Orbit Post Sitemap

The Truth Behind Bitcoin's $64K Rebound: Short Squeeze and Liquidity Trap Amid Low Trading Volume Bitcoin rebounded to $64,000 supported by the monthly open price ($62.7K). However, this rise is not driven by solid spot buying but is mainly characterized by a short squeeze caused by the liquidation of short positions on major futures exchanges. Funding Rates: An indicator in the futures market measuring the bias between long and short positions; a negative value (-) indicates overheated shorts (bearish bets). Exchange Funding Rate Divergence: Binance, Bybit, OKX, Deribit have fallen into negative territory, forcing liquidation of overcrowded short positions, driving the price up. Lack of Volume: Without substantial spot trading volume support, this only leads to sharply amplified volatility in a thin liquidity environment. Resistance Above $65K: A strong resistance line near $65,000 remains, making it difficult to consider this an organic trend reversal. This rebound is closer to a "short-term liquidity sweep" rather than a sustainable organic rally. In the absence of spot buying inflows, attempts to break above $65K should be approached with caution due to potential severe volatility. 540 million OP airdrop potentially confiscated sparks governance civil war Odaily, August 18 — The Optimism community is being split in two by a governance vote. The core issue is one: an airdrop incentive of about 540 million OP tokens might be directly taken away by the proposal and reallocated back into the protocol treasury. These OP tokens were originally rewards reserved for early users and ecosystem contributors, scheduled to be released in batches. But a recent governance proposal suggests recollecting the unreleased portion, citing reasons of improving capital efficiency and focusing on core development. Currently, about 9.1 million votes are in favor, 4.25 million against, with the yes votes temporarily leading. The vote is still ongoing, but the community is already in heated dispute. On one side, the protocol team argues the funds should be spent wisely; on the other, early users feel the rules have been unilaterally changed. Many people had genuinely engaged with real money to interact, complete tasks, and lock tokens for this airdrop. Now, to have it taken away just like that understandably causes strong emotions. On-chain data even shows some separating the claimed and yet-to-be-released portions, with the real controversy centered on the large unreleased amount. Optimism is a leading Layer 2, where OP serves both as a gas token and governance right. This airdrop once carried the promise of attracting and retaining users. Now, with the Superchain narrative expanding, the protocol side wants to concentrate funds on infrastructure and ecosystem subsidies, making scattered individual rewards seem like a hindrance. Whether this logic holds depends on which side you stand. This is not the first time OP incentives have caused controversy. The previous retrospective airdrop faced complaints about high thresholds and harsh witch-hunting. This time, directly touching the unreleased amount brings the conflict to the forefront. From another perspective, this reflects the entire Layer 2 sector. Over the past two years, projects have used airdrops to attract users, and users have earned rewards by participating, each side getting what they want. Now, with TVL and active addresses as hard metrics, simply issuing tokens to users is becoming less cost-effective. Funds are more desired to flow into infrastructure that drives real usage and token locking. If these 540 million OP tokens are truly reclaimed into the treasury, it would be a significant arsenal based on current circulating supply, enough for the protocol to redesign subsidy logic. Some in the community propose a compromise, such as only reclaiming long-unclaimed tokens while preserving rewards for active users, but the proposal side seems to want to take the entire amount. More subtly, many yes votes come from protocol-related addresses and the treasury itself, diluting retail opposition. When a promise written in governance documents can be overturned by majority vote, can users still trust future rewards? Do you think this kind of confiscatory governance is a rational loss-cutting by the project team or a betrayal of early supporters?A SOL whale that has been dormant for two years GvHYQQLUwnb6cJpJuxBtAPPC2uWp84WxVEjC1idXgUce Today bought 47,535 SOL, about $3.6 million Interestingly, this guy bought 290,000 SOL around $23 in 2023, then sold a large portion around $128, making over $20 million Then went silent for two years, now that SOL has dropped to around $75, he's back Combined with last night's chaos, could it be... a bullish signal for SOL? $SOL NAVI's new lending vault hits a historical peak of over 1 billion The DeFi project NAVI Protocol on the Sui chain has launched something new. It officially introduced NAVI Prime, the first curator lending vault in the Sui ecosystem, following a model similar to Morpho. It separates different risk assets, each with its own independent risk framework and collateral evaluation. The official data is impressive: a historical TVL peak exceeding 1 billion USD, with over 1.1 million cumulative users. This product addresses a longstanding issue in traditional DeFi lending. Conventional liquidity pools mix various risk assets together, so when one fails, it easily infects the entire pool. NAVI Prime treats each market like an independent room, with parameters and risk controls managed separately, improving capital efficiency and reducing cross-market contagion risk. They claim four months of development, more than three independent security audits, and will release a full joint announcement with Sui officials this week. For institutional funds, this modular, risk-isolated design is the prerequisite for their entry. CeFi lending has had too many incidents in the past; institutions want infrastructure close to traditional financial risk control standards, not a single pool gambling everything. NAVI is raising the bar to institutional level, clearly aiming to capture that more stable capital. Looking at the entire Sui ecosystem, NAVI is one of the established protocols leading in locked value. The Move language emphasizes security and parallel execution, which institutions favor. But the lifeblood of lending business is always collateral quality and liquidation mechanisms; isolating risk just puts hazards into separate rooms, but the risks inside those rooms will still explode if triggered. The TVL peak of 1 billion sounds impressive, but it was accumulated at a bull market high. When the market cools, leveraged positions withdraw first, and TVL drops quickly. For us, this new vault launch might bring a short-term ecological boost, but if you want to participate, you must carefully check each independent market’s collateral ratio and liquidation thresholds—don’t be dazzled by peak numbers. In the short term, the TVL peak of 1 billion is a historical high, not the current level. Sui’s overall locked value is heavily influenced by the market, so don’t get carried away by the numbers. In the long run, whether the Move ecosystem can retain real users through such professional lending tools is the key to whether NAVI is worth following. The DeFi narrative has long passed the stage where just launching a pool can drive growth; now it’s about how solid the risk control is and whether institutions recognize it. So here’s a question for everyone: Can this kind of risk-isolated professional lending vault become the real driver of the next DeFi recovery? Or is it just another attractive but lightly used new shell?Euro stablecoins have quadrupled in two years, breaking 400 million euros Many people focus intensely on the US dollar stablecoins, but few have noticed the quiet growth on the euro side. Circle recently announced that its euro stablecoin EURC has surpassed 400 million euros in circulation. Back in June 2025, the entire euro stablecoin market was only 400 million euros in size; now EURC alone has reached that figure, effectively multiplying several times in about two years. The driving force behind this is compliance. EURC operates under the EU's MiCA regulation as an electronic money token standard, issued by a French institution and regulated by French authorities. Its reserves are completely segregated from Circle’s own funds and are regularly audited. Simply put, it hits the EU’s most critical criteria: legality, transparency, and regulatory compliance. Visa and Mastercard have both expanded their settlement support for EURC, transforming it from a trading novelty into infrastructure capable of cross-border payments and card settlements. EURC does have competitors. Tether’s EURT and various European local stablecoins are all vying for this market share, but Circle’s advantage lies in its clean compliance status, backed by a French license and regular audits, making it attractive to institutions. In terms of use cases, EURC has expanded from mere trading pairs to payments, settlements, and institutional fund management. Major exchanges like Bitpanda, Bitstamp, Bybit, Coinbase, and Kraken have listed EURC trading pairs, and fiat on/off ramps are connected through providers like Mercuryo, MoonPay, Ramp, and Transak. The broader the foundation, the faster the growth. On a macro level, this development is tightly linked to the broader environment. The global stablecoin supply is about 300 billion USD, with US dollar stablecoins dominating, but euro stablecoins have firmly secured the second largest category. The eurozone’s M2 money supply exceeds 16 trillion euros, and EURC currently occupies only a tiny fraction, indicating significant room for growth. If Europe truly pushes on-chain payments as a strategic direction, compliant frontrunners like EURC will be the first to reap the benefits. In the short term, EURC breaking 400 million euros does not directly stimulate the crypto market; it does not change the direction of BTC or ETH. But it sends a signal: the competition among stablecoins is shifting from a US dollar monopoly toward multi-currency compliance, with narratives around RWA and on-chain payments continuing to gain traction. In the long run, stablecoins are the bridge connecting fiat and the on-chain world. Whoever first secures a compliant position in a currency zone controls that zone’s payment gateway. For traders like us, this is not an immediately tradable asset but an important indicator of where capital is gathering in terms of chains and compliance frameworks. So here’s a question: Will the US dollar stablecoin monopoly be gradually challenged by this wave of euro compliance breakthroughs? Or will stricter regulations fail to change the fundamental dominance of the US dollar?Wall Street is increasing positions in IBIT sovereign funds against the trend, playing dead The latest disclosed 13F filings reveal institutional attitudes toward Bitcoin ETFs. On one side, two sovereign funds from Abu Dhabi remain silent and inactive: Mubadala holds 14.72 million shares of IBIT, and the Abu Dhabi Investment Council holds 8.22 million shares, with no additions or reductions throughout Q2. On the other side, Wall Street giants are aggressively increasing positions against the trend: JPMorgan Chase raised its IBIT holdings from 8.46 million shares to 10.62 million shares, a 25.5% increase, and Morgan Stanley also increased to 16.5 million shares, up 23%. The most striking is UBS. Its options activity clearly signals a bullish stance: IBIT call options surged from 80,000 contracts to 1.95 million, while put options dropped from 303,000 to 143,000. This asymmetric position change sends a clearer signal than net long or short quantities. Sovereign funds choose to stay silent, likely because Bitcoin’s price dropped and their holdings’ market value shrank, so they prefer to lie low and hedge rather than act; Wall Street, conversely, treats the ETF as a tool for bottom-fishing and allocation, pushing hard. However, 13F filings have blind spots: they only disclose long positions and held options, excluding shorts and sold options. So while UBS’s surge in call options suggests bullishness, we cannot definitively determine its net directional bias. Adding to this, CME leveraged funds hold 5,000 Bitcoin futures long contracts and 12,000 shorts—more than double the longs—indicating internal disagreements among big money are more complex than they appear. Retail investors may get excited seeing Wall Street increase positions, but beyond real money, hedging trades are also active. The underlying divergence is intriguing. Sovereign funds are large and have long evaluation cycles; when prices fall, they play dead and wait out the cycle. Wall Street trading desks are more flexible and see opportunities in volatility. Overall fund flows show Bitcoin ETFs had a net outflow of about $4.9 billion in Q2, followed by a net inflow of $850 million over five consecutive days in the first week of August, then a net outflow of $390 million last week—short-term funds flow in and out repeatedly. In the short term, this institutional divergence offers a point of observation for swings: Wall Street’s real-money ETF accumulation often corresponds to underlying buy-side support, but sovereign funds’ inactivity indicates big money remains cautious overall. When these two forces clash, prices tend to grind within a range. In the long term, ETFs are becoming the main channel for institutions to access Bitcoin; who is quietly accumulating is more informative than who loudly claims to be bullish. So the question is: do you think Wall Street’s counter-trend accumulation this time is bottom-fishing, or catching a falling knife? 8月12日，香港持牌稳定币发行方碇点金融科技正式推出港元稳定币 HKDAP（HKD At Par），首阶段面向机构分销商及专业投资者开放，HashKey Exchange、OSL集团成为首批认可分销商。这意味着港元稳定币正式从监管框架、沙盒测试，走向商业化落地。很多人期待稳定币一上线就带来资金狂潮，但现实恰恰相反：没有散户狂欢，没有短期暴涨，却可能正在发生一场更重要的基础设施革命。一、神话退潮，真正的价值才开始出现过去市场对稳定币的想象非常宏大：跨境支付秒到账、传统金融被重构、海量资金进入链上…… 但真正落地后，最先出现的往往不是“颠覆”，而是一些看起来很普通的业务流程。这其实很正常。 1858年，第一条跨大西洋电报电缆铺设完成时，人们曾认为它能够改变世界。它确实改变了世界，但并不是因为它立刻带来了所谓的“文明革命”，而是因为它把信息传递从几周压缩到了几分钟，最终重塑了全球金融市场的运行方式。稳定币可能也是如此。真正值得关注的，不是它今天有多大的市场声量，而是它能否逐渐成为数字金融的清结算基础设施。