Orbit Post Sitemap
SEC Crypto Regulation Draft: Behind the Positive Expectations, Don't Confuse the Draft with Implementation Reality
The crypto asset regulation draft released by the U.S. SEC has sparked considerable discussion within the community, with many interpreting it as a turning point for the industry.
The core of the past regulatory dilemma in the U.S. crypto space has been ambiguous rules. Without written standards for judgment, the SEC could classify tokens through litigation after the fact, leaving project teams without clear compliance references and always at risk of being classified as securities. The entire industry has been under a high-pressure environment of uncertainty. This draft attempts to make the regulatory judgment logic public, providing the market with a set of actionable boundaries for reference.
The draft sets two significant mechanisms. On one hand, it opens a financing exemption channel for early-stage startups to ease compliance pressure on fundraising; on the other hand, it introduces a safe harbor rule with conditions: if a project achieves substantial decentralization and the operators gradually relinquish control, the token can be exempt from securities regulation.
However, the benefits of this new regulation are not equally accessible to all crypto assets.
Bitcoin $BTC has no history of fundraising by a founding team, so the safe harbor clause does not directly apply to it. But the transparency of the regulatory system can alleviate some concerns of institutional funds, indirectly attracting traditional capital. From a market trading perspective, it is not recommended to chase highs but rather to participate in batches on dips. Key reference levels are $63,000 as important support; if broken, the next support is $61,000. On the upside, $64,000 is a resistance level, and only a firm break above it would open the chance to test $65,200.
In contrast, the $ETH Ethereum ecosystem will be more directly affected by this draft. The large number of token issuances and DeFi applications on-chain have long been overshadowed by the risk of being classified as securities. Once the exemption and safe harbor mechanisms are implemented, the compliance burden on ecosystem projects will be eased, boosting the development of the entire ecosystem. Market views suggest ETH is suitable for long-term dollar-cost averaging, with $1,800 as an important short-term defense level; holding above this level supports continued holding.
It is essential to clarify the reality here: this is currently only a draft text and has not yet become law. During the subsequent public comment phase, the provisions may be modified or adjusted. Also, the safe harbor is not granted simply because a project claims decentralization; there is a strict set of disclosure and operational requirements that must be met.
Regulatory improvement is a medium- to long-term logic; in the short term, coin prices are still influenced by multiple factors such as macro monetary policy, U.S. stock market linkage, and market sentiment. One cannot determine the market trend based solely on a regulatory draft.Fundamental Research Report $ONDO / Ondo Finance (RWA) $3.20
Straight to the point: Ondo Finance ($ONDO) overall score 57/100, rating narrative over execution. Breaking it down in three layers: the company team has cash reserves, the protocol network shows paid usage traces, token value capture is realized.
Project overview: Ondo Finance (token $ONDO), RWA sector. Focused on RWA bond tokenization. Competitors include CFG, HUMA. Traditional SME receivables financing goes through bank factoring, approval takes 30-90 days, interest 12%-24%, slow fund arrival. On-chain asset confirmation is transparent, LP pools disburse funds in seconds, RWA assets can be traded secondarily to improve liquidity. Average ticket size $50-500/month, settlement requires USDC or fiat. Narrative-driven sector, usage drops 60-80% in bear markets. Positioned as an end-to-end vertical platform. Product implementation: protocol layer officially running, on-chain dashboard shows protocol fees accumulating, paid usage traces exist. Latest version not found, 60 valid commits in last 90 days.
User metrics: address MAU undisclosed, DAU undisclosed, 24h trading volume $80.00M, TVL not found. Wallet addresses do not equal unique monthly active users; concentration of large addresses may overestimate real user count. Revenue side: user fees undisclosed, supplier income about 80-90% of user fees (to LPs and nodes), protocol treasury income $2.00M, token holder buyback and burn annualized no burn mechanism. 24h trading volume is business flow, not revenue. Company profit does not equal protocol profit, protocol profit does not equal token holder profit. Code side: 60 valid commits in 90 days, 25 active contributors, latest version not found. GitHub is grade A evidence for direct verification. Investment background: company equity financing checked via PitchBook/Crunchbase (grade A), token private and public sales checked via whitepaper, release schedule, and on-chain unlock contracts (grade A), market makers and ecosystem grants grade B, not representing long-term VC holdings, tech integration checked via API/SDK evidence (grade B), strategic partnerships and logo wall grade D. NVIDIA GPU usage does not equal NVIDIA investment, exchange listing does not equal exchange strategic investment.
