut schedule, and continuously suppressing risk assets.
My approach is to first distinguish the levels: at this stage, low-intensity friction is mostly emotional impact; only a substantive navigation disruption would change the medium-term macro narrative.
Geopolitical news is highly random and can spike suddenly. In such an environment, controlling position size and leaving enough room for error is always the top priority. $BTC At 5:55 AM today, Bitcoin dropped from 76,000 to 73,500 within half an hour, hitting a new low since August. In the past 24 hours, the entire network liquidated $1.071 billion, with long positions accounting for $996 million, or 93%. What's more interesting is the time distribution: just in the hour before 6 AM, $745 million was liquidated, with longs at $715 million. 137,000 people were liquidated, the largest single liquidation was Binance's ETH/USDT at $48.16 million.
Note the sequence. It’s not that the price crash triggered the liquidations, but the liquidations themselves pushed the price down. The long-short ratio is 72 to 28, with longs crowded on one side and leverage concentrated. When the price breaks down through a key integer level, the first batch of forced liquidations become market sell orders, which push the price down further, triggering the second batch, and so on. The exchange’s liquidation engine acts as an accelerator in this process, not a brake.
So, to judge whether this cycle has bottomed out, the most direct indicator is when liquidation volume shifts from predominantly long-only to both sides. Today, longs account for 93%, indicating leverage has not yet been cleared and bottom-fishing money is still flowing in. #摩根大通称比特币或跑赢黄金 $BTC dropped from 75,690 to 73,477 in fifteen minutes over the weekend, losing two thousand dollars just like that, but liquidation data actually shrank to just over 50 million. Leverage had already been cleaned out in previous rounds, and no one stepping in to buy is more exhausting than a crash. The spot ETF saw a net outflow of 1.28 billion last week, fees turned negative, shorts started collecting rent, and the critical 75,000 line is being closely tested; if it can't hold, it will be a prolonged battle.
$ETH followed the bleeding, with ETFs seeing outflows for five consecutive weeks, BlackRock is also selling, so weak that even a rebound was skipped.
The A-share Shanghai Composite Index rose 0.32%, looking stable, but turnover shrank by 175.2 billion to 1.48 trillion. Robotics, commercial aerospace, and coal sectors took turns pulling up, but over 3,100 stocks fell. Volume is retreating, and the faster rotation feels more like exhaustion.
The US semiconductor index rebounded over 3 points, AMD rose 11%, but nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 far exceeded expectations, pushing the December rate hike probability to 85%. The Dow closed down, and Wall Street calls this a dead cat bounce. The chip stocks' own oversold recovery couldn't lift the whole market.
$SOL's Lujiazui advertisement was stopped by the central bank before it even got hot, and the involved units are under investigation. Regulatory scrutiny has never loosened.No more bull market, but I say this might not necessarily be a bad thing!
Think about late August and September, during the huge surge, how many people shorted and got trapped, now similarly many brothers are trapped going long.
Now, I judge that there is a high probability of entering a long-term consolidation phase. This is not necessarily a bad thing.
In the short term,
Bitcoin $BTC is likely to fluctuate between 70,000 and 76,000,
Ethereum $ETH is likely to fluctuate between 2,000 and 2,200.
My approach within the range is to sell high and buy low,
seek to go long near the lower boundary of the range, and look for opportunities to short near the upper boundary.
If no one-sided market appears,
we can hold positions in time without being liquidated,
consolidation markets are actually better.
Otherwise, in a big one-sided market, if the direction is wrong,
it’s easy to get liquidated.
Brothers, what do you think? How do you see it now?
Check my pinned post to discuss.
#美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？ To start with the conclusion: This round of crash is not the crypto community's own issue; it's because money has become more expensive. In the past four hours, $803 million worth of contract positions across the entire network were liquidated, 92% of which were long positions. Ethereum alone saw $358 million liquidated, even more than Bitcoin—it has become the main battlefield of this liquidation round. A well-known bull had a $54.46 million Ethereum long position forcibly liquidated, and another major holder's 540 ETH long position was liquidated, wiping their account to zero. The price retreated from above 2,300 to 2,110, bouncing once only to be sold off again. The root cause lies in macroeconomics. October added 165,000 jobs, while the market had only expected 59,000; the unemployment rate dropped to 4.1%, pushing the probability of a rate hike in December above 80%. As interest rate expectations rise, leveraged money instantly becomes more expensive, and the first to be liquidated are always those with the most crowded positions. The timing of this data release is also intriguing—the closer to the election cycle, the more a strong data report is needed to prove the economy hasn't collapsed, while the market only cares about how far it pushes rate cuts away. Politics is politics, but where the money flows is what really matters. The transmission chain is straightforward: US Treasury yields rise, the dollar strengthens, the opportunity cost of non-interest-bearing assets increases, spot channels saw a net outflow of $1.28 billion in one week—the worst week since June—and all inflows this year have been fully reversed. Money isn't scared away; it's attracted by yields elsewhere. When allocation funds withdraw, funds have to sell spot assets—this is a mechanical action unrelated to sentiment. Here's a counterintuitive point: the fear and greed index reads 3 SOL has been dropping for six weeks, but the amount of coins held in contracts has actually increased: throughout this decline, some have been leveraging more to buy the dip.