二、第一个真实应用，可能比一场“散户狂欢”更重要目前已经出现了一 57000 USD is the bull slaughter line Those checking their positions overnight probably saw that number. Joao Wedson from the analysis firm Alphractal marked 57000 USD as a line, saying this is the critical boundary for leveraged bulls to survive. In plain terms, if Bitcoin really drops to this level, a large number of high-leverage long positions will be automatically liquidated, and a chain reaction could directly crash the price through this point. The scariest part of this isn’t the price itself, but how thin the current order book is. Wedson points out a contradiction: the number of active contracts is ridiculously high compared to actual trading volume, indicating many people hold leveraged positions, but there isn’t much real money willing to take the other side. The order book is like a thin sheet of paper; once liquidation orders hit, there aren’t enough buy orders underneath to support it, so the drop will be much harsher than expected. This kind of thin order book is especially dangerous in a bear market. During the 2022 LUNA and FTX crashes, people also thought the order book looked okay, but then a big bearish candle wiped out liquidity instantly, and prices fell 10-20% within half an hour. Although Bitcoin isn’t at that extreme now, the serious mismatch between active contracts and volume means if someone actively dumps, the support below will be much sparser than usual. The more concentrated the leveraged bulls, the fiercer the negative feedback during a stampede. Looking back is even colder. Bitcoin has halved from the 126000 USD high last October and now hovers just above 60000. Historically, every bear market drop bottoms out only after falling 76% to 84%. By this calculation, the current level is still far from the true bottom; the so-called support is more psychological. In the short term, 57000 is the bulls’ lifeline. If it doesn’t break, everyone can pretend nothing’s wrong and continue to oscillate and buy time; if it breaks, those high-leverage longs will be cleaned out first, and market sentiment will instantly shift from calm to panic. Swing traders can use this line as an observation anchor—when the price approaches it, volume and large order direction deserve closer attention than usual. Long-term logic is another story. Bitcoin’s scarcity narrative and institutional ETF channels remain, but that’s on a different time scale and won’t save the current needle prick. What you need to think about now is whether your own long position can withstand this hit. So here’s the question for those still on the ride: can your long position’s leverage survive this needle prick? Or have you already set your stop-loss line somewhere invisible to others? Hong Kong banks suddenly demand mainland old clients to explain the source of their funds Those mainland Chinese who opened investment accounts in Hong Kong a couple of years ago may have recently received a somewhat unsettling notification from their bank. HSBC Hong Kong has started sending notices to a batch of existing mainland investment clients, requiring them to submit, via the mobile banking app, a declaration of account opening and maintenance by September 12, detailing the source of their investment funds item by item. The focus is not on new accounts, but on existing old clients. Previously, new account openings were required to confirm that funds came from legitimate overseas channels; this time, the scrutiny is directed at those who have had accounts for a long time. The declaration asks you to confirm that the money used for investment activities comes from legitimate overseas sources, and it explicitly states that the bank has the right to disclose your personal information upon request from law enforcement or regulatory agencies. The timing is very strict. If you don’t submit by August 20, investment-related services may be suspended; if you still haven’t submitted by September 12, services may be terminated outright. In other words, the money may still quietly sit in the account, but you most likely won’t be able to use it. HSBC’s response is very official, saying this is in compliance with relevant regulatory requirements, inviting relevant mainland investors to proactively provide self-certification, updating the KYC and due diligence information to the current valid status, so that they can continue to provide services to clients. However, they also emphasize that this round of declaration only targets investment service clients, not everyone. Why is this worth our circle’s attention? Many mainland users open Hong Kong accounts precisely for freer asset allocation—depositing and withdrawing funds, buying crypto, making overseas investments, many actions go through this channel. Now the bank is asking you to prove that every single sum of money is clean, which completely reverses the logic. Previously, the channel was open for you to use; now you have to prove your innocence to the channel. More subtly, the new account opening channel has actually already undergone a round of checks; this time they are going back to clean up old accounts. Regulators are gradually tightening the net, testing the waters with a declaration first; whether more banks will follow up later, no one can say for sure. So if you or people around you are using Hong Kong accounts for investment, these two deadlines are worth marking on your calendar. It’s not to panic you, but don’t wait until services are suspended to remember that bank notification you swiped away without ever opening. Now you have to clearly explain where your money comes from.The social star that raised 180 million was transferred twice within seven months This morning, Neynar's co-founder Rishav Mukherji posted a message saying the company is looking for new homes and operating teams for Farcaster, Clanker, and Neynar's own products, and is currently in talks with several teams. If you have no sense of the timeline, let me remind you: they only took over Farcaster on January 21 this year. Today marks just under seven months. Who was the previous owner? It was two former Coinbase executives, Dan Romero and Varun Srinivasan, who worked on it for five years. The company Merkle raised about $180 million in total, with $150 million just in 2024. When they exited, the explanation was that Farcaster needed a new product direction and leadership team, the remaining funds were returned to investors, and the acquisition price was not disclosed by either party. Seven months later, the new owner is already looking for the next one to take over. And the wording is very candid; Mukherji directly admitted that they failed to achieve the goals set at the beginning of the year when they took over, and the current team is not suitable for the next phase. He summarized Farcaster's predicament into three things: a very tight-knit community, a flagship app with non-trivial operating costs, and a slowly growing market. This sounds polite, but when broken down, it's quite painful. Technically, Neynar actually did quite well. They reduced infrastructure operating costs by 80%, added validators distributed across different regions, and opened the protocol codebase, which was previously only accessible to the core team, to these operators. The next step is even to hand over the decision-making power for adding new validators to existing validators through on-chain voting, meaning the core team will no longer have sole control. Costs dropped by 80%, the approach was right, so what happened? Still couldn't hold on. Because the real money burner is not the protocol, but the app facing ordinary users. Farcaster is a hybrid architecture: account identity and key management are on contracts on the OP Mainnet, while high-frequency data like posting, following, and interactions are stored by the Snapchain validator network. Anyone can read the protocol part and use it to build clients, theoretically very decentralized. But product iteration, content distribution, customer service, wallets, and developer interfaces all require a company to fund them with real money. The most critical number is here: Romero said last year that about 200,000 to 300,000 people open the Farcaster client each month, but this number needs to be multiplied by 10 to 100 times for the network to reach a sustainable scale. Merkle tried hard later on, adding built-in wallets, token trading, and pushing a $120 per year Pro subscription to support developers and creators through trading and subscriptions. After Neynar took over, they kept wallets and trading and shifted focus to serving developers. Seven months later, they still haven't found a growth path that can support the entire system. Looking back one day earlier is even more interesting. The day before Farcaster's first ownership change, Lens also handed over daily product operations to Mask Network, with the original team becoming technical advisors. The reason was almost identical: the protocol openness step was done, and the next growth requires unified applications, product design, and distribution channels. The two most prominent names in decentralized social handed over operations within a year, and one has done so twice. There are still many unresolved issues: who exactly is the new owner, whether the protocol, client, Clanker, and developer business are transferred as a whole or sold separately, who gets the funds to be returned on the books, how much, and when, and when on-chain voting for validators will truly be enabled. Mukherji only said that the app and developer products will continue to run as usual for now, with no direct impact on users, and team members will move on to new projects later. I've been thinking about one question. Over the past few years, the most compelling part of the open protocol story has been taking identity and social relationships back from platforms. Farcaster has indeed achieved this: accounts are still on-chain, data is still in the validator network, and anyone can read it. But who pays the customer service salaries, who builds the app that ordinary people want to open every day, and who bears the cost of growth itself—this problem has never been solved by the protocol. The protocol can be decentralized, but operations always seem to require a company. So what do you think? Is Farcaster's problem the team, or is there an unavoidable hole in this division of labor itself? Your frequently used Ethereum wallet might quietly stop working next week The Ethereum Foundation itself has issued a reminder, with a clear heads-up tone: the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade is very likely to cause some wallets, block explorers, and Gas estimation tools to stop functioning properly. The subtlety lies in the fact that the warning comes from the Ethereum Foundation itself. A team building its own house is giving an early warning that some doors might not open—this kind of thing is rare elsewhere but a long-standing tradition in the Ethereum ecosystem. The problem lies in the Gas model. This upgrade introduces a new dimension called state Gas, which charges separately for operations that create new blockchain state. The result is straightforward: transferring ETH to an account with an existing balance still costs the usual 21000 Gas; but transferring to a new address that has never received funds before requires an additional state Gas fee. The Foundation makes it very clear: any software that hardcodes "all ETH transfers only require 21000 Gas" will be affected this time. Wallet fee estimations will be incorrect, indexers might miss transactions, and some outdated transfer logic will directly throw error messages. What's more troublesome is that ordinary users have no idea which logic their wallet is using behind the scenes. You might think clicking send is all it takes, but if the estimation code behind hasn’t been updated, the fee you see could be wrong, and the transaction might get stuck halfway. This is not the first time Ethereum has quietly changed rules in an upgrade. Every major version push leaves behind a batch of small tools that didn’t keep up. For developers, it’s just a few lines of code adjustment; for ordinary users, it could mean inexplicable transfer failures. The Foundation’s remedy is to run tests early on the Plataberget testnet. But this testnet only went live on August 13, while Glamsterdam is set to activate on the mainnet this Thursday, leaving a very short window for developers; Sepolia and Hoodi testnets will take longer to be ready. Ultimately, this is not a shocking vulnerability but a necessary cost of scaling by changing the underlying layer. EIP-8037 separately charges for state-creating operations, which will alleviate state bloat in the long run, but in the short term, wallets and users who don’t keep up will have to bear the pain of incompatibility. Has your frequently used wallet been updated recently? Is the bond market screaming that the Fed dares to cut rates in September? The coins in wallets haven't recovered yet, but the bond market has already exploded. The 30-year US Treasury yield has surged to the highest level since 2007, France's borrowing costs have hit a new high since 2008, Germany is approaching 2011 levels, and UK government bond yields are nearly touching 6%. Long-term bonds worldwide are being sold off together. The last time we saw this scene was around the financial crisis, but the difference now is that there is no obvious crisis trigger; it feels more like money is voting with its feet. The headline from Caixin is very straightforward: The risk of a Fed rate hike in September has not been eliminated. The market was originally betting on a rate cut in September, but bond traders have voted with their feet in the opposite direction. Yields soaring like this means inflation is not dead yet, the government is still recklessly spending, and the space for rate cuts is being squeezed little by little. This fire in the bond market is burning concerns about fiscal discipline and recurring inflation. What does this mean for the crypto circle? BTC has dropped nearly 27% this year and has been hovering narrowly around 64,000. Behind the low volatility is a lack of liquidity inflow. With US Treasury yields so high, money prefers to lie in risk-free rates to earn coupon income rather than enter high-risk assets. Every time yields jump, BTC's upward breakout moves further away. This is the result of money voting with its feet, unrelated to the narratives within the crypto community. Another detail: Japan's 30-year government bond yield has also surged above 4%. The global long bond market is simultaneously bearish, indicating this is not just a US issue but a market-wide repricing of government debt levels across countries. In this environment, all risk assets are suppressed by the same logic: risk-free yields are too high, so who will take on high-risk positions? In the short term, as long as bond market panic does not ease, risk assets will struggle to have a decent rally, and BTC will likely continue to grind. In the long term, if rate cut expectations reignite, crypto assets, which have been suppressed for a long time, will have greater elasticity than stocks. To put it bluntly, what the crypto circle needs most right now is not good news but money. Money has been sucked into US Treasuries, so BTC can only tread water. The real sign of a market move will be when the 30-year US Treasury yield falls from its high and ETFs see renewed net inflows. The crypto community often claims to be a safe-haven asset, but when global liquidity tightens, it falls faster than anyone else. This fig leaf should have been torn off long ago. For now, watching US Treasury yields is more effective than watching candlestick charts. Do you think this bond market crisis is an overreaction or just getting started?On August 18 Beijing time, spot gold broke through $4430/oz, rising 0.4% intraday, while New York futures gold simultaneously stood above $4490. Brent crude oil stood above $91, WTI above $84, with gold, silver, and oil all rising collectively. With gold prices rising, signals from the options market are even more worth watching. Quantitative trading firm Susquehanna pointed out that the gold options market is shifting from "downside protection" to "betting on further gains." The options skew has undergone a "substantial shift"—demand for put options has decreased, demand for call options has increased, reversing the pattern seen earlier this summer. A typical trade: investors bought 8,000 call options on the SPDR Gold Trust expiring in November with a strike price of $460 at about $5.55 each; the ETF closed at $405.49 on Monday. Meanwhile, gold funds recorded the strongest inflows since January this year. Why the rise? Three driving factors. First, the US dollar credit continues to deteriorate. Lu Zhe, chief economist at Dongwu Securities, pointed out that Trump's intervention in the Federal Reserve, US debt surpassing 40 trillion, and ongoing de-dollarization transactions—the factors that previously suppressed gold are now fully played out, and a new US dollar credit risk premium is reemerging. Second, geopolitical risks remain unsettled. Trump just warned that "bombing is not ruled out," pushing oil prices above $91. Third, technical breakthroughs triggered short covering. Gold has reclaimed the 50-day moving average, breaking through resistance levels since mid-June, triggering programmatic short covering. What do institutions think? The London Bullion Market Association survey shows Stablecoins will ultimately enter the sovereign cage Your USDT lying in your wallet—do you really think it's only governed by code? Jack Zhang, founder of cross-border payment company Airwallex, recently poured cold water on this notion, saying stablecoins will become an important channel for global capital flows, but it is the sovereign financial system that decides how to cage them. Technology can run worldwide, but the rules are set by each country, and this statement is quite blunt. He gave a series of examples. The Central Bank of Brazil has already incorporated virtual asset services into its foreign exchange and capital regulation framework. Vietnam bans crypto assets as a means of payment while simultaneously building a regulated crypto market. The Philippines has indefinitely suspended virtual asset service provider licenses. Three countries, three