Token side: total supply 1,300,000,000, circulating 950,000,000 (73.1%), FDV $4.20B, next unlock 2026-Q4 (adds +3.50% to circulation), annualized burn/buyback no clear mechanism. Must buy tokens to use product? Partially yes, medium value capture (staking/discount/governance). Compared with peers (uniform criteria, no cross-sector comparison): Circulating market cap: Ondo Finance $3.00B, CFG undisclosed, HUMA undisclosed. FDV: Ondo Finance $4.20B, CFG undisclosed, HUMA undisclosed. Annual revenue: Ondo Finance $2.00M, CFG undisclosed, HUMA undisclosed. Monthly active addresses or users: Ondo Finance undisclosed, CFG undisclosed, HUMA undisclosed. Figures based on public data snapshots, some missing data supplemented by official or industry sources. Valuation: circulating market cap $3.00B, FDV $4.20B, P/S 1500.0x, FDV divided by revenue 2100.0x. Pessimistic scenario values $3.00B at 50-70%, neutral range oscillates, optimistic scenario with revenue doubling, burn implementation, enterprise clients joining, FDV P/S aligns with top peers. Summary: fundamentals solid (score 57/100). Token value capture realized (buyback/burn/Gas). Circulating market cap relatively expensive compared to fundamentals, overleveraged expectations, FDV moderate. Risk warnings: short-term large unlocks dumping, protocol income long-term zero, token demand relying only on incentives (usage collapses if incentives stop). Follow-up tracking: weekly protocol fees, burn amounts, active address retention, TVL/loan balances, GitHub version releases. Information from public sources, logic self-developed, not investment advice. Data deviation over 30% requires reassessment.
That's all, judge for yourself.
#FundamentalResearchReport #Crypto #Research #OKXOrbitWoke up to find $SNDK SanDisk down 9%, and many people's first reaction might be: it surged so much, is it finally crashing?
I actually think this drop is not that simple. On August 18, SanDisk fell more than 9% intraday, while Micron, SK Hynix, and other storage stocks also noticeably pulled back, indicating this is not just a SanDisk issue but that capital is starting to cool off this round of storage sector momentum.
But one thing must be clear: SanDisk's fundamentals have not suddenly deteriorated. The company just reported Q4 of fiscal 2026 revenue at $8.965 billion, up 372% year-over-year, with data center business growing about 437% YoY; the company also expects mid-to-high single-digit double-digit revenue growth for fiscal years 2028–2030.
What really makes capital hesitate is that the valuation has run too far ahead. AI-driven storage demand is indeed growing, and SanDisk has signed multiple long-term agreements, making future revenue more certain than traditional storage cycles. But the stock price has already priced in a lot of optimistic expectations, so as soon as capital starts taking profits, volatility naturally amplifies.
So I won’t immediately turn bearish on SanDisk just because it dropped 9%, nor will I chase higher just because the AI thesis remains intact. My judgment is: this looks more like a stress test after a surge. What matters next is not how much it moves in a day, but whether volume, price, and the company’s subsequent performance can continue to align after the pullback.
If fundamentals remain unchanged during the adjustment, and AI storage demand and long-term orders continue to materialize, then this drop is actually helping the market find new support; but if performance growth slows, storage prices soften, and valuation compresses, then it’s more than just a simple shakeout.
I personally lean toward the former, but at this point, the biggest risk is not being wrong about AI, but buying too expensively. Whether SanDisk can continue to strengthen depends on whether its performance can catch up with the stock price.
$DOS $ETH $OKB
#闪迪回落逾9%，存储估值分歧加剧 #SEC提出《加密资产监管》草案，CLARITY法案9月审议
1. Core Event
The SEC released a new draft for crypto asset regulation, establishing financing exemptions and a token safe harbor mechanism, providing projects with a compliance pathway. However, it is still at the proposal stage with a 60-day public comment period. Meanwhile, the industry has high hopes for the CLARITY Act, which will face a Senate vote in September and requires 60 votes to advance; failure to pass means it’s basically dead.
2. Market Logic
These are two separate approaches: the SEC is first issuing its own regulatory rules; the Congressional CLARITY Act is legislation that, if enacted, will clarify the jurisdiction between the SEC and CFTC, benefiting mainstream coins like BTC and ETH and giving institutions greater confidence to enter the market.