On October 1st at 0:00, it opened at 119.34, now around 86.5, down about 27%. During the same period, OKEx's total contract holdings measured in USD dropped from about 384 million to 355 million, only about a 7.5% decrease. Roughly calculated in coins at the spot price then, it went from about 3.22 million to about 4.1 million, an increase of about 27%. The price dropped by more than a quarter, but the holdings measured in coins actually grew by more than a quarter.
Most of the added positions are longs. In the last 20 funding rate periods, 17 were positive, with a maximum of 0.01%, meaning most of the time, long holders are paying shorts.
At 5 a.m. today, it dropped to 84.98, the lowest since August 20th. Contract holdings decreased by about 19.5 million USD in one hour, but measured in coins, it still remains above 4 million, so only a small portion was washed out.
This kind of decline indicates that not many have given up yet. To find the bottom, I pay more attention to when these over 4 million coins start to drop in large batches, rather than where the price stops first.
$SOL Looking at BTC's market today, another change worth studying has appeared. OKX's market record on November 9 shows BTC's intraday low reached $73,500. Compared to the closing price of $76,074.80 on November 8, the maximum intraday drawdown was about 3.38%. This makes me feel that the market may be facing more than just an ordinary price adjustment now. The more important question is: Does the US inflation and interest rate environment still have enough room to support a rebound in risk assets? Tomorrow night at 21:30, the US will release the October CPI data. First, let's look at the confirmed numbers. US September CPI rose 3.7% year-over-year, overall September PCE rose 3.6% year-over-year, and core PCE rose 3.1% year-over-year. Last week, the October nonfarm payrolls increased by 165,000, with an unemployment rate of 4.1%. Employment has not collapsed significantly, but inflation remains above the Federal Reserve's target. On October 28, the Federal Reserve kept the policy rate at 3.75%–4.00%, with even two members supporting a 25 basis point rate hike. Putting these numbers together, I think the real dilemma in the market emerges. If the economy is too weak, the market fears a recession; but if the economy remains resilient and inflation does not come down, investors may worry that high interest rates will persist longer. BTC, being a highly volatile asset without fixed cash flow, is influenced by both the opportunity cost of capital and risk appetite. However, I do not believe that as long as tomorrow night's CPI is lower than last month, BTC will definitely rise. What truly affects the market is alsoBefore the market opened on November 9, ASE Technology Holding (ASX.US) rose nearly 6% again, closing at $33.5. The rise wasn't due to financial reports but an unconfirmed rumor: Nvidia is investing billions of dollars to support ASE's subsidiary, SPIL, in expanding CoWoS packaging capacity.
The spending details are quite specific—new cleanroom expansion and equipment procurement. This is not a financial investment; it's cash directly injected into the production line. ASE declined to comment on market rumors involving clients, and Nvidia also did not respond to requests for comment; neither side denied the news.
Why is this worth watching? CoWoS is an advanced packaging technology essential for AI accelerator card shipments. Expanding capacity requires building cleanrooms, purchasing equipment, and waiting for delivery, with cycles measured in quarters. Now, with customers funding the supplier's expansion, it effectively locks in part of the future supply in advance.
In the crypto world, this is a typical "upstream capital expenditure" signal. Assets like $BTC depend on overall risk appetite, while $ETH and AI narrative tokens have greater elasticity. The real transmission path is not "Nvidia spends money so crypto prices rise," but rather an improved expectation of computing power supply and a steady stream of new AI narratives, which encourages capital to buy on dips.
One point worth considering: even packaging expansion requires customers to pay—does this mean capacity is truly insufficient, or that suppliers are unwilling to bear this capital expenditure themselves? These two explanations point to completely different scenarios for next year.A contract account simultaneously holds short positions on three major public chains, generating both unrealized profits and funding fee income—this is not an ordinary whale's position but a clear statement on market structure. On-chain monitoring shows that this address has simultaneously established short positions on the $BTC, $ETH, and $SOL perpetual contracts, with a total nominal value of about $600 million. All three positions are currently in unrealized profit, and the funding fee income is also considerable 💰 Let's first look at the largest position: $ETH short holding 78,100 tokens, nominal value about $170 million, entry price $2,322.72, unrealized profit $7.67 million, cumulative funding fee income $4.84 million, margin $34.75 million, liquidation price $3,912.56. Under 5x full margin mode, the liquidation price still has a considerable buffer from the current price, meaning this position is not under short-term forced liquidation pressure and can patiently wait for market development. The $BTC short position holds 2,354.6 tokens, entry price $76,390.2, unrealized profit about $1.6 million, funding fee income $3.84 million, margin $35.65 million, liquidation price $132,167.35. Notably, the funding fee income for the $BTC position is more than twice the unrealized profit—this indicates the short has been held for a long time, during which the market funding rate has consistently favored longs, allowing the short side to collect subsidies. This itself is a signal often overlooked by many: when bullish sentiment overheats and funding rates remain positive for a long time, the time cost for shorts is actually negative. The $SOL short position holds 636,Jensen Huang's affair: will NVIDIA rise or fall?
The conclusion is a short-term bearish outlook, and this scandalous black swan is precisely hitting institutional confidence.
