Orbit Post Sitemap
The veteran short seller suddenly stopped, pocketing nearly a million dollars, more like an active profit-taking
Two short positions were closed out in the early morning hours; this time, the boss didn’t follow the usual "hold to the death" script. BTC was shorted 10x with full position, entered at 86195 and exited at 81788, pocketing about 150 coins worth approximately $705,000, with a return rate of 54.55%; XRP was also shorted 10x full position, from 1.5022 down to 1.3132, earning about 1.2 million coins and roughly $230,000, with a return rate of 127.96%. Totaling nearly one million dollars.
The unusual point is not how much was earned, but that he "ran early." BTC hovered around 80,000, and based on his usual style of holding for a year or half a year without moving, he could have easily waited longer. Closing positions now likely has two explanations: one is to prevent a short squeeze—after continuous declines, shorts become crowded, and a rebound could quickly wipe out profits; the other is that the downside space has temporarily thinned, so he cashes out first and waits for a rebound to reposition. XRP’s return rate exceeding 100% further indicates this is active profit-taking, not a passive stop-loss.
In short: this is not a bullish signal, but more like the veteran short seller switching from "enduring" to "collecting." If a rebound follows, he might wait for a better shorting opportunity; if not, he has already secured the most certain profits.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 Don't catch a falling knife when bottom fishing; hold on to what you can hold long-term, and if you can't hold it, you must run fast!
The PCE data is out: core at 3.1%, overall at 3.6%, all in line with expectations. But if you look closely at the market reaction, the probability of a rate hike in December is stubbornly stuck above 80%, and that's the real deadly knife.
Inflation is far from dead; it's just stuck at a high level. The Fed's 10-to-2 vote has already revealed its hand, with insiders eager to hike rates immediately. Now, with over an 80% probability betting on December, it means the biggest macro downside risk hasn't been fully realized yet; instead, it's ticking like a time bomb. This Damocles sword hangs over risk assets and could fall at any moment.$INTC dropped nearly 30% in one day, the last time it was this bad was in 1974.
The most ironic part is, its data center grew by almost 80% in a year, and server CPUs are even sold out.
What’s dragging it down is the PC: AI data centers have gobbled up all the memory, computers are getting more expensive, and no one is upgrading.
The company itself says PCs will decline this year and continue to decline next year.
Recently, everyone treated it as an AI stock, but when the earnings report came out, they remembered half of its business is still selling computer chips.
Simply put, the hotter AI gets, the harder it is to sell its PCs.
I’m not taking this hit.
Today’s low was around 63; if it can’t hold next week, it means the market hasn’t finished settling the accounts.
Do you think this is an AI stock being wrongly punished, or that it was never really that AI?
$INTC $AMD $NVDA
#英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 Stop dreaming, there is no "digital gold" in the deleveraging meat grinder
$BTC directly broke below 80,000 today, sliding all the way down to around 77,000, a 4% intraday plunge; $ETH is even weaker, completely falling below 2250; $SOL was hammered down to 95. Those who were shouting "new highs in US stocks, crypto market consolidating before a big move" a few days ago are probably out on the rooftop catching the wind now.
I completely agree with your judgment: stop dreaming!
With AI tech stocks turning down and macro funds tightening, crypto is definitely not a "safe haven asset"; it is an extremely high Beta asset. As soon as the Nasdaq and Philadelphia Semiconductor Index sneeze, these high-leverage crypto assets go straight to the ICU. The nonsense about "decoupling" and "digital gold" only works in bull markets. When it really comes to macro deleveraging days, all global risk assets are drained from the same pool—no one escapes.
Should you buy the dip now or wait for the dust to settle?
My answer is firm: wait for the dust to settle, never blindly catch a falling knife!
Jumping in to bottom-fish now is going head-to-head with the macro trend. Core PCE is as high as 3.1%, rate hike clouds linger, and liquidity is being drained. Trying to bottom-fish on the left side of a downtrend will most likely get you blown to pieces by the aftershocks of cascading liquidations.
The strategy is simple: hold your hands, keep enough bullets. Wait for panic selling to fully vent, wait for macro sentiment to stabilize, wait for the market to show a volume-increasing, stop-falling right-side signal before entering. In this ruthless market, survival is the only qualification for talking about bottom-fishing!
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 October Collapse: Torn Order Book and Failed Pricing Logic
BTC reported at $76,690 (-1.64%), ETH fell below $2,232, and the Fear & Greed Index dropped to 29. In 24 hours, the entire network liquidated $1.34 billion, with longs accounting for 86%. Due to Binance suffering a $6.3 billion security breach, BTC briefly dipped to $76,400. However, BCH rose against the trend by 5.56%, and AI company Pre-IPO perpetual contract ANTHROPICUSDT topped the contract leaderboard at $170.86.
$BTC: Firmly defending the $77,000 weekly support line, with $75,800 as the core long position. The 10-year US Treasury yield surpassing 5% suppresses incremental funds, and the market hopes for about $1.4-$3.3 billion in forced buybacks to support prices.
$BCH: CME futures listing provides a compliance catalyst, but funding rates turned negative. Retail investors topping out and shorting were strongly resisted by major players; the short squeeze outweighs the long-term narrative. Short-term strength is credible but does not indicate a return of payment demand.
$ANTHROPIC: The $170 price corresponds to a purely synthetic exposure rather than real equity. Implied valuation nears $1.9 trillion, retail longs outnumber shorts by six times but without large holder support. Similar historical contracts opened with about a 25% deviation on day one; this is merely an offshore expectation ticket.
Summary: Pricing logic for the three major assets failed on the same day. The market is not short of volatility but lacks certainty of incremental capital inflow. During liquidity contraction, narratives can diverge, but positions must converge.
#英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 Right after the Binance hot wallet incident broke out, Aave slammed on the brakes.
First, it froze V3 and V4 reserves, suspending all core pools across multiple chains. Then LlamaRisk submitted a governance proposal: lowering the borrowing caps for 27 reserve assets in V3, tightening the withdrawal limits on 6 credit lines in V4, with the new caps set at 1.02 times the pre-attack borrowing amounts, leaving only a very thin buffer.
According to the proposal's calculations, about $3.7 billion of unused quota was reclaimed from V3, about $130 million from V4, totaling $3.83 billion of potential leverage wiped out.
What’s affected is how much can still be borrowed, not what has already been borrowed. Existing positions remain untouched, so no chain liquidations will be triggered, but the path to maxing out the quotas in the future is blocked.