Risks: There is significant partisan disagreement, so the bill may not pass smoothly. In the short term, this is an expectation game, and positive news may be followed by "buy the rumor, sell the fact" behavior.
3. Personal Viewpoint (Cautious style, not investment advice)
This is a medium- to long-term positive, but don’t imagine an immediate bull market. Currently, $BTC is still consolidating within a range; news can only cause short-term fluctuations. Ultimately, the market depends on ETF funds and U.S. Treasury yields.
You can treat this as a potential bomb: if it passes, it’s a plus; if the vote fails, altcoins may suffer. It’s safer not to go all-in betting on the outcome now; wait for the final result before making judgments.$SNDK Midday Market Analysis: Sudden Surge Followed by a Setback
SNDK plummeted over 9% overnight. The intraday low touched 1600, with a high of 1724, a swing of more than 120 points.
It had just surged nearly 9% on Monday, only to give almost all of it back overnight. Trading volume reached $30.2 billion, showing a clear increase in volume and significant capital outflow.
The US 30-year Treasury yield soared to a nearly 20-year high. Tech companies rely on borrowing for R&D, so when interest rates rise, the market tends to retreat first. The semiconductor index dropped nearly 5%, dragging the entire sector down.
The 1600 price level is a key psychological support; if it doesn't hold, the price may continue to test 1580-1550.
It rose 35% the previous week, triggering profit-taking and a sell-off. Short-term volatility is inevitable, but the long-term storage logic remains unchanged. However, don't rush to bottom-fish. #贝莱德重申BTC仍具配置价值
When I opened BlackRock's report, I had just finished the first sip of my coffee.
The title is very restrained—"Bitcoin: Cyclical Pressure and Long-Term Value"—a typical BlackRock style: mild, data-driven, and non-sensational. But I stopped reading on page three because the core logic is summed up in one sentence:
A 53% drawdown is a capital-level fluctuation, not a collapse of the underlying logic.
Deleveraging of perpetual contracts, ETP capital outflows, and market doubts about microstrategy's ability to increase holdings—these are position adjustments. Investment logic reversal? The report says no.
In plain terms, this means: it dropped, but nothing fundamental changed.
What’s really interesting in the report isn’t the conclusion but a detail. A ten-year backtest shows that allocating 1% to 2% of the stock portion in a traditional 60/40 portfolio to $BTC improves risk-adjusted returns but also increases maximum drawdown.
BlackRock presents both numbers, the good and the bad, then says, "You decide." This is something only someone from the buy-side can write—first stating the advantages, then clearly listing the worst-case scenario, and finally leaving the choice to the reader.
Then I scrolled down and saw another piece of news that seemed prearranged when put together.
Citibank plans to launch native crypto asset custody for institutional clients within the year, initially supporting BTC. Not $ETH, not derivatives, but real, native BTC with private keys held within the traditional banking system.
Previously, institutions had only two paths to allocate BTC. Buying ETFs, which are essentially share certificates, not real BTC; or using crypto-native custodians like Coinbase, which have high compliance thresholds and are often rejected by many risk control departments.
Citibank has broken down the first wall—the traditional bank custody system directly connects with existing risk control and reporting processes, so compliance doesn’t require building a new framework.
BlackRock convinces CIOs, Citibank handles risk control and compliance. The combined strategy is already laid out.
But how far this will go ultimately depends not on how well the report is written, but on whether Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan follow after Citibank launches.
The first to enter is just testing the waters; the second and third to enter define the track. If in Q3 and Q4 we see a second traditional big bank announce follow-up, that will be a real diversion.
BlackRock has set up the logic, Citibank has cleared the channel. The next thing to watch closely is: in the second half of this year, whether BTC holdings in those asset management institutions’ 13F filings actually rise.