This is not just a simple moral gossip; the fatal issue is that it is tied to a national security investigation. The U.S. side suspects the woman is connected to Chinese intelligence agencies, and NVIDIA's board has swiftly launched an independent investigation.
Given the current sensitive environment of AI chip export controls, this espionage suspicion is the kind of uncertainty Wall Street hates the most.
Although Trump has publicly stated that Jensen Huang is an upright person, this cannot hedge the instinct of capital to seek safety. After the scandal broke, NVIDIA's after-hours trading dropped over 4%, with a cumulative pullback of 22% from the October high.
The technical indicators also show red flags: the 15-minute chart reveals the stock price plunged straight from 188 to around 177, with SAR and super trend lines pressing overhead. The MACD golden cross below zero is extremely weak, typical of an oversold weak rebound.
Prediction: the short-term is very likely to continue searching for a bottom. The 182-183 range above has become a heavy resistance zone; any rebound is a short-term selling opportunity.
Unless the investigation before the mid-November earnings report proves the allegations completely baseless, once the investigation escalates, 177 will definitely break, with the next target below 170. Operationally, do not blindly catch the falling knife at this position to avoid getting trapped.
$NVDA
#英伟达启动独立调查，管理层稳定性受关注 $BTC dipped to 73,708 overnight, hitting a new low for August, with 850 million in long liquidations absorbing 90%, and 140,000 people being taken out. But the funding rate hasn't turned negative, and the long-short ratio actually rose to 2.16; what got washed out were the leveraged positions, not the overall holdings. 73,000 can't hold, 70,000 is the next stop.
$ETH is even weaker, not even bothering to give a decent rebound.
A-shares traded 1.49 trillion, shrinking by 177 billion; robots, ice and snow, and coal sectors took turns pulling up, with 58 stocks hitting the daily limit looking lively, but 51 stocks broke the limit, and over 3,100 stocks are falling. Volume is retreating, and the faster rotation feels more like exhaustion.
US stocks: the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index rose 4.21%, AMD up 11%, but nonfarm payrolls at 165,000 far exceeded expectations, pushing the December rate hike probability above 76%. The Dow closed down against the trend, and the chip stocks' own rebound couldn't drive the whole market.
On Binance's side, the MiCA transition period is nearing its end; some accounts in France, Italy, and several other European countries will have to be closed before the end of December. Regulatory costs are real money.I reviewed the latest long and short borrowing data this morning, and one thing immediately stood out: leveraged positioning is heavily concentrated on the bullish side. Here are the numbers: BTC Long borrowing: 1,864.85 BTC Short borrowing: 50.9 BTC ETH Long borrowing: 17,600 ETH Short borrowing: 663.81 ETH SOL Long borrowing: 132,200 SOL Short borrowing: 2,956.7 SOL The imbalance is striking. Leveraged traders are overwhelmingly leaning toward further upside, while short borrowing remains relaIt has plummeted to 74,000, is it still a good time to buy the dip?
From a pattern perspective, the current situation is very similar to the second test of the 200-day moving average after the rally at the end of 2023.
In 2023, after Bitcoin surged from the low at the end of 2022, it retraced to the 200-day moving average on March 10.
Then Silicon Valley Bank ran into trouble, the Federal Reserve launched emergency loan tools to save banks, and Bitcoin surged from 19,500 to 28,000 in a week—a rapid 50% spike.
Could history repeat itself this time?
I think we can't blindly and optimistically assume the same pattern will be replicated.
Because the pattern looks similar,
but the liquidity direction is reversed: last time the Fed was easing, this time the market is betting on Fed rate hikes.
From the chip distribution perspective, the 72,000-65,000 range is a large vacuum gap area, with major support near 64,000, meaning if 72,000 doesn't hold, it could quickly slide to 65,000.
However, even if the 200-day moving average doesn't hold, so what? The downside is only about a 10% drop.
Dogecoin has even fallen near the bottom of the previous bear market,
SOL has retraced 30% from the September high of 125.
All coins are at big discount sale prices.
The more it falls, the more I will buy.
In the October video, we have been emphasizing that Bitcoin might slide to the 200-day moving average (then priced around 72,000) - near 67,000. Hope you saw it.#BTC与ETH现货ETF单周净流出超16亿美元
From November 2 to 6, the US BTC spot ETFs saw a net outflow of about $1.28 billion, with BlackRock's IBIT alone accounting for about $1.21 billion, more than 90% of the total. Meanwhile, Fidelity's FBTC had a net inflow of about $93 million during the same period. The fund flows are not consistent across different funds.
It is important to distinguish here: money flowing out concentrated from one fund does not mean only one large holder is selling. There are many holders behind an ETF, and fund subscription and redemption data alone cannot determine who is reducing positions or whether they are completely exiting the crypto market.
What is more noteworthy is the timing. On Thursday and Friday combined, about $1.04 billion flowed out, with selling pressure concentrated in the latter half of the week. ETH spot ETFs have had net outflows for six consecutive weeks, totaling about $2 billion, indicating that this channel has not provided sustained new buying recently.
Going forward, don't just look at "how much flowed out today"; also watch whether outflows spread from IBIT to more funds and whether the coin price can hold up. If outflows narrow, other funds start to see inflows, and prices stop hitting new lows, it suggests selling pressure may be getting absorbed. If multiple funds continue to see outflows and prices fall in sync, the issue of insufficient spot buying demand becomes more concerning.