Meanwhile, the cross-chain sector is showing volatility amid controversy. THORChain was called out: some assets from the Binance incident and the September Bitget hack were exchanged cross-chain through it, converging into the same Ethereum address. On October 30, RUNE surged over 10% in a single day, reaching about $0.659. The naming and the price surge coincided, but causality cannot be confirmed.
The structural problem is clear: native assets freely switching across multiple chains drastically increase the cost of tracking suspicious funds, and intermediary protocols bear long-term reputational risks.
In the short term, it’s an emotional play for $RUNE; in the medium term, watch $AAVE governance votes and ETH capital flows. #Google stock price plummets after earnings report, AI investment returns under scrutiny
After Google's Q3 earnings release, the stock plunged sharply in after-hours trading. The core issue isn't revenue missing expectations, but free cash flow being negative for the second consecutive quarter, hitting -$9.07 billion. Quarterly capital expenditures soared to 51.4 billion, and operating cash flow can't cover it at all.
What really stings is the structure. The cloud business is indeed strong, with revenue doubling and a 36% profit margin, proving AI computing power can be profitable. But the main chunk, search advertising, only grew by 12%. The money printer (advertising) is slowing down, the money guzzler (AI infrastructure) is ramping up wildly, and the cash flow gap in between has been completely exposed by the earnings report.
Old Mo says: The market used to pay for the AI story, now it's starting to check the books. Microsoft's capital expenditures are also large, but cash flow is positive, so its stock price hasn't crashed. Google's capital expenditures are expected to "significantly increase" by 2027, and there are no signs this gap will close anytime soon.
BTC current price is about 77,100, tech stocks are cutting valuations and suppressing risk appetite. Support below is 76,500; if broken, look to 76,000. If you have a position, set stop loss below 76,000; if you don't, don't catch a falling knife—wait for a pullback to 76,500 with reduced volume and stabilization before acting. $BTC $ETH $SOL $BCH BCH's trend is just too strong
The price keeps slipping down
Retail investors are buying more as it falls
The long-short ratio in contracts has directly hit 2.83
All are stubbornly holding long positions to the death
The buying power on the market has long dried up
These bulls are now the fattest prey in the eyes of the manipulators
If they don't push down hard to blow out this pile of longs
How will the manipulators build their positions
Going short along the trend is just going with the flow
#BCH
$BCH
👇😎 33 issuers jointly "open fire," and even JPMorgan Chase jumps out to oppose OKX and ICE's tokenized stock platform—this kind of scene isn't seen every day.
On the surface, it looks like big banks are shouting "risk," but on closer inspection, it sounds more like this: on-chain stocks have really stepped on the tail of the traditional chain. Distribution, custody, clearing—once these three old cheeses are reorganized on-chain, the old division of labor will have to obediently give way. 🧀
Interestingly, Google simultaneously hinted: opening MPC custody to banks by early 2027. The institutional gateway isn't closed; instead, it's paving the way. Opposing on one hand, building the road on the other—this split personality is quite artistic. 🛣️
$OKB current price 111, the market almost hasn't priced this in. I don't see it as a buy point, just as an observation line: the louder Wall Street shouts, the more it shows that the on-chain path won't be easily pushed back. 🔍
Here's the list for now, watch it slowly. Signals like this are often most valuable when the audience is smallest. 👀#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 #加密行业协同守护资产安全 In the past 41 days, I have posted every real trade entry price and stop loss level in Orbit, including the 3 times I got stopped out, and I even kept the two trades that lost $2,180 without deleting them. You can check the history record one by one. If you want to know how a trader survives during a downtrend, watching this is more useful than following trade calls.
In the early morning, $1.5 billion in leveraged positions were liquidated, and BTC dropped from around 79,000 to 76,764. I caught an order at a limit price of 78,600, with a stop loss at 75,400, and the position size was only 60% of usual. The reason is straightforward: this looks more like long leverage being washed out, not a trend reversal. Funding rates turned negative, open interest dropped about 8%, but there was no panic selling on the spot side, indicating that what was sold was leverage, not chips.
What’s really worth noting is UNI going against the trend with +9.7%. When mainstream assets are deleveraging, the funds don’t leave the market; they just switch to a cheaper narrative. What I fear most in this round is never the drop itself, but being fully invested during the drop — so 60% position size is my answer: keep half the bullets for the 74,000 level.
At this position, do you reduce your position waiting for a 74,000 pullback, or add to bet on a rebound?
Follow me, I publicly share real-time positions and stop loss logic every day, and honestly write about losses too.
#OKXProphet The Binance theft incident is a new type of risk brought by Ethereum's EIP‑7702 account delegation mechanism, where a signature can authorize a contract to take over the entire wallet, representing a newly added special attack surface on Ethereum.
AVAX, APT, DOT, Celo, Mina, RVN, and Ronin are not absolutely secure; they also have vulnerabilities in contracts, nodes, and private key custody.
The difference is: RVN is PoW UTXO, and signatures are limited to single transactions; Mina, Celo, AVAX, APT, DOT, and Ronin have not enabled account delegation features like EIP‑7702, so their underlying systems do not have a mechanism where "signing one authorization permanently transfers account control."
They avoid this new attack paradigm exploited by hackers this time, and the risk boundaries at the protocol level differ from those of Ethereum.The situation in the Middle East is converging toward a specific point in time.
There are reports that the US has informed its Gulf allies to prepare for a short but intense airstrike as early as November 4. This date is worth watching—it is the day after the US midterm elections conclude.
Why is this important? It shows that the decision-making is tied to a political timeline. Acting after the election minimizes domestic interference, but the market faces a "date set, scale unknown" window. This kind of window is the least friendly to risk assets: you don’t know how big the strike will be or whether it will affect energy routes, so the only option is to reduce positions first.
I assess such events with a three-step framework.
First, see if it’s just a pinpoint strike. If the target is limited and the duration short, the market usually drops sharply that day but then recovers as uncertainty is digested.
Second, see if it impacts energy. If there’s any expectation of a blockade in the Strait of Hormuz, rising oil prices will push inflation expectations higher. This line is a real suppression for risk assets, not just sentiment.
Third, see where the money flows. Gold and the US dollar benefit first. The role of $BTC is ambiguous; sometimes it’s treated as a risk asset and sold off, sometimes as a safe haven and bought. Recently, it’s more like the former, so don’t expect it to act as a refuge in the first wave.