different approaches, but the core is the same: stablecoins can move, but they must operate on my turf, under my laws—don’t think you can bypass regulation and fly solo. What does this mean for us coin holders? No matter how big USDT or USDC get, issuers will ultimately have to negotiate terms with regulators in each country. The most stable infrastructure isn’t the freest, but the one that can integrate with sovereign financial systems and reliably exchange between fiat and stablecoins. Simply put, compliant channels are the moat; rogue paths can be cut off at any time. What works today might be inaccessible tomorrow. Airwallex itself is betting on this path. It has obtained a central bank payment license in Brazil and a local payment license in Mexico, connecting corporate accounts with the Latin American financial system. This move shows that major players are betting not on the myth of decentralization but on real business that complies with regulation. The more stablecoins are used by the mainstream, the more they must follow mainstream rules. For USDT, which relies on offshore support, the pressure will only increase because sovereign systems demand visible licenses and reserves, not just "code is law." In the short term, as regulations become clearer in each country, stablecoins will look less like wild children, more likely to enter institutional wallets, and liquidity will be more solid. In the long term, this thing will become a regulated financial channel, not some decentralized utopia. For us retail investors, this is actually good news, at least the chances of running away or sudden crashes are reduced. But the cost is that stablecoins will increasingly resemble subsidiaries of the banking system. If one day a sovereign says they can’t be used, they really won’t work. Friends holding stablecoins, don’t just look at the returns; also see which sovereign is backing them. Which stablecoin do you think will be the last one standing?Bank of America Cuts 70% of MSTR Holdings, Aggressively Buys ETHA The moves by these institutions are becoming increasingly hard to understand. In the second-quarter holdings just disclosed by Bank of America, MSTR was cut by 70%, reduced to just a small fraction. Meanwhile, ETHA holdings surged 29 times, going from almost negligible to a heavy position. Selling one and buying the other, the actions are as decisive as switching tracks, completely different from retail investors' indecisive chasing of highs and selling lows. The data is clear. In Q1, BoA still held a significant amount of MSTR, but in Q2 they slashed it by 70%, clearly not optimistic about Strategy’s game of borrowing money to buy coins. But ETHA is BlackRock’s Ethereum spot ETF, and a 29-fold increase in holdings shows real money flowing into ETH. Selling treasury stock and buying Ethereum ETF, this pivot is even smoother than retail investors, and it also sends a signal to the market: the big banks’ preferences are shifting. Why such a split? MSTR has dropped nearly 40% this year, relying on issuing preferred shares and debt to support buying coins, and the market is starting to doubt how long this leverage can last. ETHA is different; it’s a spot ETF backed by actual ETH, without the narrative baggage of company leverage. The big banks are voting with their feet, moving their bets from treasury companies to native assets, essentially assigning different risk premiums to these two asset types, with faith in treasury stocks clearly discounted. There’s also a hidden thread behind this. Since BlackRock launched its ETH product, institutional subscriptions and redemptions have been more active than retail’s, indicating traditional money bags’ growing interest in ETH, just usually quietly. BoA’s 29-fold increase is more like making a niche clue public. It’s not a one- or two-day impulse, but a quarterly-level position adjustment. The market reference is very clear. Institutional funds are rebalancing between Bitcoin and Ethereum, favoring ETH spot exposure. For us, ETH’s relative strength is worth watching, especially on days when the ETF sees continuous net inflows, often the most honest reflection of capital sentiment. Some interpret this as BoA betting that ETH spot ETFs will be more resilient than treasury stocks, given the transparency of underlying assets and absence of company leverage risks. But from another angle, cutting MSTR could simply be stop-loss, not necessarily a long-term bullish view on ETH. The reasons behind big banks’ portfolio adjustments are always more complex than they appear; we should just watch the direction and not treat it as a mindless signal to follow. In the short term, watch if ETH’s exchange rate against BTC can hold steady; in the long term, see if institutions increasingly treat ETH as a core allocation asset. Do you think BoA’s portfolio shift is sensing signals we haven’t yet seen?Nearly 1.8 billion in short positions are just one point away from liquidation Has your account turned green this week? BTC is hovering around $64,076, but there’s a group of people more nervous than anyone else. Two addresses, 0x8c96 and 0x431f, have been synchronously shorting all along, currently holding a combined short position of 2,800 BTC, valued at about $179 million, making it the largest BTC position on Hyperliquid. These two are not ordinary retail traders; they are top accounts copied by many, with every move influencing the followers. These two are playing with 40x full margin. 0x8c96 shorted 1,800 BTC with a liquidation price of $64,855. 0x431f shorted 1,000 BTC with a liquidation price of $65,097. At the current price of $64,076, these two short positions are only 1.2% and 1.6% away from liquidation, just a thin line away. If BTC pushes up even a bit more, this $200 million bet will evaporate instantly. With 40x leverage, every 1% price move results in 40% profit or loss on the position — fun when it’s going well, deadly near liquidation. Interestingly, these two were originally in a copy-trading relationship, one placing orders and many copying. But now the team has split. 0x8c96 is still adding to the position, pushing the short to 1,800 BTC. 0x431f has admitted defeat, partially stopping loss on 206 BTC, losing $80,000. The main account is desperately increasing risk, while the copy account quietly reduces position — a very real scene, like a group shouting “charge” but the leader retreats first. Even more extreme, they previously set stop-loss orders near $63,971 which have now been canceled, leaving only take-profit orders at $58,123 and $58,423, clearly betting on further decline. The market impact is direct. The $179 million short position hangs in a narrow range between $64,076 and $65,097, less than 2%, like a powder keg ready to ignite. Once BTC breaks above $65,100, these shorts will be forced to liquidate, and the buying pressure will push the price even higher — this is what we call a short squeeze. Conversely, if it falls below $58,000, their take-profit orders will be triggered, meaning the bears temporarily win. Both sides have limited room, and a market shift could happen anytime. The logic of short-term shorts and long-term longs is clear here. In a low volatility environment, such high-leverage concentrated positions are the market’s most fragile fuse. Ordinary traders should avoid such high-leverage trades; one spike and it’s zero. Don’t fight the trend blindly; watching the liquidation cluster around $65,100 is more useful than guessing direction. This copy-trading squad isn’t causing trouble for the first time. When these two addresses synchronized to $169 million before, people were watching closely. Now that it’s increased to $179 million but the team has split, it shows even the high-leverage camp lacks consensus. When bulls and bears are locked in, such concentrated positions often become the market’s powder keg. What do you think will happen to this $180 million short position first — will it be liquidated or will they run first?The person who shouted at you to rush meme coins has opened his own store Ansem has done something quite interesting these past two days. This KOL, who amassed a large number of loyal fans by shouting meme coin buy signals during the last bear market, suddenly announced the launch of his own token issuance platform, Ansem.io. Simply put, he used to be the one on stage urging everyone to rush in, but now he has set up the stage himself. From now on, anyone who wants to issue a coin must first register with him. Back then, he became legendary by shouting buy signals for several meme coins, and his fans trusted him more than themselves. This platform is built on top of Pump.fun. Project teams create tokens on Ansem.io, and on the first day, they can directly trade on the Solana mainnet. The process is no different from the usual pump play. It sounds like a more convenient tool for the community, but there is a detail that is quite intriguing. A portion of the funds from the first purchase of each new coin will be automatically allocated for community airdrops. Meanwhile, if project teams want better exposure spots, they must permanently burn a certain amount of ANSEM tokens to unlock levels like Gold and Diamond. People usually complain that pumps are just a way to cut retail traders, but now there is an additional KOL toll booth upfront. In other words, if a project wants to be noticed, it first has to burn money on Ansem’s own token. The platform also created a Z500 index and a Boost mechanism to rank community tokens in real time. Whoever wants to climb the rankings has to pay to boost. This is somewhat like turning attention into a business with a clear price tag—whoever pays gets to rise. In our industry, we are not unfamiliar with KOLs launching platforms. They often claim to empower communities and lower barriers, but the underlying logic is a closed loop of monetizing traffic. Ansem himself rose to fame through meme narratives; he knows better than anyone how much attention is worth and that people are willing to pay for stories that make them believe they can get rich quickly. Now he has directly productized this understanding, with the platform taking fees and charging for exposure, leaving no side untouched. Ultimately, he controls the traffic and sets the rules, which is much more stable than just shouting buy signals. Interestingly, the coins still run on Pump.fun, and the underlying zero-sum game hasn’t changed. What has changed is who collects the exposure fees. Those who rushed meme coins following him—will they continue to play on the stage he built, or just watch the show from a different angle? What do you think? Is this KOL personally launching a platform a new path for retail investors, or just sharpening the sickle even more? Some say it’s the most elegant way to monetize influence, while others think it’s just a different way to collect rent.After Bitcoin's stagnation reaches its extreme, who will this wave of volatility shake out first? In the past few weeks, anyone checking Bitcoin's market probably feels a bit sleepy. The price hovers around $64,000, fluctuating back and forth with less than a 1% daily change. Discussions about trades on forums are dwindling, and even the open interest in the futures market is quietly shrinking. This quietness isn't without reason. Sean Farrell, head of digital asset strategy at Fundstrat, recently reviewed eight previous similar low-volatility phases. The conclusion is a bit alarming. In the 60 days following those phases, the median absolute price change of Bitcoin was 30.2%, with four instances of upward movement and four downward—completely balanced. The model can tell you the wind will be strong, but it doesn't know which way it will blow. He also mentioned that the recent upward momentum mainly came from short-covering rather than fresh, real-money buying. Since last Friday night, Bitcoin-denominated futures open interest dropped by about 8%, indicating many short sellers are actively stepping back. Without new buying support, this rebound's foundation is actually quite fragile. Farrell focused on the 30-day volatility, a measure of short-term price fluctuations. When this value drops to historical lows, it usually means the market is stuck in a stalemate where no one wants to make the first move. But stalemates never last forever; in the past eight cases, none continued in such a dull state. Looking at on-chain and community conditions, low volatility often lulls people into a false sense of security. Many remove stop losses, increase leverage, thinking that after a long sideways move, a breakout is inevitable, so they place orders in advance. But historically, those 30% swings often hit when everyone thinks all is well, suddenly crashing or surging, leaving only a few hours to react. More worth pondering is the external factor he pointed out: real bond yields. Farrell believes that if real yields continue to climb, it could be the needle that breaks this current low-volatility stalemate. Right now, U.S. Treasury yields are pushing higher, and rate cut expectations are fluctuating, making it increasingly difficult for Bitcoin to keep pretending to sleep. So far this year, Bitcoin has dropped nearly 27%. The market is waiting for a direction, but no one can provide an answer. What we fear most is never the drop itself, but this grinding quietness. When everyone is guessing which way the next kick will go, the real risk might be that you're not prepared at all. Who do you think this 30% wave of volatility will shake out first? Ethereum, which claims to have permanent ledger storage, is now planning to reduce storage. On August 18, Ethereum developer kevaundray posted a proposal EIP-12188 on GitHub, suggesting shortening the retention window for consensus layer blocks. Simply put, this means nodes no longer need to hold onto years of historical blocks, saving a lot of storage. When this idea came out, there wasn’t much controversy; instead, it received support from several client developers. Lighthouse contributor michaelsproul said the change had no obvious impact on his operations; dapplion also agreed, feeling the direction was right. It looks like a low-key effort by tech enthusiasts to reduce the burden. But if you think about it, it’s interesting. The usual narrative is that the blockchain’s core advantage is permanent ledger preservation—no one can alter it, and history is always there. Yet now, Ethereum’s own core developers are seriously discussing keeping less history, simply because nodes are struggling to keep up. The proposal highlights a very real contradiction. As the chain grows longer, the storage cost for full nodes keeps rising. It’s becoming harder for ordinary people and small teams to run nodes. At this rate, the network will gradually centralize into the hands of a few wealthy maintainers. Shortening the retention window effectively eases the load on nodes, allowing more people to run them. In fact, discussions about pruning historical data on the execution layer have been ongoing for some time; this proposal just extends a similar idea to the consensus layer. Looking at both together, Ethereum’s direction to reduce burden is quite clear. Some might think, "I don’t run a node, so this doesn’t concern me." But in reality, block explorers, wallets, and the RPC services you use all rely on someone running nodes. If node operation becomes concentrated in a few large institutions, then who can see what data and who can access old records will be controlled by a small number of players. There are costs too. Some discussions mention that pruning historical data on the execution layer might affect long-running nodes’ ability to provide old blocks externally. In other words, if you want to look up an old transaction from years ago, you might not always be able to easily get it from a node. More subtly, there’s trust. Many people keep their coins on-chain because they trust that no one can alter the data and that it’s always accessible. Once old data is no longer readily available to everyone, that sense of security quietly diminishes. Technically it’s fine, but psychologically, that barrier is harder to overcome. Of course, this proposal currently only affects the consensus layer; pruning on the execution layer is a longer discussion. Developers