ETFs represent a part of US spot demand, not the entire market. They can tell you whether this funding channel is buying or selling but cannot alone determine the market bottom.NEAR is positioned at $3.6 with a market cap of 4.7 billion, a daily volume of 10 million, and a decline of less than 1%, looking like a typical large-cap coin in consolidation. But the smart money signals poured cold water on this: net short positions, zero net holdings, zero long traders, not even a reference entry price. This indicates that professional traders see NEAR as neither worth chasing long nor worth heavy shorting at the moment — it is in a delicate balance of "institutional wait-and-see, retail support." Social sentiment is also at freezing point, with zero mentions and zero sentiment bias; market attention is completely stolen by hot narratives like AI Agent and Meme. From a fundamental perspective, NEAR's sharding technology, chain abstraction narrative, and AI x Crypto implementation progress are all advancing, but the market needs not "doing things," but a certainty signal of "making money." Core judgment: NEAR is currently in a divergence period between improving fundamentals and lukewarm capital flow, likely to maintain wide-range oscillation in the short term, waiting for a catalyst to break the direction — either an explosive ecological application showing data or sector rotation brought by macro liquidity improvement. $1225 worth of ZEC, have you been shaken out?
Only 10 days after the upgrade went live, over 90% of longs were liquidated, $13 million flowed out of the ETF, and the price dropped from 1398 to 1180. Everyone is complaining "the good news is fully priced in," but the block time has been cut from 75 seconds to 25 seconds—Is this a panic exit or a chance to get in?
Let's look at the surface first: a huge positive upgrade, yet the price fell.
On November 5-6, ZEC's NU7 upgrade activated on the mainnet. Block time was slashed from 75 seconds to 25 seconds, three times faster; the NSM mechanism removed 60% of transaction fees into reserves, leaving a safety budget for miners after the 2031 halving, and the 21 million hard cap remains unchanged; the old Sprout privacy pool was retired, freezing about 12,000 ZEC.
Before the upgrade, the price surged to 1398, then dropped to 1180 after launch, falling 1%-5% in 24 hours, with over 90% of longs liquidated. On the surface, this looks like textbook "buy the rumor, sell the fact."
But if you only see this layer, then this shakeout was on you.
First: NU7 is not a patch, it’s an engine swap.
Many treat this upgrade as a routine technical update, but that’s wrong.
What does cutting block time from 75 to 25 seconds mean? Faster deposits and withdrawals on exchanges, payment confirmations going from "waiting a minute or two" to "instant." This isn’t a minor fix; it’s pushing ZEC from a "privacy collectible" toward a "usable privacy payment network."
The NSM mechanism is even more impactful: 60% of transaction fees are not given directly to miners but locked into reserves, to be released when the safety budget tightens after the 2031 halving. In the short term, miners earn less; in the long term, network security gains an extra layer of insurance. Plus, retiring the Sprout pool and freezing about 12,000 ZEC tightens circulating supply further.
In short: the positive upgrade is not the end, but the start of a shakeout. You sold old ZEC; others bought new ZEC.
Second: 90% of longs liquidated doesn’t mean fundamentals collapsed; it means leverage was too crowded.
Look at the data: Binance funding rate +0.01% per 8 hours, longs paying shorts, annualized about 11%; over 90% of 24-hour liquidations were longs.
What does this indicate? The longs rushing in before the upgrade were overcrowded and over-leveraged. The market makers used the "sell the fact" event to clean out those chasing highs, holding positions, and going all-in with 10x or 20x leverage.
What got liquidated wasn’t positions, but the over-optimistic mindset.
On the ETF side, $13 million flowed out last week, shifting sentiment from euphoric to neutral. But look closely: this is profit-taking after the "upgrade launch," not a collapse of the privacy narrative. ZEC’s shielded pool still accounts for about 30% of value; real privacy demand remains.
Third: Macro is weak, high Beta assets crouch first.
BTC is pressured in the $73,000-$76,000 range, weekly candles mostly red, tech stocks are also pulling back, and risk appetite is generally down. ZEC’s correlation with BTC is about 0.5 but with higher Beta—if the market drops 1%, ZEC might drop 2%-3%.
In the short term, this is suppressive. But flip the perspective: ZEC isn’t weaker; the market is just out of fuel. When the wind returns, it will fly higher than anyone.
Long vs. short showdown, judge for yourself:
On one side:
NU7 upgrade live, block time 3x faster, payment experience transformed
NSM locks 60% of fees, 21 million hard cap unchanged, long-term security narrative strengthened
Sprout pool retired, freezing about 12,000 ZEC, tightening supply
Mid-term structure still dominated by bulls, multi-year consolidation broken
Privacy leader status unchanged, shielded pool real usage ongoing
On the other side:
Post-upgrade "sell the fact" pullback, over 90% longs liquidated
ETF outflow of $13 million last week, sentiment turns neutral
BTC under pressure, high Beta assets fall harder
Price slightly below MA20 (~1247), RSI 47-48, short-term momentum weak
A break below 1180 with volume could test 1100
Key levels:
Resistance above: 1290-1300 → 1340 (previous highs) → 1400
Support below: 1180-1200 (recent lows) → 1100-1120 (strong support)
Trading strategy:
Short-term traders:
Wait for a pullback to 1180-1200 to lightly buy, stop loss at 1150-1160, reduce positions on rebound to 1280-1300. If volume supports a hold above 1300-1340, add more, target 1400-1450, stop loss below 1280. Funding rate is positive; avoid high leverage longs to resist fees.