Money talks. Then we just need to watch the data.I think the core significance of the SEC's draft "Regulation of Crypto Assets" is not about giving anyone a break, but about completely changing the reputation and survival logic of the crypto community. Simply put, the old ways of relying on hype and issuing air coins to fleece investors will basically no longer work. Why do I say this? I think there are two key points: 1. The financing threshold is transparent, and scammers can't "get something for nothing" anymore. Previously, many project teams issued tokens without even decent financial statements, relying solely on empty talk. Now the SEC requires that if you want to raise funds, you must submit financial statements and fulfill ongoing information disclosure obligations. This means where your money is spent and the project's progress must be clearly presented. Those air coins that have no code and rely solely on PPT presentations for fundraising won't even meet the compliance threshold in the future. 2. The "safe harbor" is not a lawless zone, but a "tightening constraint." The draft mentions a "safe harbor" clause, stating that as long as the project team completes the necessary management work and disclosures, the tokens will no longer be treated as "securities." Many see this as a positive, but I think this is precisely a "death blow" to air coins. To enter this safe harbor, you must prove that you have completed key management efforts and that the network is sufficiently decentralized. Projects controlled by centralized teams ready to dump and run can never meet these long-term, ongoing compliance requirements. I believe this will have a revolutionary impact on the reputation of the crypto community. Previously, when people mentioned the crypto world, the first reaction was "scam,"Crypto Daily · 2026.08.19 Wednesday
1. One-sentence summary today
Off-exchange is lively (Yushu listing, robot surge), on-exchange BTC stands still, market sentiment is overheated, volume does not support.
2. Market thermometer
Neutral to slightly bullish
Bank of America survey shows institutional optimism hitting a four-year high, but cash ratio drops to a historic low, a contrary signal has appeared.
3. Core market today
BTC: $64,388 | +0.3% | It did rise, but 24h volume is only 8.2 billion, this volume can’t support any rally, sideways grinding
ETH: $1,909 | +0.63% | Slightly stronger than BTC, but ETH/BTC shows no substantial improvement, rotation signs are not obvious yet
Strongest sector today: AI robot concept | SOL +1.83%, Yushu Technology related contracts liquidated shorts | Yushu contracts liquidated $6.31 million in nearly 4 hours, shorts got crushed
Weakest sector today: DeFi cross-chain | CACAO | Biggest drop -88.7% (MAYAChain attacked, direct zeroing drop)
4. Most important news today
【Yushu Technology A-share listing surges 629% on first day, Binance simultaneously launches contracts】
【Impact】Yushu is the biggest emotional bomb in the whole market today. A-share IPO subscription earns 470,000 yuan per lot, Meituan’s floating profit exceeds 33.3 billion, Binance launched contracts simultaneously at 10:45 today — that’s the current time. Short-term sentiment extremely euphoric, contract market shorts liquidated $6.31 million.
【My judgment】Market reaction is a bit overheated. The A-share surge is inevitable due to IPO pricing mechanism, but those chasing contracts should be cautious — good news realized is bad news, an old saying but always forgotten. I personally dare not chase contract longs at this level.
【MAYAChain suffers chained vulnerability attack, loses about $1.7 million, CACAO drops up to 88.7%】
【Impact】Another cross-chain protocol breached. Attacker exploited 6 chained vulnerabilities in a single transaction, stealing 20.83 BTC and nearly 50 million CACAO. Protocol suspended, liquidity recovery in short term is unlikely.
【My judgment】This reaction is not excessive, CACAO’s drop reflects real loss. Cross-chain protocol security is an old issue, but every incident is treated as news — DeFi security audit premium is still seriously underestimated. Anyone holding small cross-chain protocol tokens should reconsider their positions today.
【Bank of America survey: institutional optimism hits four-year high, cash ratio drops to historic low, triggering contrary sell signal】
【Impact】This is an indirect but important signal for the crypto market. Institutional cash ratio at 3.5%, lowest since 1998, Bank of America itself says it triggered a "contrary sell signal." Once any macro disturbance occurs, liquidity contraction will quickly transmit to crypto.
【My judgment】Market reaction is insufficient. Everyone is focused on Yushu, no one seriously watches this. But this is the most worthy warning today — global institutions are fully invested, who will take over?