also clarify that the changes won’t threaten network security or affect normal node operation. It doesn’t sound so scary, but the direction is worth watching: as Ethereum starts to consider the economics of ledger storage, the word "permanent" is no longer as absolute as before. What do you think is more important: cheaper node operation or the ledger being permanent forever? Deleveraging is underway, with on-chain lending shrinking by 20% Funds on-chain are quietly retreating. Galaxy Research's recently released Q2 report shows that the total amount of crypto-collateralized lending dropped 16.8% quarter-over-quarter to $56.16 billion, down 40% from the Q3 2025 peak of $78.69 billion. DeFi lending fell even harder, contracting 27.61% quarter-over-quarter to $20.43 billion, marking the first time since Q3 2023 that CeFi lending volume surpassed DeFi. The most interesting aspect is the pace. This round of deleveraging is not a cliff drop of over 50% in one quarter like in 2022, but a steady and mild decline over three consecutive quarters of 10%, 5%, and 17%, described in the report as orderly and gentle. Tether remains the CeFi leader, holding 58.54% market share, remarkably stable. On the lending side, there was no panic-driven loan withdrawal, and most borrowers actively reduced their exposure, showing the market is much calmer than the previous cycle. In the futures market, open interest in Q2 slightly decreased by 3.08% to $103.2 billion, but rebounded to about $114 billion in July. This indicates leverage hasn't disappeared; it has just shifted from lending markets to contracts, with the heat moving locations. Regarding institutional corporate debt, Strategy completed a $1.5 billion debt buyback in May, reducing the total outstanding debt in the DAT industry to $16.1 billion, also intentionally lowering leverage. One detail in the report is easy to overlook. DeFi lending declined more sharply than the overall market, indicating deleveraging is mainly concentrated in native on-chain funds, while traditional institutions' CeFi remained stable. In other words, the most sensitive hot money is withdrawing, leaving relatively long-term capital. This structure is healthier than a full contraction but also means that on-chain ammunition for small coins is indeed decreasing, making price rallies increasingly reliant on real demand rather than borrowed funds. In the short term, lending contraction means less leverage available on-chain, so small coins lack the capital fuel to push prices up, making the market more easily dominated by spot trading. In the long term, this stepwise gradual decline is actually a healthy signal, with no panic liquidations, indicating a more solid holding structure than the previous cycle. The real risk is a sudden wave of forced liquidations, which hasn't appeared yet, but if interest rates keep rising, it will need close monitoring. Ultimately, deleveraging is not scary; what's scary is pretending it hasn't happened. On-chain leverage is retreating, meaning price increases fueled by piled-up capital are becoming harder. The next battle will be about real demand and real liquidity. Anyone still clinging to the aggressive leverage strategy from the last cycle is likely to be the first to get washed out this time. What do you think about this round of deleveraging? Will it land gradually, or will there be a sudden harsh blow one day? A whale who made over a million is doubling down on GPS A wallet has recently reappeared in everyone's view. Address 0x8b6e — this whale previously made over $1.12 million by going long on AKE, making him one of the few winners in this round. But he didn't stop there; he turned around and opened a long position on GPS on Aster DEX with 2x leverage, buying 27.23 million GPS tokens, with a position value of about $450,000. This position currently has an unrealized profit of about $80,000, a gain of 35.66%. Even more impressive, GPS has recently risen about 70%. The whale's entry price isn't low, yet he's still adding. On one hand, there's the million-dollar profit already secured; on the other, a new position chasing higher prices. His strategy is all-in for winners, no retreat without a win, completely different from retail investors who just stubbornly hold after losses. What does the market say? An address that precisely timed the top on AKE and now bets on GPS is itself a signal. In altcoins, these localized hotspots keep rotating. MEME and small-to-mid cap coins have much more volatility than Bitcoin but are also more prone to quick pumps and dumps. Following a whale blindly is very risky; he’s up by eight figures, and if you chase in, you might be buying at the emotional peak since his cost basis is much lower than yours. In the short term, GPS as a strong altcoin still has momentum and may continue to surge as long as volume and price don’t deteriorate. Long term, the biggest risk for small-to-mid cap coins is liquidity drying up and collapsing. When Bitcoin pulls back, these high-beta small coins are the first to be dumped. Trend followers shouldn’t get misled by single big profits; whales set up early and use strict stop losses, while retail often rushes in only after prices rise, getting the timing completely wrong. There’s another interesting detail about this trade. 0x8b6e used 2x leverage instead of his usual high leverage, indicating he’s managing risk and not blindly overleveraging. Making a million on AKE and still lowering leverage shows this player is much more formidable than retail investors who go all-in recklessly. In altcoin profit stories, survivors are always those who dare to charge but also know when to take profits. Just looking at unrealized gains can overlook the discipline behind them. Ultimately, whales aren’t always right. Timing the top on AKE was skill, but whether chasing GPS higher can replicate that luck is uncertain. Ordinary players don’t have his information advantage or stop-loss discipline, so copying blindly will likely leave you stuck halfway up. Watching is fine, but if you get involved, be sure you can handle the risk. What do you think about this whale’s GPS move? Did he get it right again or is he rushing to catch the last leg?The Bank of Japan is going to raise interest rates every two months now This news might seem far from the crypto world, but it could disrupt things more than you think. DBS Group has just moved forward the Bank of Japan's rate hike expectations, saying the BOJ might speed up the pace from once every six months to once every three to four months. The next rate hike could even be as early as September, with the overnight rate reaching 1.75% by mid-2027. What does this have to do with crypto? A lot. In the past two years, many institutions have borrowed cheap yen to buy BTC and US stocks, essentially carry trades. When the yen rate rises, the cost of borrowing yen goes up, so these positions need to be evaluated for profitability. If there is a concentrated liquidation, risky assets will be hit first. BTC is the most sensitive to global liquidity, so when the yen tightens, BTC tends to shake accordingly. Historically, the yen carry trade unwind in 2024 triggered severe global asset volatility. How to interpret the market? In the short term, the rising expectation of yen rate hikes is bearish, pouring cold water on already fragile risk appetite. But Japan's economic data is actually improving; DBS has revised up Japan's GDP forecasts for this year and next, indicating that the rate hikes are supported by the economy, not forced. The market currently prices about a 75% chance of a rate hike in September, and the October hike is almost fully priced in. Many people think yen rate hikes are far from them, but there is a layer in between. Behind every BTC in your account, there might be institutions borrowing cheap yen. Once carry trades unwind en masse, the first to be sold are these high-volatility assets, regardless of the crypto market's own fundamentals. This transmission chain is invisible most of the time but triggers quickly; by the time the news breaks, it's too late to dodge. In the long run, before the global interest rate center shifts downward, it will be difficult for crypto to have an independent bull market. The real focus should be on the September policy meeting—whether and how much the BOJ hikes will directly influence the stay or exit of carry trade funds. The link between exchange rates and crypto prices is tighter than most people think; don't wait until the yen flies before realizing your positions are still exposed. Ultimately, the exchange rate line deserves more attention than the K-line charts. Many people trade crypto only by looking at BTC charts, unaware that their positions are leveraged with yen behind the scenes. If the USD/JPY suddenly plunges, risky assets get hit first, and it will be too late to find reasons then. Have you calculated the impact of yen rate hikes on your positions?IREN’s first 50MW Horizon delivery is more than a construction milestone. It gives investors an initial proof point for the company’s shift from bitcoin mining toward AI cloud infrastructure under its five-year Microsoft contract, valued at about $9.7B. The key question now is repeatability: three Horizon sites remain, within a program totaling roughly 200MW in Childress, Texas. My read is that valuation should increasingly reflect execution across the full rollout, not simply the scarcity value of power and land. Not advice, just analysis. #IRENDeliversForMSFT The fresh and hot earnings report is out Two words: weak performance Xiaomi is selling at higher prices and more cars, but the profits of the core businesses are thinning. The market-expected profitability turning point for cars did not appear; instead, the focus was stolen by the simultaneous decline in gross margins of both phones and cars. Detailed data: · Revenue of ¥108.9 billion, down 6.1% year-on-year, below the previously publicly expected lower bound. · Adjusted net profit of ¥6.2 billion, down 42.6% year-on-year; book net profit of ¥9.5 billion, mainly supported by ¥6.5 billion in investment fair value gains and subsidy income. · Smartphone shipments plunged 26.5%, although ASP rose 25.9%, gross margin still fell from 11.5% to 8.5%, indicating that the price increase has not yet covered storage cost pressures. · Car deliveries grew 28.2% to 104,200 units, but gross margin dropped from 26.4% to 19.2%, with an operating loss of ¥2.6 billion. The loss narrowed compared to ¥3.1 billion in Q1 but was far worse than ¥300 million in the same period last year. · IoT revenue declined 19.2%, with internet services being one of the few stable segments. #财报观察员：小米即将发布财报，你更看好哪条业务线？ Crypto ETF Weekly Outflow of 90 Million but Monthly Inflow of 900 Million Is your account in the red this week? Don’t rush to watch the market; first, look at a confusing set of numbers. Crypto ETFs had a net outflow of about $90.55 million last week, which sounds like a retreat, but stretch the timeline to a month, and there was actually a net inflow of $977 million. Extend it to a whole quarter, and the net outflow hits $5.406 billion. The same pool shows weekly outflow, monthly inflow, and quarterly outflow—three different perspectives pointing in three directions. So, is the money coming in or going out? Putting the three data points side by side makes it clearer. Weekly net outflow of $90.55 million, monthly net inflow of $977 million, quarterly net outflow of $5.406 billion. The alternating positive and negative figures indicate internal division among institutions—some are reducing positions to take profits during the rebound, while others are buying on dips. Looking back at previous months, crypto ETFs actually experienced consecutive weeks of net inflows. This recent weekly negative turn looks more like profit-taking rather than a trend reversal. However, the quarterly net outflow of $5.4 billion shows that long-term capital is not so confident. Why is the money moving so awkwardly? The root cause isn’t in the crypto space but in U.S. Treasuries. The yield on the 30-year U.S. Treasury bond recently surged to 5.31%, the highest since 2007. When long-term interest rates rise, institutional funding costs increase, raising the opportunity cost of investing in crypto ETFs. On top of that, tensions between the U.S. and Iran have flared up again, with the Strait of Hormuz potentially facing new disruptions, making long-term investors even more reluctant to put money into high-risk assets. What’s more troublesome is that Japan, the U.K., and China all reduced their U.S. Treasury holdings in June, so overseas demand is withdrawing. Meanwhile, the supply of long-term bonds keeps increasing, making it hard for yields to fall. High-volatility assets like BTC are most sensitive to U.S. dollar liquidity and long-term yields. The weekly ETF net outflow indicates short-term funds are pulling out, but the monthly inflow turning positive shows that medium- to long-term money hasn’t completely left. During such a period of divergence, prices tend to neither rise significantly nor fall deeply, just grinding sideways. For trend traders like us, don’t be scared into cutting positions by a single week’s data, nor get overly excited chasing after a monthly green candle. The short-term bearish factor is that interest rates are still high, but the long-term logic remains intact. Once institutions open the door to crypto allocation, it won’t close easily. What really matters is whether the 30-year U.S. Treasury yield can be pushed back below 5%. If it can’t, BTC will struggle to break through. Ultimately, ETFs are the pipeline between crypto and institutional liquidity. One end connects to real money, the other to BTC’s price. Right now, the pipeline is shaking—not fully closed, but not fully open either. The best approach is to manage your positions well, avoid betting on direction during this divergence, and wait for the pipeline to stabilize again. Do you think this wave of monthly ETF net inflow represents real money entering the market, or is it just a technical rebound after a big drop? Your order rights are being handed over to an AI agent by the brokerage Robinhood posted a low-key announcement on X this week, saying that its Agentic Trading crypto trading feature has started to open up to some users. Simply put, you can connect an AI agent to your account and let it decide what to buy and sell on its own—stocks, options, and crypto assets are all included, and it can only use the funds you have deposited. It uses the MCP server standard interface and is currently being gradually rolled out only to eligible users, not everyone can activate it. Robinhood has set up a separate sub-account for this agent, limiting trading targets to crypto, stocks, and options, and it is hardcoded to only use the principal in the account—no borrowing or leverage allowed. This is like putting reins on the AI, but the length of those reins is controlled by the platform. Half a year ago, this would have seemed like science fiction; now, established brokerages are all rushing down the same path, shifting trading decision power from humans to a piece of code. Coinbase has been pushing AiFi even earlier, letting AI agents research, decide, place orders, and settle payments on their own. Both sides share the same idea: in the future, the operator might not be a human. These agents’ decisions rely entirely on the news, market data, and community sentiment fed into their models. Whether the information source is clean or not directly determines what order they place next. But the model itself won’t tell you why it thinks that way—the black box is always open on one end. Robinhood left a loophole this time, sounding like they’re afraid the AI might cause users to lose everything. But when you really let a program place orders for you, the strangest part is this: you think you’re controlling the risk, but the moment you hand over the steering wheel, neither losses nor gains are up to you anymore. Loopholes or not, the real risk isn’t how much you lose, but that you gradually stop understanding what it’s doing. Programmatic trading happens in milliseconds, with dozens of rounds per day; by the time you want to intervene, the orders have already been executed. On one side, brokerages are