Swing traders:
Buy in batches at 1180-1200, add near strong support at 1100. Mid-term target 1400-1500, longer-term 1600-2000, but BTC cooperation and ETF inflows needed. Reduce positions if below 1100 and BTC weakens further.
Long-term believers:
Post-upgrade ZEC fundamentals are stronger than before. Start dollar-cost averaging at 1180-1200, keep position size at 10%-20% of total capital. ZEC now is like a car that just got a new engine; it shakes a bit on the test drive—do you call it junk already?
ZEC now resembles the shakeout after ETH’s London upgrade in 2021—
Price surged before upgrade, dumped after launch, everyone said "good news priced in," but after deleveraging, it hit new highs.
$BTC $ETH $ZEC I've always been puzzled: why are those on-chain addresses with a "100% win rate" always hyped up like they're gods?
This time it's ETH. A certain address made 7 long trades from October 18 to November 6, winning all 7 rounds. On November 9, it added 4,223 tokens, holding a position of 24,500 tokens worth 52.01 million USD. Sounds impressive.
But it only made 7 trades in total. Winning all 7 and all in one direction, when the market moves in its favor, that's not really skill. It's like someone winning rock-paper-scissors seven times in a row—you wouldn't think they can predict the future. I'm not saying it can't do it, but this "100%" win rate is not the same as the win rate you and I understand at all.One address made 7 rounds of ETH long positions in 20 days, all 7 rounds were correct. On November 9, it added 4223.37 more tokens, pushing the total position to 24,500 tokens, valued at about 52.01 million USD.
Let's break down these numbers. 52.01 million divided by 24,500 tokens means about 2120 USD per token. This looks more like an averaged cost accumulated over time, not the current price. In other words, its long positions were built up in batches, not a one-time heavy position, indicating it is prepared for pullbacks.
Next, consider the "100% win rate." The sample size is only 7 rounds, the time window is from October 18 to November 6, and all directions were long. In a one-sided uptrend, 7 consecutive correct calls are not uncommon; it only proves it didn't pick the wrong direction during this period, not that it is always right in any market condition.
More importantly, the mechanism: the holdings of such addresses are public. Once widely tracked, its adding positions becomes a reason for others to enter, while it can reduce positions at any time, with followers only seeing this lagging information. The informational advantage is never on the retail side.
Judgment-wise, $ETH currently does have real money supporting it; a 24,500-token exposure is not small, and pullbacks have support. But treating "following this address" as a strategy is risky because you only see when it adds positions, not its stop-loss points.
One question remains: if next time it reduces 4223 tokens, how many people in the market will know immediately? The needle pierced 73,708 at night, a new low for August, with 850 million long liquidations bearing 90%. But the data conflicts; some say the funding rate is still 0.0069%, others say it has turned negative, while the long-short ratio has actually risen to 2.16. What’s being taken away is leverage; positions haven’t fully unwound, 73,000 can’t hold, 70,000 is the next stop.
$ETH is even weaker, dropping from 2437 to 2220, with 448 million liquidations, more than Bitcoin. ETFs have seen outflows for six consecutive weeks, with 365 million running out in a single week, 80% of liquidations being longs.
The A-share Shanghai Composite Index rose 0.32%, with turnover shrinking by 175.2 billion to 1.48 trillion. Robotics, coal, and commercial aerospace sectors took turns pulling up, but over 3,100 stocks fell. Volume is retreating, and the faster rotation feels more like exhaustion.
The US stock market’s Philadelphia Semiconductor Index jumped 4.21%, Qualcomm rose 5.52%, Google spent 548 million buying its shares, but the Dow fell 0.46%, the Nasdaq dropped 3.37% last week. Chip stocks have their own excitement but can’t drive the whole market.#ETF is still flowing in, so why is BTC falling? Suddenly this chart looks scary
From 2013 to 2017, and 2019 to 2021, BTC was accelerating upward.
But from 2022 to 2025, BTC is generally rising linearly.
Brother Feng hopes that with the addition of ETFs, the market has become more mature and rational, rather than BTC's upward momentum being insufficient.
Long-term deep involvement in the industry easily brings inherent biases, so remind yourself to stay rational and not participate based on past historical experience.
BTC -0.85%
Open your own positions and see if your market judgment is still stuck in past bull cycles.
$BTC $ETH $SOL As of 17:09 on November 9, the system shows a rare divergence of "high trend strength with low directional confidence": trend strength reaches 99%, but the 4H direction for BTC and ETH both indicate "wait and see," with confidence levels only at 58% and 59%. This suggests the market is in a phase of building one-sided momentum, but the direction remains unclear.