The operational rule is simple: during such a window, reduce leverage to less than half the usual level, and when going long, don’t place stop-loss just below a round number—that’s where stop-hunting spikes tend to hit. The real opportunity comes in the second wave, when the scope is clear and sentiment has been released, then the trend becomes clear.
What you should do is adjust your position to a level where you can sleep well, rather than guessing the exact day the strike will start. The reopening of the strait is just a paper progress; oil prices did not fall accordingly.
Iran said the strait could reopen four days after sanctions are lifted.
Oil prices on the market rose again that day.
How is this number calculated:
Brent year-end forecast was raised to $110.
Not because of oil shortage, but because no one dares to guarantee it can reach that level.
Who is affected:
Crude oil can bypass the Red Sea via pipelines, but Qatar's LNG can only pass through the strait.
This route has no alternative.
The sequence is locked, so the plan is just a plan.
$BTC has been grinding below 80,000 after breaking down.
Energy prices don't come down, so rate cuts are pushed back.
Market makers' orders never look at news headlines.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高
#$BTC Triple short positions in hand, relying on funding fees to maximize fault tolerance space
On-chain whale currently detected with triple short layout, total position value 650 million, profit and loss differences among different targets widening, continuously thickening the safety cushion through funding fees.
📊Positions
✅ BTC short｜5X full position
Holding: -2319.6 BTC, position value 180 million
Opening price: 76366.1
Unrealized P&L: -693,100
Funding fee income: +3,375,200
Margin: 35,566,400, liquidation price: 137601.41
✅ ETH short｜5X full position
Holding: -100,000 ETH, position value 220 million
Opening price: 2322.74
Unrealized P&L: +8,602,800
Funding fee income: +4,332,700
Margin: 44,726,000, liquidation price: 3639.03
✅ SOL short｜7X full position
Holding: -696,100 SOL, position value 66,366,700
Opening price: 94.3346
Unrealized P&L: -698,400
Funding fee income: +3,899,700
Margin: 9,481,000, liquidation price: 293.68"A 0.43% buffer against the daily fluctuations of $ETH — this is the riskiest part of this trade."
$ETH 100x leverage, 2234.45→2244.02, +42.82%. Conversely: it only needs to pull back about 0.04% for that 42% gain to vanish completely.
What does 0.04% mean for $ETH? A normal downward wick, or even a large sell order on the order book. In other words, this trade doesn't require any fading of bullish momentum, a trend reversal, or even someone deliberately shorting — a purely technical pullback is enough to wipe it out.
100x leverage magnifies 0.43% into 42%, but it also magnifies 0.04% into zero. It offers you huge returns but is always ready to take them back.
The market itself is holding up: price is running high. But the key support below isn't far away.
So I never decide to close based on "how much I've earned," only on how far the price is from my cost line. 0.43% looks like a buffer, but the asset's fluctuations never make sense.
The only move: push to break even, at worst lock in zero, and don't increase exposure. $BTC $SOL #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 [October 30 Spot ETF Fund Flows: Slight Net Inflow for Bitcoin, Continued Outflow for Ethereum]
Bitcoin ETF:
1. Single-day net inflow of 395 BTC (approximately $30.47 million), 7-day cumulative net inflow of 3,503 BTC (approximately $271 million).
2. BlackRock IBIT +158 BTC, Fidelity FBTC +130 BTC, Bitwise BITB +108 BTC; Grayscale -5 BTC.
3. Total Bitcoin ETF holdings approximately 1.2808 million BTC (approximately $98.9 billion).
Ethereum ETF:
1. Single-day net outflow of 27,947 ETH (approximately $62.28 million), 7-day cumulative net outflow of 109,709 ETH (approximately $244 million).
2. Outflows mainly from BlackRock ETHA, single-day -30,764 ETH, 7-day -134,822 ETH; Grayscale and Fidelity had slight single-day net inflows.$SNX
$8.4 million. Synthetix's DAO recovered this amount from the Binance hack, frozen on-chain, and the money has returned to the community treasury.
Interestingly, the market. Before the recovery news came out, SNX was hovering around 0.1696; now it's at 0.1848, pulling back 9 points from the low, and the 24-hour decline has shrunk to within 1 point.
I used to think DAO governance was just for show—proposals get debated for three months, execution drags on for another six months, and recovering assets like this was unthinkable. This time, I was proven wrong. On-chain freezing has precedent, but no one treated the DAO as an entity capable of quick action. This time they moved fast, and the speed itself is a statement.
But don’t rush in just because of the recovery. What was recovered is stolen assets, not dividends for token holders; the treasury’s money should be used as intended and has nothing to do with the secondary market’s trading.
Whether the remaining 20% can be successfully recovered is the real suspense in this drama.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 In this disclosure of the ten bosses' position updates, the BTC long position is still held, while the SOL and ETH short positions have both been historically closed. The most noteworthy difference is between unrealized floating profits and realized gains and losses. BTC: 150 units, 10X full position long, average opening price 76738.5, marked price at update 76769.6, floating profit +4664.09U, return rate +0.40%. The disclosure standard is to continue holding the base position. SOL: 15,000 units, 10X full position short, average opening price 224.66, average closing price 117.95, realized profit +1,580,233.61U, return rate +468.94%. This historical profit is very outstanding, but the position has ended, so it cannot be used to judge that there is still a SOL short exposure now. ETH: 1 unit, 10X full position short, average opening price 2591, average closing price 2598, realized loss -7U, return rate -2.70%. This small position loss exit is obviously different from the scale of SOL's profit. My view. Putting the three orders together easily lets SOL's historical profit overshadow the price fluctuations still borne by BTC. BTC's floating profit is unrealized and cannot be mixed with historical closed profits as the total account performance; ETH's small loss is also insufficient to indicate how the entire set of trades controls drawdown. The update's evaluation of BTC margin status is relatively optimistic, but it does not provide specific maintenance margin rates or account equity, so the safety buffer's thickness still lacks a basis for judgment. Full position risk also depends on the account's available margin and cannot$BTC
76260. This is the lowest price BTC hit in the past 24 hours, currently hovering around 76700.
A 3% drop, not severe on its own, but it slid all the way down from 79200 without any decent rebound along the way. Last night was even worse for the US stock market; the Nasdaq closed down 2.9%, with the semiconductor sector dropping over 8% intraday. The crypto market’s old problem of following the drop but not the rise was proven again today.