pushing AI agents to the forefront; on the other, regulators haven’t caught up yet. If the agent places a wrong order, who’s responsible? No one can say for sure now. What’s even more worth pondering is the timing. Bitcoin has been hovering around 64,000 recently, ETFs saw net outflows last week, and market sentiment isn’t exactly hot. Yet these brokerages chose this moment to push AI agents to users. Is it because they truly believe the technology is mature, or are they just trying to find a new story to tell in a flat market? Outsiders like us can’t tell. What I’m more curious about is the other side. Are you willing to hand over your account’s order rights to an AI agent? It won’t panic or be greedy, but if it misreads signals or is fed bad data, the losses are your real money. When one day your friends say their accounts are managed by AI, don’t envy them right away—ask if they still understand those orders themselves.Currently, the sentiment around Bitcoin's market is that most people feel: bored to the point of wanting to sleep. The volatility is like an ECG that has flatlined, hovering around $64,000 every day. But if you lift the carpet and look at the data, you'll find this is not dormancy at all, but an extremely brutal chip washout. Long-term holders (LTH) are holding 16.35 million Bitcoins. People might not grasp this number, so to put it simply: the total supply of Bitcoin is only 21 million, minus the several million lost, and minus those not yet mined, the circulating active money is almost completely absorbed by these veterans. Even more astonishing, in the past 90 days, 1.38 million Bitcoins have been acquired. This shows that while everyone is shouting that the bull market is over and it's doomed, these old foxes are bulldozing through the market to accumulate. In the past 15 days, there were only 2 days of selling; this is not trading, this is hoarding gold blocks. Such extremely low selling pressure means: as long as even a tiny bit of incremental capital comes in later, due to the lack of supply in the market, the price will rocket up like a firecracker. The current price is $64,200, while the veterans' average holding cost is $49,400. They have a paper profit of 30%. If it were ordinary retail investors, they might have already cashed out to enjoy a hotpot meal, but for these LTHs who have endured countless winters, a 30% profit is barely enough to fill a gap. This 1.30x multiple is very interesting: it is a "safety cushion," but also a "psychological game point." For the whales, less than AI prodigy's $10 billion position sold off at a 20% discount The young man who wrote the viral AI prophecy article across the internet is now struggling himself. According to the Science and Technology Innovation Board Daily, Situational Awareness, a hedge fund founded by former OpenAI researcher and AI prodigy Leopold Aschenbrenner, is selling its approximately $5 billion worth of Anthropic shares at a 20% discount. This fund recently faced a liquidation crisis due to high leverage operations and is forced to sell at a low price to quickly raise cash. The fund's name, Situational Awareness, is the same as Leopold's famous article, showing his strong belief in AI trends. Breaking down this event reveals a strong contrast. Leopold is only in his twenties; his long article went viral in Silicon Valley last year, with the core argument that the AI wave will reshape everything, and those who don't bet enough will be left behind. Yet his own fund precisely failed by leveraging on this very bet. The person who once urged the world to heavily invest in AI is now discounting and selling off his core AI equity holdings. More subtle is the background of the buyer. Anthropic itself is no stranger to hype, with annual revenue reportedly exceeding $65 billion and valuation rumors reaching around $2 trillion, with plans to go public on Wall Street as early as this fall. On one side, the company is being hyped to the skies; on the other, its early institutional shareholders are escaping at a discount. This mismatch is intriguing. A 20% discount is no small amount—cutting $5 billion worth of chips by 20% means $1 billion evaporated out of thin air. Actually, this is not the only signal. The Bank for International Settlements recently named the AI bubble in its annual report, stating that core company valuations are at high levels, risk premiums are extremely thin, and pointed out the circular financing created by chipmakers and cloud providers through equity investments, long-term procurement, and computing power leasing, hiding the risk of double pledging. In other words, the more lively it looks on paper, the more fragile the real leverage might be. Interestingly, even the veteran quant giant Jane Street lost about $15 billion in July, partly attributed to holdings related to this AI fund. The leverage of a young man can affect the accounts of Wall Street veterans, showing that the money chain in AI is already tangled. So the question arises. When the people who understand AI best are forced to reduce positions, are we witnessing a normal liquidity squeeze, or is this the first crack in the AI narrative? What do you think—is this discounted sell-off the start of panic, or just a loss of control by individual players? $XIAOMI The data Xiaomi just released for the first half of the year clearly shows considerable pressure. Total revenue for the entire first half was ¥208.063 billion, down 8.4% year-on-year; adjusted net profit was ¥12.291 billion, a direct year-on-year drop of 42.8%, with profit decline far exceeding the revenue drop. Breaking down the second quarter alone, revenue was ¥108.9 billion, compared to ¥115.96 billion in the same period last year, a year-on-year decrease of 6.1%. It can be seen that the revenue contraction narrowed compared to the overall first half, but the profit side dropped sharply. In simple terms: overall sales revenue only slightly shrank, but the ability to make money was clearly squeezed. Most likely for several reasons: intense competition in the smartphone industry has compressed hardware profits; the automotive business is still in a continuous investment and cash-burning phase, with R&D and factory construction costs continuing to eat into profits; fluctuations in overseas markets have also dragged down overall earnings. The revenue decline in Q2 was better than the overall first half, indicating the business is not continuously worsening and shows some signs of stabilization, but profit remains the biggest pain point. Looking ahead, two points need attention: first, whether Xiaomi's car sales can pick up and gradually shift from burning cash to contributing profits; second, whether the smartphone side can stabilize shipments and improve hardware gross margins. If car volume falls short of expectations and large investments continue, profits will remain under pressure. #财报观察员：小米即将发布财报，你更看好哪条业务线？ #30年期美债收益率创2007年以来新高 #闪迪收涨逾8%，长期协议受关注 Fundamental Research Report $ASML / ASML Holding (NASDAQ · Lithography Machines) $1.9K (24h +2.12%) Summary: ASML Holding ($ASML) has a composite score of 57/100, rated as narrative over execution. The business fundamentals are mainly based on external payments, and the market cap to revenue multiple remains within a reasonable range. Company Overview: ASML Holding ($ASML) is listed on NASDAQ, operating in the lithography machine sector. Simply put: EUV lithography machine monopoly. Comparable to TSM and NVDA. Business growth depends on order delivery and market share expansion, with core focus on whether revenue growth and gross margin align with capital expenditure intensity. Macroeconomic interest rates and industry prosperity determine the valuation baseline. No involvement in token economics or on-chain settlement logic. Product deployment: officially operational with paid usage; revenue is verifiable via SEC 10-Q/10-K filings, financial reports are legally disclosed. Latest version not found, no valid submissions in the past 90 days found. User Metrics: MAU and customer numbers are based on 10-Q/10-K. Stock 24h trading volume is $1.22M; circulating shares and market cap structure to be confirmed. Core focus on whether revenue growth rate and gross margin meet stock price expectations. Revenue side: operating income $35.33B (latest financial report/consensus expectation), gross profit estimated by industry average pending update, net profit to be confirmed by 10-K/10-Q, shareholder returns seen in buybacks and dividends. Profits of US-listed companies do not equate to token holders’ profits; BTC-related stocks like MSTR/COIN require separate separation of BTC unrealized gains. Code side: no valid submissions in past 90 days found, no active contributors found, latest version not found. GitHub is level A evidence for direct verification. Investment background: ASML Holding ($ASML) is the listed entity; shareholder structure based on 13F/10-K disclosures. Primary partnerships are level A evidence via IR announcements; media mentions and industry conferences are level C/D and not used alone as commercial deployment evidence. Valuation Anchor: circulating market cap $723.31B, valued by P/E, P/S, EV/Revenue; not applicable for token unlocks. BTC-related stocks (MSTR/COIN/MARA) require splitting BTC exposure and core business for revaluation. Peer comparison (uniform criteria, no cross-sector comparisons): circulating market cap - ASML Holding $723.31B, TSM $2.24T, NVDA $5.45T. FDV: ASML Holding not disclosed, TSM $2.24T, NVDA $5.45T. Annual revenue: ASML Holding $35.33B, TSM $4.44T, NVDA $253.49B. Monthly active addresses or users: not disclosed for ASML Holding, TSM, or NVDA. Figures based on public data snapshots; missing data supplemented by official reports or industry standards. Valuation: current market cap $723.31B, P/S (consensus revenue) 20.5x. Cyclical stocks (miners/GPU) use cycle-adjusted P/E. Bear case halves $723.31B, neutral maintains range, bull case sees P/S expansion of 20-50%. Overall: fundamentals solid (score 57/100). Equity value anchor looks at revenue, net profit, buybacks, and dividends. Circulating market cap is neutral relative to fundamentals, FDV close to market cap, no major unlocks, sell pressure controllable. Potential risks: rising macro interest rates pressuring valuation, AI capex investment below expectations, regulatory litigation (SEC/DoL). Ongoing focus: revenue growth, gross margin, buyback amounts, order backlog, institutional holdings changes (13F). Data from public sources for reference only, not investment advice. Indicators deviating over 30% require reassessment. That’s all for now, see you next time. #FundamentalResearchReport #USStocks #Research #OKXOrbit On-chain RWA deposits have increased 300 times in three years but still less than 4 billion DefiLlama's latest data is quite counterintuitive. The total value of RWA (Real World Assets) deposited into DeFi protocols has grown from $12 million three years ago to nearly $4 billion now, a more than 300-fold increase. Sounds impressive, right? But from another perspective, 4 billion is still a small amount in the entire crypto market, not even reaching the locked value of many single public chains. The logic behind RWA is straightforward: move traditional assets like US Treasury bonds, government bonds, credit, and real estate onto the blockchain, turning them into freely transferable tokens, which can then be used in DeFi as collateral, yield sources, or liquidity. Institutions want compliance and efficiency, while on-chain users want real returns and stable cash flow; both sides meet perfectly. Protocols like Centrifuge are doing exactly this—tokenizing institutional-grade assets and putting them into the DeFi ecosystem, allowing on-chain users to indirectly earn interest from government bonds. Why should we pay attention? Because RWA brings a completely different kind of money to the chain compared to speculative coins. It is linked to real interest rates like US Treasury yields, making it more resilient in bear markets and providing DeFi protocols with a lifeline that doesn't rely solely on issuing tokens. Native assets like ETH and SOL are highly volatile, while RWA acts like a ballast for the entire system, so TVL no longer depends entirely on token prices. From an on-chain perspective, current RWA locked value is mainly concentrated on a few public chains like Ethereum, with underlying assets primarily US Treasuries and money market funds, so the structure is still simple. Compared to the traditional bond market's scale of hundreds of trillions, 4 billion is just the beginning, but the growth curve already shows institutions voting with their feet. For us, RWA is not just a conceptual sector; it represents on-chain yields starting to link with real interest rates, which will make DeFi's TVL less dependent on token price fluctuations. In the short term, RWA is still in its early stages; 4 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the traditional bond market. There is huge room for growth but slow implementation, as custody and compliance bottlenecks can hinder scaling. The long-term logic is clear: institutionalization and compliance are definite directions. For trend followers like us, it's much more comfortable to accumulate tokens and protocols related to the RWA track gradually during pullbacks rather than chasing highs on the day of positive news. However, don't overhype it. On-chain RWA custody and redemption still cannot avoid offline institutions. If something goes wrong, it’s not something code can automatically fix; defaults on underlying assets will still drag down on-chain holders. Do you think RWA will be the true mainline of the next bull market, or just another overhyped story?Bitcoin is standing at the crossroads of a “fair coin toss” In the past few weeks, Bitcoin has seemed like it was paused. It’s been hovering around $64,000, unable to rise or fall, with the market so quiet it makes you sleepy. But the quieter it is, the more alert you need to be. Sean Farrell, Head of Digital Asset Strategy at Fundstrat, reviewed eight historical instances when Bitcoin’s 30-day volatility dropped to historically low levels. The result: in the following 60 days, the median absolute price change of Bitcoin was 30.2%. Out of those eight times, four were up, four were down. This is not some mystical indicator. It’s a market rule that has stood up to backtesting— Low volatility is always followed by high volatility. The question now is: are you betting on a 30% rise or a 30% fall? Putting the numbers into real money— At the current $64,000 level: Up 30% → $83,200 Down 30% → $44,800 That’s nearly a $40,000 difference up or down. This is not a small move; this is volatility at the level of “wealth redistribution.” Farrell himself said: Monday’s 2% rebound was mainly driven by short covering, not new buying. Since last Friday, Bitcoin futures open interest priced in Bitcoin has dropped about 8%. Shorts are retreating, but longs are not aggressively entering. This is a stalemate where “no one wants to be the counterparty.” What’s even more painful: the global 10-year real yield surged to 2.41% on August 14, the highest since Bitcoin’s inception. When government bonds can give you nearly 5% risk-free returns, why would an asset like Bitcoin, which pays no interest, attract incremental capital? Farrell’s exact words: the sustained rise in real yields is Bitcoin’s biggest downside risk right now. On one side is the historical rule of “low volatility must be followed by big moves,” on the other is the macro headwind of “risk-free yields hitting new highs.” This is not a simple multiple-choice question. It’s a “coin toss”—heads $83,000, tails $45,000. Bitcoin has dropped nearly 27% since 2026. At this point, the fearful are cutting losses, the greedy are bottom fishing. But the truly smart are waiting—waiting for the sound of the “coin landing.” In all eight historical samples, none failed. This time won’t be an exception either. In the next 60 days, it will be either $83,000 or $45,000.BIS Bursts the AI Bubble, Saying Risk Premium Has Been Compressed to the Limit The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) rarely sounded the alarm in its latest annual report. They said that the optimism around AI has supported global growth