Second Position Holdings and Market Structure
The system is currently in a flat position, and the second position has not been triggered. Intraday, BTC dipped to $73,510 before rebounding to around $75,000, while ETH is currently priced at about $2,228, down nearly 4% in 24 hours. Attention is needed on the fee structure: ETH perpetual funding rate has turned negative, with shorts paying longs; meanwhile, BTC has had positive funding rates 92% of the past 93 days, with longs continuously paying but unable to break $76,000. This combination of "crowded longs unable to push the price" often signals trend exhaustion or an intense shakeout ahead.
Strategy Recommendations and Discipline
The system recommends the "Momentum Strategy—Minervini Strong Trend Following," with a win rate of 66-76%, a risk-reward ratio of 1:3.5, and 18x leverage. However, entering recklessly when direction is unclear and confidence is below 60% is equivalent to gambling with 18x leverage. The correct use of the strategy is to wait: once 1H resonance confirms the direction, the second position should take profits in batches at TP1 40%, TP2 35%, and TP3 25%, and immediately move the stop loss to breakeven after TP1 is triggered.
At this moment, "waiting" is not passive but preserving ammunition in the face of 99% trend strength, waiting for the moment of an upward breakout. $ETH $BTC #After the sharp drop in US stocks, tech stocks rebound, but the Nasdaq weekly chart still falls about 3.4%. This rebound is an oversold correction after a big drop, not a trend reversal. In the first half of this week, the Nasdaq faced intense selling pressure, mainly due to market concerns after the US midterm elections that the Democratic Party would tighten AI regulations and restrict data center approvals. Coupled with previously high valuations and crowded funds in the AI sector, the decline in computing power chips led the index to a significant pullback. On Friday, the chip sector stabilized first, with AMD, Intel, Micron, and others rebounding noticeably, driving the Nasdaq to close higher. However, the single-day gain was insufficient to offset the large weekly losses, with the weekly chart down 3.4%, marking the fourth consecutive week of weakness.
At the same time, the resilience of the non-farm payroll data exceeded expectations, causing the market to reprice the possibility of a Fed rate hike in December. US Treasury yields remain high, and valuation pressure on high-valued tech stocks persists. There is significant divergence within the sector; only some computing power-related stocks rebounded, while many large tech stocks remain weak. Short-term sentiment has eased somewhat, but the two core negative factors—policy and interest rates—have not been eliminated, leading to cautious capital sentiment. Going forward, focus will be on tracking US Treasury yields and AI regulatory policy developments. $BTC $ETH $SOL On the surface, BTC has reclaimed the 200-day moving average, but what is truly being traded underneath is something else. Is this wave a replay of the 2023 bottom, or just an emotional recovery? I've been watching this line for a long time. The 2023 recovery indeed occurred at the tail end of the bear market, followed by a full trend, so many people now take "reclaiming the 200-day moving average" as a buy signal. But I want to remind you: moving averages are the result, not the cause. What truly gives price meaning is whether cross-market risk appetite has shifted together behind it. First, look at the facts. BTC has retaken the 200-day moving average, a key reference line in the mid-term trend, triggered by price recovery combined with sentiment warming. The problem is, relying solely on internal crypto recovery is hard to sustain a lasting rally. What I care more about is its linkage with external assets: the US dollar index, US Treasury yields, and Nasdaq risk appetite. If these soften simultaneously, BTC holding above the moving average gains a second layer of support; if only crypto is rising, it looks more like an emotional rebound of existing funds. The bullish path is actually clear: cross-market risk appetite warms, BTC holds above the moving average attracting trend-following capital back, ETH follows the recovery, and altcoins have rotation space only after BTC stabilizes. In this rhythm, the moving average shifts from resistance to support, and a pullback without breaking confirms the rhythm. But risks also lie here. The market may have already priced in part of the "history repeating" in advance, and once external markets weaken, or BTC surges thenDOGE Weekend Dog Walk: The Dogs Don't Rest, But Liquidity Clocks Out Early
In my view, the key to DOGE's "weekend liquidity trap" isn't that holders collectively disappear, but that market makers, arbitrageurs, and watchers take staggered breaks, causing the order book to thin first and trading volume to shrink afterward.
Using the observation that Saturday's volume is 30% less than Friday's, and Sunday's volume is 20% less than Saturday's, Sunday's volume ends up at only 56% of Friday's—an accumulated 44% drop. This isn't a simple sum of percentages but rather drawing water from an already smaller pool. The shallower the pool, the easier it is for the same order to amplify slippage; price movements on the chart don't necessarily mean new funds are entering.
Monday might see a "volume rebound": market makers return, institutions reprice, and weekend position adjustments are processed, causing volume to pick up and gaps to appear more easily. But $DOGE trades 24/7 without a unified Monday opening bell, so discussions must first fix the time zone and period. These ratios are just observational samples, not a fixed weekly script.