I have no positions this round, which actually makes me feel relieved. Last week, a friend asked if it was worth chasing near 79000, and I said there were many trapped positions above, so chasing would just be carrying others’ burdens. Now I see that was half right—he actually meant 78500, and that level is even more firmly trapped now.
Some blame this drop on Binance being hacked. I don’t quite agree. The hackers did steal funds, but you’ve seen Binance’s recent announcement: 80% of the money has already been recovered, and withdrawals will be restored in phases within 34 hours. The dump happened before the announcement, and the recovery came after. In this price gap, sentiment accounts for only a small part, while macro factors dominate. Fed officials are still hawkish, saying at least two more rate hikes are needed. That statement is sharper than the hackers’ knife.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 $CORE This pump-and-dump operator is inhuman, dumping every day!The $DOGE candlestick chart seems to have an invisible metronome: up for one year, down for one year, sideways for one year, exactly a three-year cycle. The current market is right at the historical bottom outline, while outsiders are still stuck on fluctuations of just a few tenths of a point, big players have quietly absorbed 600 million coins at the bottom. Long-term holders are deeply underwater but refuse to let go; the chips have long been cleaned out.
#DOGE
$DOGE
👇#AMD财报前瞻：HeliosAI系统商业化进展 Hackers are just the fuse; the real explosion is in the chips 💣
Last night the crypto market crashed suddenly, and many pointed fingers at the black swan event of Binance losing nearly $6 billion. But looking calmly, hackers seem more like scapegoats; the real reason the market is suffocating is that the chip structure is already critically ill 🫠.
The data is painful: $BTC profit positions are only 4.03%, meaning 96% of holders are struggling underwater; the average cost is about 78967, with a large block of red trapped positions still pressing in the 78000–81000 range 🧱. This means the resistance above is not ordinary but a dense "exit for breaking even." Once the price rebounds, those eager to recover losses will line up to sell, naturally increasing selling pressure layer by layer 📉.
So now there are triple blows: the black swan crash, everyone trapped underwater, and selling pressure as soon as the rebound hits ⚡. Before the heavy trapped positions are truly digested, the rebound looks more like an escape window rather than a safe starting point. Don’t mistake a rebound for a reversal; before bottom fishing, ask yourself: who will take the chips above? 🤔 Beware of blind bottom fishing; staying alive is more important than chasing rebounds 💡. #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 #加密行业协同守护资产安全 In the disclosed delivery records of the eleven bosses this time, the BTC long position has realized a profit of +263055.44U, while the ETH short position has realized a loss of -7207.44U. Both trades used 30X full margin, showing a significant contrast in profit and loss. The BTC long position recorded 449.99 units, with an average opening price of 79497.2 and an average closing price of 80144.7, yielding a return of +22.06%. However, there is an inconsistency in the position description: the record states "maximum position 200 units," but also mentions adding to the position up to 449.99 units during the trade, making it impossible to accurately reconstruct the position changes based on this. The ETH short position was 1000 units, with an average opening price of 2247.23 and an average closing price of 2253.56, resulting in a return of -9.62%. According to this record, a stop loss was chosen after the price moved unfavorably, ending the trade. My view: The original interpretation attributed this set of results to "big wins and small losses." Regarding the two disclosed realized profits, BTC's gains indeed covered ETH's losses; however, to evaluate whether the stop loss was appropriate, it is necessary to know the preset stop loss, drawdown during the position holding, and account margin situation. Looking only at the final delivery results is insufficient. I am more concerned about the risks of holding both long and short positions simultaneously: opening opposite positions across different coins cannot be directly regarded as risk hedging. Position size, price volatility, and correlation all affect the actual exposure, and 30X full margin will put greater pressure on the account margin. One profitable trade covering a loss is not enough to prove that this approach can be repeated long-term. When evaluating this type of trade, do you focus more on the final profit and loss or on the drawdown and margin risks borne during the process? A veteran short seller known for "holding on to the death" suddenly closed two fully leveraged short positions last night — $BTC 10x full position short, entry at 86195, exit at 81788, pocketing about 150 BTC, with an unrealized profit of about $705,000, a return rate of 54.55%; $XRP also 10x full position short, from 1.5022 down to 1.3132, a position of 1.2 million tokens netting about $230,000, a return rate as high as 127.96%. The two trades combined nearly reached one million dollars. 💰 What’s truly worth watching is not how much he earned, but why he chose to exit now. $BTC is still hovering around 80,000, and given his temperament of "not moving a bit" for the past year and a half, he certainly has the capital to keep waiting. Closing positions proactively at this point can only mean two things: one is to prevent a short squeeze — after continuous declines, the short camp is getting more and more crowded, and if a sudden rally occurs, profits will evaporate at the fastest speed; the other is that the support below has temporarily weakened, so he cashes out first and will rebuild positions after a rebound. The $XRP trade’s return rate has more than doubled, which looks more like active profit-taking rather than passive stop-loss. 🔍 There is a signal here that is easy to misinterpret. Many people see a big short seller closing positions and immediately think "he’s turning bullish." But from a behavioral logic perspective, this looks more like a tactical switch: from "holding on hard" to "collecting rent." If the price goes back up, he can wait for a more comfortable shorting point; if it doesn’t, the most certain profits are already in the pocket. In other words, this is not a bullish signal, but shorts optimizing their risk-reward structure. The short-term direction of $BTC and $XRP has not changed because of thisA 378 percentage point year-over-year growth rate is not just a bullish candlestick; it's like suddenly having a breakthrough pawn appear in the center of the chessboard, forcing everyone to recalculate the entire variation. In this game of SanDisk, Q1 revenue was $11.031 billion, up 378% year-over-year and 23% quarter-over-quarter; data center revenue was $4.802 billion, up 61% quarter-over-quarter, like a king's wing stacking rooks for a strong attack; consumer revenue dropped 29% quarter-over-quarter, like a weakness in the rear wing pawn chain. Management attributes the growth to strong and rising product demand, which is a proactive move that controls the opponent: you can't just look at piece scoring, you have to see if it forces the opponent into your forced variation. The Q2 guidance is $12.2 billion to $12.6 billion, with pre-split non-GAAP diluted EPS of $0.55 to $0.57, effectively handing control over to the endgame: not a single-quarter checkmate, but continuous compression of the opponent's activity space. The alphabet token assets' linkage is like the queen's long-range diagonal, and the storage chain is coordinated like rooks and knights; if data center capital expenditures continue to thicken