and risk assets over the past year, but signs of a bubble have already emerged. Valuations of core companies are at high levels, the market-implied long-term earnings growth rate is significantly above historical benchmarks, and most worrisome is that the risk premium has been squeezed thinner and thinner. Investors are receiving less risk compensation, which means they are betting on more expensive assets with less buffer. BIS also pointed out a risk that many have overlooked: circular financing. Some chip manufacturers and cloud providers have created a self-circulating accounting system through equity investments, long-term purchase commitments, computing power leasing, and data center sale-leasebacks. Money flows from one pocket to another, and some assets may even be pledged multiple times. Once the equity market undergoes a major adjustment, these credit chains will be repriced, spreads will widen, financing conditions will tighten instantly, and the first to collapse will be those with the highest leverage. For those of us involved in crypto, this is not a distant concern. The AI narrative and crypto are both engines driving this round of risk appetite. US tech stocks and BTC often rise and fall together, relying on the same liquidity story. The long-term interest rate rise and credit spread widening that BIS fears are exactly the two forces that suppress valuations. When that day comes, high-valuation assets including Bitcoin will have to rise with discount rates; no one can remain unaffected. To put this relationship plainly, many in the crypto market are leveraged betting on price increases. Once credit conditions tighten and the stock market comes under pressure, high-beta assets will be the first to be hit. BIS is not worried about an immediate crash, but about the amplified damage at the turning point when everyone is betting in the same direction. For trend followers like us, the quieter the market, the more we need to think clearly about stop-losses and cash flow. Keeping ammunition ready allows us to buy bargains during the next oversell, rather than being forced out by a Margin Call. In the short term, the market is still partying; the VIX is at a yearly low, and no one expects trouble. But historical drawdowns often start at the quietest moments. Last year, Goldman Sachs said AI infrastructure contributed nearly half of EPS growth, indicating highly concentrated profits. The long-term logic remains unchanged; institutionalization of AI and crypto is still underway, but in the short term, don’t add leverage on top of others’ optimism. Do you think this AI bubble will be gentler than the internet bubble of 2000? A chess piece is quietly drawn from the opponent's camp and lands in one's own palm—this has never been a simple retreat, but a heavy cannon shot yet to settle. On the chessboard, a true player does not rush to cheer just because a piece leaves the enemy's formation. Withdrawing tokens is like pulling a knight back from the enemy's pawn line to your own camp, meaning control of this piece has changed hands. Self-custody is like moving the king out of the opponent's rook's range, taking fate into your own hands. But this step alone does not reveal the path to checkmate. It could be to establish a defense on the flank, to bait a sacrifice in the next move, or simply a prelude to upgrading a pawn. 57,000 HYPE tokens, $3.36 million. By chessboard value, this is equivalent to a rook plus a bishop. But the number itself is meaningless; the key is which square this piece is placed on. Withdrawn from Coinbase, it means every subsequent move will leave the open board and enter a dark game beyond our observation. My question is: why now? Why exactly 57,000 tokens? If it corresponds to a precise position, it might be a prelude to a midgame squeeze. If it corresponds to a long-term locked accumulation, then it’s like a rook after castling, quietly waiting to release pressure in the endgame. Don’t forget there’s another chessboard. The market linkage of the US stock token $xAAPL is like another simultaneous unfolding variation. True masters calculate the trends of multiple boards at once, mapping the potential value of each piece to different scenarios. Now, this piece has been separated from the hot wallet inventory and transferred to an unknown address. It’s like a piece on the chessboard that was once observed by the opponent suddenly entering a shadow square. We cannot see its next move direction, but based on the rhythm and steps of its accumulated withdrawals, we can infer its strategic intent. Sometimes, a large withdrawal is just someone placing an important piece into their own controlled safe. Sometimes, it’s preparing to withdraw forces for a large-scale attack. Like in chess, a seemingly retreating knight’s fork is often a prelude to a more ferocious right-wing encirclement. I only look at the number 57,000 and the way it was cumulatively withdrawn. If it’s accumulated in small batches, like slowly advancing flank pawns, then it’s likely a long-term self-custody intention. If it’s a one-time large withdrawal, then it’s more like a baiting maneuver before sacrificing the queen. But either way, one thing is certain: the moment this piece leaves the hot wallet, its risk map changes completely. It no longer depends on any opponent’s goodwill, nor is it affected by any centralized server downtime. It’s like a queen suspended in the center of the board, with huge potential but also needing to face all attacks alone. Grandmasters never rush to declare judgment. True strategy is calculating the endgame twenty moves ahead, and this withdrawal is just the first step. It changes the piece’s ownership but has not yet changed the outcome of the game. I watch this address like watching a piece just lightly touched by a finger on the chessboard. It tilts slightly, as if about to fall onto a square I have yet to see clearly—the coordinates of that square are the only puzzle at this moment. #ImpactCycle·Daily #OnChainEvent·ExchangeWithdrawal #57,000 HYPE·$3.36M #coinmovealert The Trump family's crypto company actually obtained a banking license This news from Caixin was quite a surprise. A crypto company held by the Trump family recently obtained a banking license. The phrase in the headline calling it the most blatant in financial history is not unfounded, after all, this family is stirring policies in the White House while simultaneously obtaining licenses to open banks in the crypto market, blurring the lines so much that it's hard to tell who is the referee and who is the player. What does obtaining a banking license mean? Previously, crypto companies wanting to engage in traditional banking had to go through a long detour to find partner banks; now they are banks themselves. Custody, payments, stablecoin clearing—these most lucrative activities can now legitimately be brought in-house. For the crypto industry, this is another step toward institutionalization. The speed at which giants are entering is faster than many expect; even political families are stepping in to turn their businesses into licensed institutions. The contrast is here. Those who verbally treat crypto as a campaign tool are running crypto companies as licensed banks behind the scenes. The boundary between policy benefits and family business is becoming increasingly blurred. The market may interpret this as positive in the short term since compliance channels are smoother and large capital entry is easier. But once conflicts of interest are exposed, the risk of regulatory backlash doubles; licenses granted today may be re-examined tomorrow. Looking at the bigger picture, it was almost impossible for crypto companies to get banking licenses before, as regulators blocked it for years. Now, the entry of political families has cracked the threshold open, and it is highly likely that more institutions will follow and replicate this path. This is a solid benefit for stablecoin and custody businesses, making the flow of funds smoother. But the flip side is that being licensed means being watched more closely; every move will be under regulatory scrutiny, and the free dividends of the wild west era will diminish. For those of us following trends, this line is long-term bullish; the story of institutional legalization is still unfolding. But don’t get carried away in the short term—such news often leads to a spike followed by a drop. Real capital inflows should be judged by deposit and custody data after the license is finalized. If your position is at a critical point, don’t get shaken out by a headline, and don’t leverage your emotions to bet on policy continuity. Ultimately, crypto moving from the wild west to licensed is both a trend and a risk. What do you think of the Trump family’s move—is it paving the way for the industry or digging a moat for themselves?a16z, which personally loosened AI regulations, is now under investigation by the Department of Justice The venture capital giant a16z, which wields great influence in both the crypto and AI circles, is now under investigation itself. According to Bloomberg, the U.S. Department of Justice has launched an antitrust investigation into the Andreessen Horowitz fund, focusing on a thought-provoking issue: how can people from the same fund simultaneously sit on the boards of competing companies? The matter traces back to last year's acquisition. The investigation initially targeted Fivetran's acquisition of dbt labs. The acquisition itself was unconditionally approved, but regulatory inquiries about board seats have never stopped. a16z co-founder Ben Horowitz is a director at Databricks, while partner Martin Casado is a director at Fivetran, and these two companies are direct competitors in the data processing field. Casado was also previously on the board of dbt labs, which was acquired by Fivetran. In other words, two competitors funded by the same money both have a16z representatives on their boards. Such investigations usually end lightly: the directors resign and that's it. But the signal behind this is far from light. a16z manages $90 billion in assets, just raised a new $15 billion fund, and its portfolio is packed with names like SpaceX, OpenAI, and Cursor. It can leverage far more than just money; it can influence the industry's rules of the game. The irony lies precisely here. Over the past two years, a16z's two founders donated millions of dollars to Trump's campaign and successfully pushed for the weakening of safety guardrails in AI policy. On one hand, they call for less regulation, deregulation, and letting the market run itself; on the other hand, their boardroom arrangements are now under DOJ scrutiny for potentially using cross-directorships to stifle competition. This scene looks like a joke no matter how you see it. Bloomberg revealed that this investigation has quietly been underway for almost a year but has only now come to light. What’s even more intriguing is the timing. Crypto and AI have become increasingly intertwined over the past two years. a16z is not only one of the most active voices in crypto but also one of the biggest players at the AI table. As regulators start probing VC firms through the boardroom angle, a16z is not the only one feeling the heat. Those top-tier funds holding seats on multiple competing companies’ boards will likely have to count their board seats again. So the question arises: when those who preach decentralization the most and call for less intervention end up sitting on the defendant’s bench in an antitrust case, who will this wind ultimately blow toward?Crypto lending shrinks by 40%, but this deleveraging surprisingly didn't cause a crash There has always been a concern in the market that this round of rally is entirely supported by leverage, and once the lending market can't hold up, it would trigger a chain reaction of defaults like in 2022. Galaxy Research's recently released Q2 report addresses this concern in the least alarming way. In Q2, the total scale of crypto-collateralized lending dropped 16.78% quarter-on-quarter, down to $56.16 billion. Compared to the peak of $78.9 billion in Q3 2025, it has shrunk by over 40%. The practice of borrowing money to speculate on crypto is indeed quietly retreating. Here's the interesting part. In the past, DeFi lending was considered the main player, with on-chain protocols allowing borrowing and repayment at will, which was the hallmark of crypto. This time, it's reversed. DeFi lending in Q2 plummeted 27.61% quarter-on-quarter to $20.43 billion, overtaken by CeFi centralized lending, which only dropped 9.62% to $22.98 billion. This is the first time since Q3 2023 that CeFi's scale has surpassed DeFi's. Tether remains the invisible landlord of this market, holding a 58.54% share in CeFi. In other words, fewer people are borrowing on-chain, while borrowing from centralized institutions remains relatively stable. This also explains why recently the locked value in on-chain lending protocols generally hasn't grown; funds prefer to stay with familiar institutions. What relieved analysts the most was the pace. This deleveraging is completely different from 2022. Back then, a single quarter could see a collapse of over 55%, a cliff-like crash. This time, it has been a gradual decline over several quarters, dropping 10%, 5%, and 17% respectively, step by step, with no sudden breaks. Galaxy's judgment is that as long as there are no extreme liquidations or counterparty defaults, this mild, stepwise decline will continue. The futures market shows a similar pattern. Open interest in Q2 slightly decreased by 3.08% to $103.2 billion, but bounced back to about $114 billion in July. On the institutional corporate debt side, Strategy repurchased $1.5 billion of debt in May, reducing the entire DAT industry's outstanding debt to $16.1 billion. What I find worth pondering is the other side. A lending downturn usually means cooling enthusiasm and less willingness to leverage. But this time, without a price crash, it indicates that the current position structure is much healthier than in 2022. The problem is, this slow, gradual cut is harder to notice. By the time everyone realizes lending has shrunk by 40%, the market may have already changed its temperament. What we really need to watch next is not whether lending will continue to decline, but whether this mild deleveraging can hold until the next expansion cycle. Do you think this is a good thing or a hidden risk? Proof speed increased 4000 times, Arbitrum plans to change its engine Arbitrum intends to upgrade to a bigger engine. The Offchain Labs research team just released progress on ZK technology, including a vector commitment scheme that reduces the proof generation time for 64,000 data entries from about 2 minutes to 32 milliseconds, a speed increase of approximately 4000 times. The new proof system Zaratan achieves native integer full succinct proofs for the first time, cutting the overhead of computations like RSA by about 5000 times. Just looking at the numbers might not convey much, but in plain terms: verifying a transaction or computation on Arbitrum will be faster, cheaper, and won’t require trusting a centralized node. The verifiable AI aspect has also advanced; the lightweight verification protocol can reduce the verification time of large model inference from minutes to milliseconds, significantly lowering the threshold for running AI inference on-chain. The key point is not just speed, but a change in architecture. Arbitrum is exploring combining ZK proofs with the original fraud proofs and TEE (Trusted Execution Environment) into a multi-prover architecture. This means no longer relying on a single verification method, but running multiple mechanisms in parallel, eliminating single points of failure and shortening L1 settlement cycles. For a Layer 2, faster settlement means higher capital efficiency and shorter confirmation times for users. The market impact will eventually reflect on the token. Such a fundamental upgrade won’t directly boost AR’s price in the short term; the market is trading on expectations. But in the long run, with improved settlement security and speed, Arbitrum will have the confidence to handle more real transactions and assets, making TVL and fee revenue the foundation of a slow bull market. ETH itself