I believe that to judge whether volume is rebounding, one shouldn't look only at rising volume. Increased order book depth and narrowing bid-ask spreads indicate liquidity returning; volume expansion without depth growth is more like a crowd squeezing through a single door simultaneously. The real weekend risk is misreading a thin order book as a strong trend.Last night we were still discussing whether the weekly close would hold, and it did hold, but on Monday during the day it directly broke below last week's low. Looking at OKX's data: $BTC closed last week at 76,075, with a low of 74,888 last week; today the low hit 73,500, and at the time of writing it is around 74,500. $ETH is weaker, dropping from 2,237 to a low of 2,063 in 24 hours, now around 2,120. What I care most about is the funding rate: BTC perpetual is still around 0.0095%, almost the default level. Over the past 24 hours, the entire network liquidations exceeded 1 billion USD, yet the funding rate did not turn negative, indicating that many are still bottom-fishing with leverage, and the longs have not been fully washed out. This kind of structure often leads to a choppy rebound. On the other hand, the US spot ETF saw an outflow of about 410 million USD last Friday, marking the second consecutive week of net outflows, and the cumulative net flow this year has also turned negative. My judgment: 74,888 has now turned from support into resistance. Until it recovers, I lean towards a weak consolidation; below, first watch if 73,500 can hold. What can reverse the direction is whether this week's US inflation data and ETF flows can turn positive. This is not trading advice; if you open leverage this week, your position really needs to be light. Do you think 73,500 can hold this week? 1.5 coins is the number I care about most in this opening position. Core Trader 78 started the story: going long on $BTC with about $73,739 as the reference price, 40x leverage, and a nominal position of approximately $110,600. The direction is chosen, but the ending is yet to be written.
When I look at this kind of trade, I usually set aside the leverage multiple first and calculate how much money corresponds to the price change. If the price moves against the position by $1,000, the unrealized loss on this position is about $1,500, not including fees. This is just my scenario estimation, but it illustrates one thing: margin can lower the entry threshold, but the price fluctuation risk is still calculated based on 1.5 coins.
So I think the key to this story is not how much leverage was used at the start, but whether the exposure will continue to expand later. I will keep an eye on changes in position size to remind myself not to mistake low capital usage for low risk.South Korea's Supreme Court's new regulations!
The revised "Civil Enforcement Rules" officially took effect on November 1, fully defining the entire process of liquidating virtual assets.
Previously, BTC and $ETH seized by the judiciary were mostly locked in official cold wallets. Cases dragged on for years with no unified disposal path; no one knew when or how the assets would be released. Now, with the new rules, seized assets can be orderly liquidated through legal channels, either returned to the national treasury or used to repay debts.
For $BTC, essentially two opposing forces are simultaneously in play: the bearish side is the newly controllable supply. Previously accumulated and newly seized coins involved in cases will have clear exit routes, resulting in long-term continuous selling pressure. But unlike hacker dumps, the process allows courts to choose phased disposals, giving the market time to absorb the supply in advance.
The bullish side is that this completes the last piece of the compliance puzzle: ownership, seizure, and sale all have legal basis, eliminating gray areas. For institutional long-term capital, this means crypto assets are recognized by mainstream judicial systems as assets with enforceable value. If this model runs smoothly, it will likely be emulated by other jurisdictions, marking a step forward in compliance.
To continuously follow announcements on the disposal of these seized assets, visit the main page of Yanxi Society.
#美国加密监管：《CLARITY法案》推进受阻，401(k)规则进入最终审查 $NEAR Negative news: Binance batch withdrawal, NEAR still stuck at the end of the queue
Binance resumed withdrawals for HYPE and APT early on November 8. NEAR, which belongs to the native network listed in the November 6 Recovery Update #9, still shows suspension as of November 9 (Binance Yi He announcement, Bitcoin Insider, CoinXview).
Current price is $3.567, down 3.54% in 24 hours, with a trading volume of about 18.85 million USDT.
After about $6.3 billion hot wallet was hacked on October 29, Binance resumed withdrawals in batches based on assets and networks after verification. INJ, LTC, and NEAR are still in the queue.
Some in the same batch have already withdrawn while others are still stuck, indicating that the security assessment of the NEAR chain has not yet passed, and withdrawal frictions remain. This negative news is first attributed to NEAR.If you only see this round of decline as a "long washout," it's easy to miss the truly vulnerable spots. The liquidation map is biased upwards; could that actually indicate more danger above? Last night, I watched the BTC liquidation heatmap for a long time. The current price is around 75716, the daily KDJ is still recovering from a low position, the lower Bollinger band is at 74294, the recent low at 74800 is short-term support, and above 76500, the next resistance is 77300. On the surface, it looks like a recovery window after overselling, but what concerns me more is: in the past 24 hours, the total network liquidation was about 5.196 billion, with long positions liquidated at 3.423 billion, accounting for 65.88%. The longs have just been seriously liquidated once, while the shorts haven't been hurt much. Here's a detail that's easy to overlook. The liquidation scale above is about 48.329 billion, below about 22.537 billion, with the center of gravity clearly weighted above, and the core dense area at 76582. In other words, if the price pushes up a bit, it can easily trigger short stop losses, forming a pulse that looks quite substantial. But the nature of this pulse is more like a squeeze, not a trend confirmation. The daily structure is still weak, and the probability of a pullback after a rally is not low. My own understanding is that the market is not trading a "reversal" now, but "who gets forced to liquidate first." The longs have already been liquidated once, releasing some short-term selling pressure, which gives the rebound some fuel; but the fuel is above, not below. The real risk lies below 75000: once broken, the area from 68000 to 75700 below... SanDisk's growth is in enterprise storage, while SK Hynix is busy upgrading to a new generation of products
All three storage stock-related contracts have been in the green for nearly 24 hours: $SNDK at 842.8 USDT, up 0.9%; $SKHYNIX at 877.8 USDT, up 0.3%; $MU at 698.66 USDT, up 0.8%. Their gains are clustered closely, but the highlights in their earnings reports differ.