the center, SanDisk's strong points have backup, but the consumer side's weak squares will be repeatedly probed by the opponent. A grandmaster doesn't chase every pawn but first looks at pawn structure: thick center, thin wings, most afraid of being exchanged into the endgame. A 378% growth rate can be a beautiful sacrifice or a bait; the key is whether order visibility can nail down the consumer bleeding in a controllable square. If you only press your position on this tactical combination, it's like exposing your king on an open file. What really needs to be calculated is twenty moves later: whether data center demand can push the product structure toward high-value squares for two consecutive quarters, rather than using a single year-over-year figure to divert the market from the center. Position management is the same: the initiative is not full position, but making the opponent have no waiting moves; piece advantage must be converted into spatial advantage, and spatial advantage into forced moves by the opponent. A 29% quarter-over-quarter drop in the consumer side is not a decimal point; it's the opponent creating a breakthrough pawn on the rear wing; if data center growth cannot be converted into pricing power and order visibility, the king's wing offensive will be counter-constrained. Pre-split EPS coordinates are like the rules before promotion; a good number does not mean promotion is complete, you must see if subsequent pieces land on the correct squares. In this market linkage game, alphabet token assets provide long-range firepower, the storage chain provides rook and knight coordination, but any coordination fears piece exchanges: once data center growth is dragged into the endgame by consumer bleeding, the strong points become isolated pawns. Professional judgment: if the 378% growth rate cannot continue to suppress consumer bleeding in the next game, it is a sacrifice that lures the opponent away from the center; the real winning move lies in the continuity of orders. #sandiskq1revenueup378%A net profit of 719 million USD, when spread out in a profile, looks like a beautiful main beam—but as soon as you chip away the concrete, you'll see that 715 million comes from the fair value revaluation of held assets. This isn't money earned from construction; it's the land itself appreciating. The actual usable area poured by operations is only 78 million. Designers understand: height gained from foundation settlement doesn't count as floor height.
Even more critical is the load-bearing system. Trading business revenue dropped 44% year-over-year to 5.9 million—that was the original main shear wall of this building, now being hollowed out bit by bit. You can use revaluation gains to gild the facade, but gold leaf doesn't bear weight. Once the coin price stagnates or retracts, this beam immediately exposes its stirrups.
However, there is indeed a new structure on site: the prediction market's annualized revenue has surpassed 200 million, and daily traders increased by over 60% month-over-month. This isn't renovation; it's like adding an atrium next to the original main building—the flow of people has been rearranged, and the load path has changed. My judgment criteria are strict: first, check if it has an independent foundation, then see if the settlement joint with the main building is wide enough. If traffic is merely redirected from the old hall to the new atrium, that's flow optimization, not additional building area; if these people are attracted by the new structural logic, that is a genuine expansion permit. Currently, the 60% increase is only enough for a construction start report, not for completion acceptance.
As for the linkage with the US stock token $xTSM, that's like two adjacent buildings sharing an underground diaphragm wall. When the main building shakes, the annex inevitably shifts too, and the dampers haven't been fully installed yet. The market likes to call this coupling a "synergy effect," but we call it "resonance risk without seismic isolation design."
I don't look at the renderings in the white paper; I only look at the reinforcement ratio and concrete grade. If a company's profit statement relies on revaluation to support 99% of its height, then it's not building a building, it's making a show unit.
The main shear wall continues to be thinned, and the newly added staircase has not yet undergone load testing. #coinbaseq3profitreturns $BNB pricing has two pillars: exchange revenue expectations and ecosystem activity, plus supply contraction from quarterly burns.
The advantage is its thick order book and narrow spreads, with slippage among the smallest in major coins — so the wear and tear on this entry and exit is less than with smaller coins. The trade-off is limited range; a 50x leverage tolerance corresponds to about 2% downside space (currently 8.68%, already cushioned by unrealized gains).
Looking at both pillars together: this should be treated as "a phase of decline," without assuming it can keep going far. Burns are a slow variable and won’t save short-term moves.
Follow-up strategy: manage according to a phase of the market, without setting long-term targets. Finish collecting at three decreasing levels: 690, 650, 620, and don’t add new targets just because the drop is smooth. $BTC $ETH
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 $BTC
Since June, the "coordination" between Bessent and Wash has been ongoing. Previously, Bessent explicitly praised Wash's decision to cancel the "dot plot" and weaken the "forward guidance."
From Bessent's remarks, it is evident that there is an attempt to redefine the "drivers of inflation" and to downplay the market's panic over rate hike expectations.
In this rate-setting meeting, Wash also clearly pointed out that the plan to cancel the dot plot and weaken forward guidance is gradually advancing, which will make future markets filled with more uncertainty and greater volatility.What you need to do now is to believe in yourself!
On the path of cyclical trading, most of the time is "trash time." Truly certain and worthwhile opportunities to act are very few. If you can't see clearly in the short term, just follow the trend, as long as the overall direction is correct.
The image below is a "Exchange Buying Power" monitor, where green indicates positive buying power and red indicates negative buying power; I can use it as an example to explain:
Based on the highs and lows of the green and red waveforms, we can intuitively divide a cycle into four different emotional stages: panic, caution, optimism, and greed (the lower the red value, the more panic; the higher the green value, the more greed).
As traders, we should let our emotions be one step "faster" than the market! That is:
When the market is in the "panic" zone (red), we should be "cautious";
When the market is in the "caution" zone (orange), we should be "optimistic";
When the market is in the "optimism" zone (green), we should be "greedy";
When the market is in the "greed" zone (blue), we should be "panicked";
Returning to the current market sentiment, it is clearly no longer extreme panic, but also not very optimistic. The most reasonable characterization should be "cautious and divergent," which is what I often call the "bear-bull transition period."
According to the above logic, at this stage we should actually be "optimistic."
Pay close attention! Within the orange range, whenever the "Exchange Buying Power" shows a negative value, it is a relatively certain and worthwhile time period to seize.
However, this data can only give us a vague area, not precise timing.⚠️ Leveraged Long Crowding Watch: BTC, ETH, and SOL borrowing for longs heating up simultaneously, but coin prices remain weak.
📊 $BTC: 1,363.3 borrowed long, 73.05 borrowed short, a huge long-short gap, long trades are relatively crowded.