will also benefit; smooth L2 operation stabilizes value capture on the mainnet. Looking at the bigger picture, the arms race between ZK Rollup and OP Rollup has never stopped, with competitors like Base and OP aggressively improving performance. If Arbitrum’s mainnet rollout of this step succeeds, it will take the lead in the new multi-prover architecture race. But from publishing papers to mainnet deployment, there are audits, testnets, and countless pitfalls in between. What really matters is when the multi-prover architecture goes live on mainnet—that will be the watershed moment. Don’t treat technical progress as a buy signal. Whether this 4000x speedup marks a turning point in the Layer 2 arms race or just another paper that sounds impressive remains to be seen. The multi-prover architecture may not be obvious to ordinary users, but developers and large investors care a lot. With higher settlement finality, institutions will dare to put large assets and high-frequency strategies on-chain. This is also a key bargaining chip for Arbitrum and Base competing for institutional RWA business. Whoever makes security and speed the default first will capture the largest share of real capital inflow in the next round.CASHCAT surged nearly 10% in a single day—should retail investors chase or flee? Someone in the group shared a chart again. The MEME coin CASHCAT on the Robinhood Chain ecosystem broke through $0.105 this morning, currently at $0.1054, up nearly 10% in 24 hours. It's that small coin boosted after Robinhood launched on-chain trading, data from GMGN market. Honestly, this kind of coin has no real utility, purely driven by sentiment. But with Robinhood as the traffic gateway behind it, it’s a bit different. Ordinary people can open a stock account and access on-chain assets; the threshold for MEME coins is extremely low, money flows in fast and out fast. A near 10% rise looks tempting, but a reverse drop can happen in the blink of an eye. Let's talk plainly about the market. CASHCAT is a typical small-cap MEME with thin liquidity; a single large holder’s transfer can spike the chart needle. Those chasing today might be looking for someone to dump to tomorrow. We watch it not as an investment but as a thermometer of retail sentiment. When it spikes, it means hot money on-chain is looking for an exit. Short-term play is brutal; if you enter late, you’re just carrying the bag for others. Most new users on Robinhood Chain are novices from stocks, rushing in when they see red numbers and fleeing when green appears, moving faster than seasoned traders. Long-term? Forget it. Most MEME coins don’t survive a full cycle; today’s hot coin could be zero tomorrow. Don’t listen to anyone in the group claiming this time is different. When even movie box office hits can be hyped into coin prices, it shows the market craves stories, not value. Whether CASHCAT continues to rise depends entirely on whether the new Robinhood Chain users keep rushing in and if there’s a next MEME to take over. Is this nearly 10% surge a new wave of retail investor charge, or the last pump before old players exit? Here’s a cold splash of water: MEMEs on Robinhood Chain are not the same as Pump.fun on Solana or Niulai on BNB. Behind it is a licensed broker channeling traffic, with seemingly strong compliance, but no less speculative. Broker access doesn’t equal a safety net; the $0.105 price has no fundamental support, purely sentiment-driven. Novices mistaking broker endorsement for reliability are most likely to catch the last high. A straightforward note on position sizing: play these MEMEs only with spare change you can afford to lose. If you profit, it’s luck; if you lose, it shouldn’t affect your life. When you see profit screenshots in the group and feel tempted, first ask yourself if you’re catching the last baton. Hot money on-chain comes fast and goes fast; those who fully exit coins like CASHCAT are always the minority who set stop losses early.The three largest creditors all reduced their US Treasury holdings, with Japan retreating the fastest A signal has quietly emerged. The top three overseas holders of US debt—Japan, China, and the UK—all simultaneously reduced their US Treasury holdings in June this year, with Japan cutting the most aggressively. According to Caixin, Japan's reduction was the largest among the three, followed closely by China, and the UK also reduced its holdings. Those holding the world's safest assets are quietly pulling their money back. Why does this matter to our crypto circle? US Treasuries anchor global liquidity. When major creditors collectively reduce holdings, it usually means either the yields are not attractive enough, there are concerns about the creditworthiness of the US dollar, or they themselves need to replenish liquidity in dollars. Whatever the reason, the result points in one direction: the US dollar in the market is not as loose as before. The market impact follows. When US Treasuries are sold off, yields rise; recently, the 30-year yield has reached its highest level since 2007. As yields rise, the discount pressure on risk assets increases, with high-beta assets like US stocks and crypto taking the hardest hit. Although BTC follows its own narrative, when US dollar liquidity tightens, it will fall too—don’t think it can remain unaffected. In the short term, this reduction is a slow process; it won’t topple the market overnight, but it quietly raises funding costs. The same applies to stablecoins: US Treasuries form the base reserves for USDT and USDC. Behind the creditors’ sell-off is repeated scrutiny of the US dollar’s credit, so the massive amount of dollar stablecoins on-chain is not without pressure. From a long-term perspective, if the US dollar’s credit is repeatedly questioned, it actually adds narrative fuel to BTC, a non-sovereign asset. That’s why every time there’s trouble with US Treasuries, some call BTC digital gold. Our practical reference is straightforward: watching the US dollar index and US Treasury yields is more reliable than listening to trading calls in chat groups. If yields keep rising, lighten your positions; the real signal of liquidity easing is when creditors start buying back. Whether these three major creditors withdrawing together is a warning bell for the US dollar or simply because they themselves are struggling financially remains to be seen. For our practical approach, it’s simple. When US dollar liquidity tightens, risk appetite drops, and altcoins usually suffer first. BTC is relatively resilient but will be dragged down too. Historically, when US Treasury yields spike, the crypto market mostly consolidates or pulls back—don’t expect it to run wildly against global funding costs. Treat US Treasury yields as a thermometer; it’s more accurate than any trading call. #30年期美债收益率创2007年以来新高 Binance, once driven out by the FCA, plans to make a comeback in the UK by 2027 After four years, Binance is set to knock on the UK’s door again. According to Cointelegraph, Binance is planning to apply for a license from the UK Financial Conduct Authority (FCA), aiming to relaunch some regulated services by 2027. The company has long had a tough time in the UK; its subsidiary Binance Markets Limited has been banned by the FCA from conducting any regulated activities locally since June 2021, and new user registrations were halted in 2023. The timeline is very tight. The FCA just announced its crypto regulatory framework in June this year, opening an application window for crypto companies from September 2026 until February 28, 2027, with the new regime officially taking effect on October 25, 2027. Binance’s move clearly targets this window—missing it means waiting for the next round. A spokesperson still sticks to the usual line, declining to comment on potential license applications. But actions speak louder than words. An exchange that was once kicked out now coming back to apply shows it has never been willing to give up on the UK market. For users like us, an actual approval means opening a compliant channel, allowing fiat deposits and spot trading through the proper route without detours or worries. The market impact should be viewed on two levels. In the short term, this news doesn’t directly boost the price; it’s a minor positive sentiment-wise, while the market is more focused on Binance’s progress in the US and other European territories. In the long run, top exchanges moving toward licensing is a necessary step for the industry’s transition from gray areas to recognition, providing slow-bull-level support for mainstream assets like BTC and ETH. But don’t get too excited yet. The FCA is known for its strictness, with uncompromising anti-money laundering and customer due diligence requirements, higher than many other regions. Whether Binance’s past baggage and compliance controversies can pass this hurdle remains uncertain. Applying is one thing; approval is another, with a long review process ahead. The question is, can Binance, once kicked out, really return with a license this time, or will it get stuck again at the due diligence stage? Why is the UK move not to be underestimated? The UK is one of Europe’s largest crypto markets with strong user purchasing power; losing it means losing a high-net-worth segment. More importantly, the FCA’s framework is often used as a template by other Commonwealth regions. If Binance secures the UK license, it effectively gains a replicable compliance foothold, which is more valuable than the market alone.Cathie Wood bought $15.4 million worth of Block shares and increased her position in Nvidia Cathie Wood's shopping cart this Monday is quite interesting. ARK Invest first purchased $15.4 million in Block stock, ticker XYZ. This company is the one behind Cash App and Bitcoin payments, formerly known as Square. On the same day, she also bought $1 million worth of Securitize shares, ticker SECZ, a compliant platform specializing in asset tokenization. She also added $22.8 million more to Nvidia. The three transactions total less than $40 million, which is not a big move for ARK's scale, but the direction is very telling. Block is the gateway for crypto payments, Securitize is the key channel for bringing traditional financial assets onto the blockchain, and Nvidia is the foundation of AI computing power. Cathie Wood buying these three together is essentially a real-money bet on one conclusion: payments, tokenization, and computing power are the main themes she sees for the next phase. For us, the signal is more important than the amount. The fact that ARK chose Securitize, a player that turns U.S. Treasury bonds and funds into on-chain tokens, shows that RWA (Real World Assets) in the eyes of institutions is not just a concept but a business that can generate revenue. Block's Bitcoin reserves and Square's crypto payment layout also make it one of the few U.S. stocks deeply tied to the price of crypto. Looking at the market, we need to break it down. In the short term, crypto concept stocks like Block will amplify BTC's volatility; when ETFs see net outflows, it falls faster than others, and during rebounds, it leads gains with high elasticity. In the long run, ARK's strategy of buying on dips is usually about positioning narratives for the coming quarters, not a buy-today-sell-tomorrow move, so don't treat it as a short-term rally signal. What we should really watch is whether tokenization infrastructure like Securitize will attract more big money, as that is the real forward-looking on-chain capital inflow. Institutional portfolio adjustments are slow moves; small retail investors like us can't keep up and shouldn't blindly follow. So, is Cathie Wood bottom-fishing crypto payments, or is she betting early on the convergence of computing power and payments? A bit of background: Block was formerly called Square and has long publicly accumulated Bitcoin, with its balance sheet clearly stating how much BTC it holds. ARK buying its stock is an indirect bet on corporate treasury Bitcoin holdings, following the same logic as MicroStrategy and Strategy. Institutions aren't gambling on a sudden surge; they are using stock positions to secure the narrative position of payments supporting crypto in advance. A practical reminder for small retail investors: ARK buys stocks, not crypto, through compliant accounts, with costs and information levels very different from retail investors. Just understand her direction; don't blindly follow the ticker. If you really want to ride this theme, first check whether Block's Bitcoin reserves are increasing or decreasing in their financial reports—that tells you more than daily stock price fluctuations.Firmly Bearish Whale Liquidated After Reducing Position, Losing $1.57 Million Early this morning, there was a painfully clear account. A whale holding a $125 million short position, who had been publicly shouting a firm bearish stance, first proactively cut 1,200 BTC at dawn, taking a loss of $344,000, thinking this wave could exit gracefully. However, the market didn’t follow his script, and he was then forcibly liquidated by the platform for another 288 BTC, losing an additional $245,000. Calculating it all the way through, this guy has actually lost over $1.567 million since opening this position on August 5. Even more awkwardly, the more he shouts bearish, the more he stubbornly holds onto 512 BTC of shorts that remain unclosed, with a floating loss of $338,000 glaringly hanging in his account. The biggest fear for signal callers is getting washed out first themselves. This $125 million short position is not small on-chain. Such a chain of position clearances often acts as an amplifier for short-term volatility. On-chain analysts are watching every move he makes, and the market is waiting for the day he can no longer hold those remaining 512 shorts. Once forced to close, the selling pressure will instantly flood out, and BTC, which has been grinding in a narrow range, could easily be dragged into a sharp drop, with nearby bottom-fishers taking the brunt. The impact on the market needs to be observed in practice. Cases where even proactive position reductions can’t escape liquidation indicate that the support below is thinner than expected, with retail stop losses and whale forced liquidations squeezed at the same level. For those trading swings, when encountering such chain liquidations, don’t rush to see it as a bottom signal to buy; first, clearly understand the 4-hour average cost line and volume. His remaining short position is a ticking time bomb that will shake the market before it speaks. The long-term line hasn’t broken; institutions keep repeating that BTC has held key realized price support. But the current chain liquidation of high-leverage shorts shows that those betting on one side are being weeded out by the market. Don’t add leverage too aggressively; save some bullets and wait for real liquidity to return—it’s more important than guessing direction. Look at this firmly bearish stance ultimately being taught a lesson by the market—was the direction really wrong, or did leverage crush the person first? Putting this into the bigger picture makes it clearer. This chain liquidation of high-leverage shorts happens while BTC is still grinding in a narrow range, indicating both bulls and bears are waiting for direction, and no one dares to reveal their hand first. Adding to that, last week’s spot ETF saw a net outflow of over $300 million, with institutions watching from the sidelines. One whale’s forced liquidation can scare off an already thin buy-side. In this fragile balance, what we should do most is hold back our hands. #交易之声：你的经验值得被听到 Only kids make choices; I not only look at the sector, capital, and token distribution, but also at technical aspects and progress milestones! How easy is it to spot a dark horse? Projects in popular sectors generally tell better stories, and the market is more willing to assign valuations, making it much easier to succeed, like sitting on a rocket taking off; But a good sector doesn’t mean immediate price increase; what really drives the price is money. Whether capital is continuously flowing in, whether on-chain activity is increasing, whether trading volume is expanding, and whether institutions or large funds are continuously positioning—all these are crucial; Then there’s token distribution. No matter how good the project is, you still need to see how its tokens are distributed. If VC unlocks, team unlocks, or a huge amount of tokens are about to enter the market, even strong buying pressure can be crushed. So learning to check circulating supply, FDV, unlock schedules, and early investor costs is necessary; Additionally, besides the above three, paying attention to technical analysis and project progress milestones is also necessary. This helps us better understand what stage the project is currently at, and the upcoming trends and directions! A good project isn’t easy to discover, but catching one could make you soar!