SanDisk's latest quarter saw data center revenue reach $4.802 billion, a 61% quarter-over-quarter increase, while total revenue rose 23% quarter-over-quarter. Enterprise storage is growing faster, naturally increasing its share of total revenue. Enterprise sales usually require customer validation first, followed by volume purchases tied to server procurement. For quarterly revenue to jump quickly, it’s important to break down how much volume was sold and how much unit prices increased. Both rising indicates that server procurement is truly increasing SanDisk's volume, rather than just storage price hikes inflating reported revenue.
SK Hynix's focus is on generational upgrades. The company expects quarterly shipments and revenue of HBM4 to surpass those of HBM3E; only when both volume and revenue exceed the previous generation can the new generation be considered to have truly taken over business. Shipments reflect upgrade speed, while revenue is also influenced by pricing and product mix. On Micron's side, HBM4E is still in development, with mass production expected in 2027. Before mass production, there are customer validations and yield ramp-up hurdles. Micron also produces general DRAM and NAND, so for them, the potential of next-gen high-bandwidth memory is one thing, but whether other production lines can simultaneously ship and free up resources for new products is another consideration.Term Structure Radar
$BTC first-level positive basis corresponds to a very small scale. The buy near sell far quote spread is +1.14%, with the first-level pair scale about $45; based on a scale of 10,000, this level only covers about 0.45%. Capacity is limited, term signals are biased towards display.
$ETH first-level positive basis corresponds to a very small scale. The buy near sell far quote spread is +0.57%, with the first-level pair scale about $2; based on a scale of 10,000, this level only covers about 0.02%. Small orders can probe, but volume expansion must look at deeper levels.
$SOL marked basis is positive, but the buy near sell far first-level quote is inverted. Near month annualized +1.4%, far month annualized +0.61%; marked near-far spread +0.16%, buy near sell far first-level quote spread -1.18%. Marked and executable directions are opposite, cannot trade based on the mark.Thank you all for waiting.
The $UNI weekly report for the past week is here.
📊 November 2 — November 8
In the past week, Uniswap burned a total of 228,000 UNI across the entire network, with an average daily burn of about 32,571 UNI.
This is a decrease of 194,000 UNI compared to last week.
The burn volume last week was significantly higher, mainly due to the Binance hack incident, which caused on-chain transaction volume to surge abnormally for two consecutive days, driving a sharp increase in UNI burn volume, so it is not very representative.
This week's data is gradually returning to normal levels.
Burn source proportions:
Ethereum: 38.6%
Base: 25.4%
Robinhood Chain: 20.2%
The peak single-day burn this week occurred on November 5, reaching 62,000 UNI.
More detailed data can be found in the comments below👇
#美国10月CPI前瞻：12月加息预期会否改变？ $UNI A 454% year-over-year revenue growth is like a ladle of boiling oil poured into a cold pan, sizzling loudly and turning Nebius' Q3 earnings appetizer into the center of attention. Although the report was only served before the U.S. market opened on November 12, the aroma of $582 million in Q2 revenue—a 4.5-fold year-over-year surge—had already wafted into the front hall; smart computing power dominates the cloud, with heavy investments in computing chips and data centers in the back kitchen. Whether this stew thickens with time or the base ingredients get scorched depends on whether the Q3 delivery pace can keep up.
From my vantage point at the five-star stove, I won’t rush to taste this stock but will first examine the recipe. Mainstream coins are the main dish on the table, altcoins are the seasoning, and leveraged contracts are the spicy chili—just a bit wakes you up, too much burns your gut, and no matter how lively the front hall is, it can’t cover the cold sweat in the kitchen. Nebius’ growth curve is like a fierce stir-fry: fragrant, intense, and fast, but GPU computing power and data centers are heavy-asset preparations; if the slicing and dicing lag, turnover rate is dragged down by capital expenditures. If revenue growth relies only on adding burners to impress, gross margin and cash flow will reveal the truth when the sauce reduces. The smart cloud main dish must be stable; it can’t rely solely on a big ladle of oil for shine—it also depends on whether the order broth is rich enough and if rack utilization can sustain turnover.
Apple token linkage is more like a takeout window: a stir in the kitchen makes the token market in the front hall tremble. Tokenization of U.S. stocks breaks a big dish into small portions; liquidity is the dipping sauce, sentiment is the Sichuan peppercorn—numbing fast but fading quickly. If Apple’s sweet main ingredient’s earnings are undercooked, the token market will feel the softening first; if Nebius can stabilize the smart cloud main dish in Q3, the token’s aroma can continue; if computing power investment just stacks plates without serving dishes, the linkage becomes reused oil—smelling good but greasy to the taste. Worse is if the kitchen mistakes the spicy chili for the main ingredient; heavy leverage numbs the tongue, burns the stomach, and in the end, even the broth’s freshness can’t be tasted.
The sharpest judgment at this stove today is: the 4.5x growth is just an appetizer soup; the real main dish depends on whether Q3 can simultaneously bring computing power heat, capital expenditure, and token market into the same pot. #nebiusq3aicloudgrowth