📊 $ETH: 16,800 borrowed long, 742.8 borrowed short, strong willingness to add positions, but price hasn't followed, short-term pressure exists.
📊 $SOL: 110,700 borrowed long, 3,085.99 borrowed short, longs are also clustered.
🌍 Macro: US September core PCE rose to 3.1%, inflation stickiness remains, rate hike expectations warming up, risk assets may be suppressed.
🧠 Personal view: What to guard against more is "price weakening while longs keep adding." If key support breaks, stop-loss and forced liquidation may trigger in chain, amplifying short-term declines. But borrowed coin volume ≠ actual holdings, so direction cannot be judged by it alone.
🛡️ Trading reminder: Don't rush to bottom-fish, nor short just because longs are crowded; focus on price, volume, and liquidation changes. #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 $ETH Many people set stop-loss orders at the cost price, but actually place them in the wrong spot.
This 100x position's initial margin can withstand a 1% adverse fluctuation; with an unrealized profit of 519.08%, it adds an extra 5.191% buffer. Altogether, it can endure a 6.191% rise calculated from the entry price—that is, the price must reach 2510.1 to truly break even.
This is 146 points higher than the cost price of 2363.78. So even if the price rises back to your entry point, this position won't die; only the profit will return to zero.
Follow-up strategy: Don't keep fixating on 2363.78. The real observation level is 2300—once it stands above that, the unrealized profit drops to only 270%, and that's when you should reduce your position. Don't wait until it returns to cost to take action. $BTC $SOL
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 $AKE 195.94% is unrealized profit, but breaking it down into four numbers reveals the true nature of this position.
First: 7.84%. The actual drop. From 7.349 to 6.773, a move of 0.576 points, magnified 25 times to 195.94%.
Second: 8.51%. The fallback. Converting 0.576 points back from the current price equals 8.51%. It doesn’t match the 7.84% because the denominator is different—loss is calculated from the opening price, breakeven from the current price. The deeper the drop, the harder it is to break even.
Third: 3.35 versus 4.03. 7.0 is 3.35% overhead, 6.5 is 4.03% below. The resistance above is closer than the target below—pullback is more likely than further decline. This is a warning embedded in the numbers.
Fourth: 11.41. The distance to 6.0. The first target 6.5 requires only 4.03%, but the major target 6.0 requires 11.41%—almost three times the distance. Don’t treat "breaking 6.5" as "reaching 6.0".
One more calculation: under 25x leverage, every 1% it moves back reduces my unrealized profit by 25%. If it jitters 1% around 6.773, my profit bounces between 171% and 221%—every twitch seen on the chart is noise, none is a signal.
With these four numbers laid out, the plan is set: realize most profits, secure the principal and push upwards. Reduce position once it stands above 7.0, only consider 6.0 if it decisively breaks 6.5, do nothing in between. $BTC $ETH #AppleQ4iPhone18Outlook I think Apple will beat Q4 earnings despite iPhone 18 Pro supply cuts. Services revenue and strong iPhone 18 base model demand should offset it. My bet is Yes for AAPL earnings beat on Nov 2. $AAPL #AppleQ4iPhone18Outlook[Quick Comment] Intel's flash crash of 22%, don't mistake a "deep pit" for a "golden pit" (￣ω￣;)
This post-market stumble is not just a simple emotional stampede, but more like a collective alarm from the PC industry chain. Chen Liwu made it clear: PC demand is weak, but memory prices keep soaring, and this cost gap might not be filled even by the first half of 2027 (╯﹏╰). The market reaction is straightforward: AI computing power keeps popping champagne, while traditional PCs first need to fix the roof.
The "storage super cycle" was loudly proclaimed in the past two years, but now the bill has come: SK Hynix, Samsung, and Micron are making huge profits, while downstream PC manufacturers and chipmakers are being squeezed by high-priced storage. End products aren't selling, costs can't come down, and the more they produce, the harder it gets ( •̀ ω •́ )✧.
So, a sharp drop doesn't mean a bargain. A rebound in a declining sector doesn't mean a reversal; where the money flows in the industry chain is the key. Currently, AI computing power and upstream storage are still attracting capital, and the tough days for the traditional PC chain may not be over yet. Hold your positions steady, don't get carried away, let the flying knives wait for the bullets to fly a while (￣▽￣)ゞ
#英特尔Q4业绩指引低于预期，股价大跌 #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 $TRX surged to 0.375 but was immediately smashed down by a big bearish candlestick, the selling pressure is blatant.
One person holds 60% of the circulating supply, it looks lively with trading volume normally, but when the sell-off really happens, the buy side is as thin as paper.
The profit-taking above can be thrown off casually with no support at all, buy orders at this level are already exhausted, and a slight withdrawal of liquidity could trigger a stampede in no time.
#TRX
$TRX
👇Despite concentrated negative factors, Bitcoin holds steady in its "stress test" 📉
With the Fed leaning hawkish, rising oil prices, hot CPI, global bond yields climbing, and a strong dollar, combined with Ledger being hacked, Strategy (MSTR) delisting risks, and AI transformation controversies, Bitcoin is undergoing an intense "stress test" 🧪. Normally, these factors would be enough to push it below $70,000, but the price remains range-bound, indicating selling pressure is gradually being absorbed 🛡️.
What’s more noteworthy is that the price did not break down when bad news was released in clusters, often meaning pessimistic expectations have been partially priced in. The market may be building a temporary bottom, digesting macro and sentiment shocks through sideways movement 📊. This is also a common resilience trait in bull markets: not a straight upward rise, but holding key ranges amid negative news ⏳. If macro pressures ease later, risk appetite may recover; but if the dollar and yields continue to rise, the range could still be tested 🔍.Everyone seeing the 390% unrealized profit on short positions with $SNDK's first reaction is "How much further can it fall?" I think the other way around: with 75x leverage, a 3% rebound from 1149.1 would reduce that 390% to about 165%.
The deeper the drop, the stronger the shorts' impulse to take profits. That final little upward turn is a signal—someone is secretly buying back.