@OKX星球 $SNDK $OKB I believe the current market is trading on the expectation of the "Fed backing down," but the abnormal signals from long-term U.S. Treasury bonds indicate that risks are far from over. Bitcoin, Ethereum, U.S. stocks, and Korean stocks are essentially grasshoppers on the same rope. Let's first look at the macro trend. Goldman Sachs' report on August 17 pointed out that the probability of a rate hike in September is extremely low. The core reasons are July's retail sales month-on-month decline of 0.6%, CPI dropping to 3.4%, PPI falling to 4.7%, and non-farm payrolls unexpectedly decreasing by 23,000. These four data sets collectively point to a reduced need for tightening. However, there is huge market divergence. The futures market shows about a 74% probability of maintaining rates in September, and a Reuters survey indicates 90% of economists share this view; yet the 30-year Treasury yield has surged to the highest level since 2007 (intraday reaching 5.326%), with short-term trading turning dovish while the long end prices in inflation and fiscal deficits. Now, looking at the specific performance of each asset. Bitcoin has been anchored between $62,000 and $66,000 since early July, around $64,150 on August 18. ETF funds flowed back when rate hike expectations cooled, but last week saw a net outflow of about $390 million, with its movement completely driven by Fed expectations. Ethereum is currently around $1,890, performing slightly better than Bitcoin. The staking rate hit a record high (about 34.4%, locking over 40 million coins), Morgan Stanley has submitted a spot ETF application, and the institutional narrative is more solid, but its essence is still driven by liquidity expectations. The U.S. stock S&P 500 remains near historical highs, UBS maintains a bullish stance, and AI infrastructure earnings are strong (Ing A company that once shouted it would take down Nvidia has now taken money from it. Groq has raised another round of funding, $350 million, with a post-money valuation of $3.5 billion. The lead investor is Disruptive, and an interesting name appears on the list of co-investors: Nvidia. To understand how awkward this is, we need to rewind the clock. In September last year, Groq's previous funding round valued it at $6.9 billion. At that time, it was one of the hottest names in the AI chip space, focusing on inference chips, with the core selling point that its inference performance was faster and more cost-effective than Nvidia's GPUs. What it was doing was essentially trying to take Nvidia's market share. Eleven months later, the valuation is $3.5 billion—roughly halved. What happened in between is actually quite clear. Nvidia first obtained licensing for Groq's inference technology, then Groq's founder Jonathan Ross, president Sunny Madra, and a group of core members moved to Nvidia. The technology license went out, and the people left as well. The company that remains is still called Groq, but it is no longer the original Groq. Now its direction has changed; it no longer tells the story of challenging GPUs with self-developed chips but focuses on AI inference cloud and has become a certified cloud partner of Nvidia. The company plans to expand its data center capacity from the current 54MW to over 200MW by 2027. Part of the newly raised funds will support Nvidia's accelerated computing clusters. In other words, this company that once aimed to replace Nvidia is now simultaneously Nvidia's customer, partner, and investment target—a triple identity all at once. My first reaction to this news was not sympathy but the feeling that we've seen this script too many times in the crypto space. The rhythm is almost identical. First, a challenger emerges, shouting to disrupt a giant, with funding and valuation soaring, and the community wildly betting on this narrative. Then at some point, the giant stops trying to crush it and instead buys the technology, poaches the people, and invests some money. The challenger is still alive, the story continues, but the battlefield disappears. All the money betting on disruption ends up backing a service provider supporting the giant. Following this line of thought is a bit uncomfortable. One of the hottest sectors in crypto these past two years is AI-related: DePIN, decentralized computing power, AI agents—all based on the same logic of bypassing centralized giants. But Groq's example shows a harsh reality: those who try to bypass giants in the real capital world are often not defeated but absorbed. And the absorption is very graceful. You don't see bankruptcy or liquidation; you see a new funding round, a cooperation announcement, and a certified partner title. On the surface, it's all good news, with a sizable funding amount—ten billion in two months combined. Only by looking at the valuation curve can you see the story has changed protagonists. There is also a more direct short-term question. Burning through a billion-dollar level of funding in two months shows this business consumes capital quickly. Inference cloud is capital-intensive; if the 200MW capacity is really built, more funding will be needed later. Who will price the next round and which direction it will go is even more uncertain. So the real question worth asking is: to what extent does being absorbed by a giant mean a project has completely lost its independence? Does licensing technology count? Does the founder leaving count? Or as long as the brand remains and the name is still Groq, can the challenger story still be told? Among the projects here that are being hyped as challengers to some giant, how many will end up walking the same path? You all know the answer in your hearts.The Arbitrum team has made a major breakthrough proving a 4000x speedup The folks behind Arbitrum quietly dropped a potential game-changer for Layer 2 rankings yesterday. Offchain Labs announced multiple advances in ZK zero-knowledge proof technology, with the most eye-catching figure being a roughly 4000-fold increase in proof generation speed. Specifically, their vector commitment scheme reduced the proof generation time for 64,000 data points from about 2 minutes to just 32 milliseconds. Two minutes versus 32 milliseconds—a nearly 4000x difference—this is not a gradual optimization but a complete leap. Their new proof system Zaratan achieves the first native fully succinct integer proofs, cutting the computational cost of operations like RSA by about 5000 times. These numbers signal to the outside world that they intend to rewrite the old narrative of ZK being expensive and slow. Previously, ZK Rollups were criticized for costly proofs. Each proof burns real GPU power, which is why many Rollups prefer the OP approach over ZK. If proofs can truly be fast and cheap at the millisecond level, this cost barrier will collapse. Even more intriguing is their work on verifiable AI. They developed a lightweight verification protocol that reduces the verification time of large model inferences from minutes to milliseconds. This means the blockchain can quickly verify whether an AI model ran as claimed. Simply put, if an agent tells you it computed something a certain way, the chain can expose any lies within seconds. Given the current proliferation of AI agents, with even Robinhood letting agents access accounts to trade crypto for users, this has huge potential. Arbitrum itself is also evolving. The team is exploring a multi-prover architecture combining ZK proofs, fraud proofs, and TEE trusted execution environments, aiming to eliminate single points of failure and shorten L1 final settlement times. In short, they want to maintain security while boosting confirmation speed. There’s a long-standing saying in the community: ZK Rollups are powerful but expensive and slow, while OP Rollups are cheap but require a seven-day withdrawal wait. Offchain Labs is trying to break this stereotype. If proofs can really be millisecond-fast and cheap, the Layer 2 landscape will have to be recalculated. However, the numbers in papers and those on mainnet are never the same. Moving ZK systems from labs to large-scale production involves many hurdles. What’s released now is research progress, not a live feature. Don’t forget Zaratan isn’t alone—StarkNet and zkSync are also racing to improve proof efficiency. If Offchain Labs fully steps on the gas, others will have to accelerate too. The real test will be when it runs on Arbitrum mainnet—whether users actually see lower gas fees and faster withdrawals. What do you think? Will the next battle for Layer 2 start with proof speed?Ansem launches a new platform where issuing tokens requires burning your own ANSEM Did you see that tweet from Ansem? This top KOL in the crypto space announced this week that they launched a token issuance platform on Solana called Ansem.io, aiming to make it easier for communities to issue tokens. Sounds normal, right? But when you look at the rules, the vibe gets a bit off. Every time the platform issues a new token, the project team has to permanently burn a certain amount of ANSEM to unlock higher-level issuance permissions—the more you burn, the higher your level. Wait, doesn’t that mean you have to burn old tokens to issue new ones? My first reaction was, isn’t this just using your own tokens as a gatekeeping fee? The platform’s logic is to align the interests of project teams and ANSEM holders. If the project wants exposure, ranking, or community airdrops, they have to throw their own ANSEM into the fire first. Simply put, the more new tokens issued, the more ANSEM is burned, making the supply scarcer and increasing the value on paper for holders. But here’s the problem. This mechanism inherently creates selling pressure on ANSEM as it burns tokens while relying on new projects to buy back ANSEM to burn again. Whether this cycle can sustain depends entirely on how many genuine projects want to issue tokens on the platform. Everyone knows how competitive the Pump.fun model has become, with many launchpads fighting for attention. Ansem, which relies on personal IP to drive traffic, may not get much of the pie. The hype fades faster than it arrives, which is typical for platforms like this. Not to mention, the founder is both the referee and the player. He holds a large stash of ANSEM and sets the rules. The burn-to-unlock-level system is, at best, a community incentive, but at worst, a disguised demand engine for his own tokens. When retail investors rush in to play with new tokens, have they considered that they’re actually supporting his position? Every new token issuance props up his holdings. This interest alignment basically makes retail investors pay for the demand of his tokens—the more people play, the more valuable his holdings become. We’ve seen too many stories like this from KOL-launched platforms in the past two years. They all start with a bang but end in a mess. The Z500 index plus Boost ranking looks flashy but is essentially a traffic game—whoever shouts loudest ranks highest. Ultimately, whether the platform survives depends not on how well the rules are written but on whether real projects are willing to keep burning tokens and investing money. IP hype can support a launch but not forever. Just look at what happened to those celebrity launchpads back in the day. Will you try issuing tokens on this new Ansem platform, or just watch the show?30-year US Treasury yield breaks 5.28%, hitting a 19-year high This morning someone in the group shared a link. I clicked it and saw that the US 30-year Treasury yield surged above 5.28% on Monday, marking a 19-year high. Citadel Securities released a client report discussing this, saying the Fed's monetary policy path is pushing long-term yields to multi-year highs, and this has become a broader market risk source. In plain terms, the market is starting to doubt whether the Fed can smoothly cut rates. Previously, with inflation and consumer demand both cooling, it should have paved the way for a rate cut in September, but the bond market reacted oppositely—yields rose instead of falling. The head of fixed income at Citadel put it bluntly, saying this reflects the belief that when the Fed and Treasury face a dilemma, they will most likely choose the more accommodative path. It sounds contradictory, but the bond market votes with its feet. What does this have to do with crypto trading? A lot. When Treasury yields rise, it means risk-free returns become more attractive, so money that could flow into risk assets prefers to sit in Treasuries earning interest. Assets like BTC, which have no cash flow, fear rising real interest rates the most. Historically, every time long-term yields spike, liquidity in the crypto market gets drained, and price rallies become weak. Policy rates have actually been cut by 175 basis points from their peak, but long-term yields stubbornly refuse to come down. Citadel warns not to mistake recent inflation improvements as a signal that rates will fall; over 55% of core commodity prices are still rising. Next month's rate-setting meeting will be a closely contested battle. Translated, that means don't celebrate too early. In the short term, this macro uncertainty will suppress BTC's risk appetite, and there will always be people looking to exit during rebounds. But over one to two years, if a true easing cycle begins, suppressed liquidity will come back looking for an outlet. So this current phase feels more like the calm before the storm. My personal approach is to reduce positions during such macro pressure periods and keep enough ammo ready for when the direction becomes clear. Without a reversal in yields, a major market rally lacks confidence; don't stubbornly hold onto faith against the data. The calmer it looks on the surface, the more it often is the calm before the storm, so control your impulses now. What do you think—will the Fed cut rates this September, and can the crypto market finally catch a breather? #30年期美债收益率创2007年以来新高 Recently, after reviewing several optical module industry research reports from August together, I actually feel that the market's previous understanding of NPO and CPO was a bit simplistic. To start with the conclusion: CPO has not been significantly delayed and is progressing according to schedule; NPO is purely incremental, and its real volume growth will most likely wait until 2027. More importantly, the two are not mutually exclusive substitutes but parallel paths for different customers and scenarios. CSP tends to favor NPO, while Nvidia $NVDA's ecosystem is pushing CPO, but even Nvidia's largest CPO customer has started evaluating NPO. Simply put, customers have no intention of betting on just one path, and suppliers have even less reason to do so. This implies a very interesting change: CPO is not here to eliminate pluggable modules, and NPO is not here to eliminate CPO; rather, they are expanding the overall optical interconnect market pie. The supply side is equally worth attention. So now, when looking at optical communications, what truly matters is no longer "which will win, CPO or NPO." There is no winner or loser in the path, only who scales first; the industry is not in a zero-sum game, only demand continues to stack up. For optical component manufacturers, it's simpler: NPO can be served, CPO can be served, and traditional pluggable modules can continue to be served. As long as AI computing power continues to expand, optical interconnects are unlikely to be absent. The only divergence is in pace; the direction is becoming increasingly clear. This round of optical communications market may be far from over. $COHR $LITE

Orbit Topic Sitemap