So I do the opposite: the smoother it goes, the more I reduce. Lock in most of the 390% first, secure principal and the bulk, keep a small base position to watch the previous low. If it really breaks, then buy more; if it rebounds, no regrets. This is called handing the judgment over to position sizing. $BTC $ETH #OKX、ICE与Trade.xyz联手，推动永续合约进入美国合规市场 Sun Yuchen "quietly increasing" PEPE holdings, is the ETF expectation heating up first? 🐸
The PEPE spot ETF application has stirred up again—the first related application has reported new progress, instantly igniting market sentiment 🔥. Interestingly, on-chain data "spoke" earlier than the announcement: over the past ten days, Sun Yuchen's address has continuously bought PEPE, totaling about $51 million, making him the largest individual holder of PEPE. Based on the current market price, the unrealized profit on the books has already reached over ten million dollars 💰.
What’s even more intriguing is that before the news broke, he barely mentioned PEPE, but his fund movements were quite honest. So the community started speculating: did Sun catch the ETF rumors early? 👀
However, looking calmly, only an application amendment has been submitted so far, and the SEC has not given any approval response. Whether it will pass remains unknown; right now, it looks more like expectation-driven trading rather than a definite positive ⚠️. PEPE is highly volatile, so buckle up when chasing hot topics～🚀Originally thought gold could still hold the ground
But once it refreshed 3900, it was directly smashed through
Spot price bottomed around 3891, down over 3% intraday
Silver also broke 50, gold price has cumulatively dropped over 6% this month
Oil prices remain high, fueling inflation expectations
PCE is a bit stronger, December rate hike pricing heats up again
The opportunity cost of holding gold suddenly rises
When gold and silver both get hit
Don’t rush to find a safe-haven narrative $INTC
Intel closed at $65.76, down 28.6%, with an intraday low of 63.2. Breaking news says this is the worst single day in at least forty years, with market value evaporating by hundreds of billions of dollars in one day.
I mentioned in my earnings report article yesterday that the Q4 guidance looked bad, but the real answer would come at tonight's open. Now the answer is out, and it's even worse than I expected.
The INTC token on OKX is now at 65.41, basically in sync with the US stock close, with a 24-hour low of 63.29. Interestingly, the perpetual funding rate is still positive, with longs still paying, and the position size of $37 million hasn't shrunk much. Even after such a drop, there are still people lining up to go long—braver than me.
I haven't been wrong about the semiconductor sector this round; I just kept saying it's a big test but didn't dare to submit my answers early.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 October Wrap-up: The money hasn't left; it has all just curled up like a hedgehog. Summarizing the whole month in one sentence: it's not an exit, it's a contraction. The evidence is the opposite. The total stablecoin supply is 303.4 billion, neither rising nor falling; Bitcoin ETFs still saw a slight net inflow of 127 million this month; miners are reallocating electricity to AI hosting, and the momentum for new machines is declining; the SOPR of long-term holders has dropped below 1, indicating cheap chips have already changed hands once. None of these are signs of a crash. But looking up reveals a different picture: ETH ETFs lost 14.5 billion in a month, setting a historic record; BTC ETFs can see a single-day outflow of -488 million; perpetual contract longs are still paying a 7% annualized fee while 80% have been liquidated; Bitcoin dominance climbed from 55% to over 60%—capital only wants the hardest core, everything else is too hot to handle. Pressing from above are three macro layers: oil at 114, 10-year US Treasury yields at 5%, and an 80% probability of a rate hike in December. Without these easing, any rebound will be a low-volume one. My November observation checklist has only four items, no fifth added: Whether 76,400 holds (options max pain, also the recent bottom) Whether BTC ETFs can have three consecutive weeks of net inflows, not just a single-day noise of 17 million Whether Bitcoin can reclaim 81,500–84,000, turning 80,000 from resistance into support After the November 3 election, the SEC/CFTC "line"There are three days left until the election, and the prediction market has already written the script. The November 3 midterm elections currently show one-sided odds. According to the Reuters/Ipsos poll on October 26: among registered voters, Democrats are at 47%, Republicans at 36%, and 11% undecided; among the most likely voters, it's 53% to 44%. Trump's approval rating has climbed back to 32% from last week's historic low, with a net value dropping from -19% to -27%, much worse than his -11.7% at the same time in 2018. On the prediction market side, the Democrats taking the House is basically considered a done deal, while the Senate still offers some maneuvering room for Republicans. Why is this a big deal for crypto? Because the friendly regulations expected in 2025 fundamentally depend on the Republicans controlling both the House and Senate. Losing either chamber means the "Trump dividend" portion related to deregulation will be discounted. I previously wrote about the median from Odaily's survey; here’s a different perspective: Republicans hold both chambers → BTC median at year-end $90,800 Democrats sweep → $76,450 Split control → $84,100 The difference between these two scenarios is $14,000, which is the volatility tax of the election. What concerns me more is the "uncertainty discount" itself. Option sellers now dare not place long-dated orders; market makers are pushing up implied volatility for the first few days of November because on the night the results come out, price spreads will be much more severe than usual. Ordinary people’s response is not to bet on direction but to avoid opening new leverage positions in the two hours before the results—the volatility during those few hours is intense.$AKE When does a coin falling from a high point most easily cause people to lose money?
Often, it's right after the first major drop, when everyone starts to think it has fallen enough.
This round with AKE is very typical. After a rapid sell-off, there was indeed a rebound, but the price never managed to shake off the weakness and later continued to hit new lows.
My short-selling approach is very simple: since the price keeps searching for support downward, there's no need to stubbornly guess the bottom and fight the trend.
Currently, this short position's unrealized profit has already multiplied by 5.89 times, and the space gained is quite considerable.
Now the price has further dropped below 0.014, and the risk of a short-term oversold rebound cannot be ignored either.
When trading, you can't just focus on profits continuously growing; you also have to consider how to handle the situation if the market reverses. $BTC $ETH #美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 $SOL
HKD stablecoin HKDAP, a small news item in tonight's quick update, with few people talking about it. Anchorpoint, holding a Hong Kong government licensed stablecoin, plans to run it on the Solana chain.
On the market side, SOL is now at 95.26, basically unchanged in 24 hours, opened at 95.55, high 98.5, low 92.26. BTC is still down 0.87% at this moment. The perpetual funding rate has turned negative; it was positive yesterday, so today shorts are collecting money. Open interest is 3.41 million contracts, $3.2 billion, no sign of shrinking.
Narrative-wise, they are laying out stablecoins and real assets as slow plays, but on the contract side no one is willing to pay to go long. My view: what SOL lacks this round is not a story, but money willing to chase prices. It's harder to push sideways than to dump, but don't expect it to lead the way.
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 Last night (October 30), that market linkage was worth noting separately. Brent crude oil intraday rose above $114 (December contract closed at 114.88), WTI closed at 102; after news of the Houthi attack on Saudi facilities broke, the close kept pushing higher. Spot gold fell just over 2%, closing at 3929.84, a 29% pullback from the January high, down 4% this month. Spot silver dropped below $50, down more than 4% intraday, accumulating a 17% decline in October, nearly a 60% pullback from its peak. Bitcoin broke below 77,000 in early trading, down more than 3.5% in 24 hours, -11% year-to-date. Nasdaq futures dropped 2.5% intraday, Intel fell 28% overnight, and the S&P opened down 1.17% — a full set of moves all priced in as "inflation won't ease, central banks won't ease." The most unusual was gold and silver falling together. According to the old script, oil rising pushes inflation, so funds should flee into gold; this time gold and silver were sold off because real interest rates are rising — the 10-year US Treasury is firmly above 5%, making the cost of holding non-yielding assets genuinely more expensive. Bitcoin is caught in the middle and suffering the most: it has neither gold's safe-haven appeal nor is it decoupled from tech stocks, which are falling together. So don't ask now "Is Bitcoin digital gold?" The answer is: when interest rates are rising, it behaves like a high-beta tech stock. To see it decouple, we need oil to come down from 114 or PCE to drop below 3%.300 billion stablecoins are lying still, this is a neglected danger signal. First, look at how big the pool is. According to CoinGecko: as of October 14, the total market cap of USD stablecoins is 303.4 billion USD, with USDT accounting for 60.6%, about 184.1 billion, and USDC accounting for 23.9%, about 72.6 billion. Stablecoin Beat reported 303.6 billion on October 13, a week-on-week drop of 0.56%. Throughout the year, it has fluctuated between 300 billion and 313 billion, rising only 1.4% in 90 days, basically stalled. The concentration is even more alarming: the two giants together consume 85%, with an HHI index of 4244, where over 2500 is considered "highly concentrated." USDC supply is less than half of USDT's but accounts for 60-70% of on-chain transaction volume—indicating it is the benchmark for institutions and large settlements. Why do I say this is a danger signal? Because in the past two years, stablecoin expansion was almost like crypto's "implicit money printing": newly minted USDT comes in to buy coins, pushing prices up. Now the pool isn't growing, meaning the faucet has been turned down. There is also a positive side: payment scenarios are increasing, Visa and Mastercard are both building stablecoin channels, on-chain monthly transfer value remains high, and the same dollar is being circulated more times. So this is not "money running away," but "money not increasing." The conclusion is straightforward: stop treating stablecoin market cap hitting new highs as a bullish signal, it alreadySEC quietly opened a door: U.S. stocks are going on-chain. The hype around this was overshadowed by the market, but it could be the most significant regulatory change this year. The action posted on the SEC official website is called the "Innovation Exemption," allowing qualified trading venues to use blockchain liquidity pools to trade tokenized NMS stocks (the on-chain versions of listed stocks like Apple and Microsoft) for a five-year pilot period, while soliciting opinions on permanent rules. Two supporting detailed rules are critical: The FAQ updated on October 15 states that after the platform submits a notice, it can publicly name "which stock is preparing to go on-chain," but actual trading must wait until 30 calendar days after the notice is delivered. These 30 days are reserved for the issuer to raise objections—if the company objects, trading must stop unless the SEC rules it can continue. On the other side, the CFTC also followed up on October 5 by soliciting public comments on leverage retail crypto trading rules and new registration categories; the SEC's custody proposal on October 1 allows state trust companies to custodian clients' crypto assets. Putting it all together, the CLARITY Act died in Congress, but regulatory authority has already slipped from lawmakers' desks to two committees, and they are pushing forward using an "exemption + pilot" approach that doesn't require voting. This is indirectly positive for Bitcoin: when stocks and funds can be compliantly on-chain, Bitcoin's position as the "native collateral and settlement layer" becomes even stronger. Risks must also be mentioned: this system bypasses Congress Honestly, this $INTW trade feels a bit marginal.
Short at 7.72, 7.44, +92%. The numbers are average, and the stop loss is only 3.76%, so I kept my position size very low; the absolute profit isn't much.
Also, that candle is dragging — it dropped then bounced back. I prefer a clean drop straight down; this kind of drop that retraces halfway usually needs a rebound confirmation. So I'm in a "holding but not fully trusting" state, closed the main position, and kept a small position to watch it play out.
7.5 is key. Just sold at the top with 0.81% overhead. If it climbs back above, I have to admit I was wrong; if not, there's still a chance.
Only breaking below 7.4 (0.54%) counts as a real breakdown, and 7.0 (5.91%) is the real space — from 7.44 to 7.0 is nearly six points, so it's not a short distance.
If it climbs back above 7.5, I’m out; if it breaks 7.4, I’ll watch 7.0. No adding to the position; in a headwind trade, only reducing. $BTC $ETH
#美国9月核心PCE升至3.1%，加息预期仍高 Miners are no longer focused on Bitcoin; they are switching to work for AI. This trend is rarely discussed but could be the biggest variable next year. Let's first look at the accounts of traditional mining companies. Riot's Q2 revenue was 174.2 million, up 14% year-over-year, mining 1,587 BTC (compared to 1,426 last year), which looks good, right? However, its mining revenue dropped from 55.6 million to 43.4 million, and the average cost to mine one BTC (excluding depreciation) has risen to $49,912, nearly $1,000 higher than last year. Electricity prices have increased, factory expansions, and the total network hash rate is pushing up, making mining less and less profitable. Now look at an even harsher case: Core Scientific's Q2 revenue was 164.2 million, up 109% year-over-year, but mining revenue was halved from 62.42 million to 21.54 million, with a gross margin of -56%. Where is the money coming from? High-density hosting (AI/HPC) revenue was 136.7 million, accounting for 83% of total revenue. This former mining leader has become a data center company. MARA is following the same path: at the end of Q2, it held 35,577 coins, 29% less than the same period last year, mined 2,422 coins, sold 2,213 coins during the quarter, at an average price of about 73,000. They mine and sell simultaneously while handing over electricity and data centers to AI clients. This is a slow variable for the coin price. Miners shutting down = less selling pressure, but the premise is that the coin price does not fall further. If BTC remains below 75,000 for a long time, these machines switched to AI won't come back, and the hash rate will softly land;