5. Signals worth attention today
Signal 1:
Signal: Yushu Technology Binance contract launch first day, shorts liquidated $6.31 million, but short sellers (728) outnumber longs (486)
Why worth attention: Indicates some are actively shorting at highs, not just a pure long rally — if A-share Yushu corrects, contracts may see violent fluctuations
Tracking period: short term (within 48 hours)
Signal 2:
Signal: Coldcard hardware wallet theft (1800 BTC), attacker identity suspected to be known by FBI, first batch of 1082 BTC still untouched
Why worth attention: If law enforcement freezes or confiscates these BTC, on-chain activity will be obvious, worth monitoring that address
Tracking period: medium term
Signal 3:
Signal: BTC longs net loss $60.9 million, long-short ratio 1.36:1, longs dominate in number but lose more money
Why worth attention: Longs under pressure, average leverage 22.9x, if BTC breaks key support, cascading liquidations risk is significant
Tracking period: short term
6. Key events preview for tomorrow
🕑 Today 2:30 PM (ET) Trump and tech leaders speech → Expected impact: neutral to slightly bullish, tech + AI narrative may boost sentiment, direct crypto benefit uncertain, depends on speech
📌 Ongoing tracking SEC crypto asset issuance new rules discussion (proposed partial project exemption) → Expected impact: neutral to slightly bullish, regulatory easing direction clear, but implementation timing unknown, short-term sentiment value greater than actual
📌 Ongoing tracking MAYAChain vulnerability fix progress and BTC recovery possibility → Expected impact: bearish, very likely unrecoverable, protocol trust collapse needs time to rebuild
7. Today's view
Today’s Yushu excitement is not much related to crypto, but sentiment is contagious. Institutional cash ratio dropping to historic lows is a hundred times more important than Yushu listing, but no one talks about it. You can never make money outside of awareness — while everyone chases hot spots, I prefer to watch those overlooked corners. BTC $64,388, volume average, today is not a good time to act, wait and see. #财报观察员：小米Q2财报出炉，是汽车救场还是手机拖后腿？
Xiaomi's latest earnings report is starting to be digested by the market. Profits beat expectations, and with continuous growth in the automotive and AI sectors, capital is reevaluating Xiaomi's valuation logic.
Just glanced at the market, XIAOMIUSDT surged to around 3.46 in one go, up over 6%. The solid Q2 fundamentals are behind this: total revenue of 108.9 billion, although the mobile segment's profits were squeezed by rising storage chip prices, the automotive business held steady—quarterly deliveries reached 104,199 units, generating 24.9 billion in revenue. More importantly, expenses were tightly controlled, which is a plus in the current environment.
However, I tend to interpret this movement as short-covering and new capital inflows following the earnings release, not necessarily indicating a complete trend reversal. The key is to watch if it can hold above 3.4.
Volatility watch: Cryptocurrency volatility observation — $XIAOMI The mainnet upgrade reduces Slot block production time to 350 milliseconds, improving high-frequency trading settlement efficiency. However, system stability risks caused by mismatches between cross-Epoch activation periods and SDK parameters are currently re-attracting and clearing leveraged positions.
The current market reality shows that high-frequency trading and settlement funds remain cautious during the upgrade window, and on-chain sentiment has not blindly surged due to performance improvements. After the mainnet enters a pending activation state at Epoch E, it must cross to Epoch E+2 to achieve stable 350-millisecond network-wide effect, which suppresses short-term risk appetite.
The driving factors are ranked as follows: first, the lag of parameters like DEFAULT_MS_PER_SLOT in the SDK impacting application layer timing logic; second, the physical capacity of node network connections to support the 350-millisecond block production limit; third, the repricing of ultra-fast settlement profits by high-frequency applications. If timing mismatches cause application layer interaction anomalies, it will directly undermine confidence in holding long positions.
The bullish scenario trigger condition is that during the full implementation from Epoch E+1 to Epoch 1020, nodes experience no congestion or interruptions and developers quickly complete adaptation. If on-chain transaction success rates remain stably high, it will boost risk appetite for high-frequency quantitative strategies and real-time settlement protocols, driving capital to increase long positions again.
The bearish scenario trigger condition is that during the transition period, hardcoded SDK parameters cause liquidation logic or timing matching confusion, triggering on-chain application service anomalies. Once nodes experience connection delays or network congestion, market risk aversion will quickly spread, and high-leverage positions will choose to close out, causing temporary liquidity contraction.
A signal of failure is widespread underlying state inconsistencies across all network nodes before client parameters are adjusted, forcing on-chain confirmation times to roll back to over 400 milliseconds. If this occurs, it indicates that the performance limit squeeze has exceeded current infrastructure capacity, and existing trading logic requires comprehensive revision.
The most critical observation variables over the next 7 days are the on-chain packet loss rate during the Epoch 1020 node state switch and the actual migration progress of developers following mainstream SDK updates.
#贝莱德重申BTC仍具配置价值 #Strategy上周出售3.34亿美元股票，提高美元储备#交易之声：你的经验值得被听到
Just pretended to get some water, and in the hallway I saw that the White House called half of the crypto circle for tea, almost held my breath.
Trump personally hosted, the SEC chair and CFTC chair both showed up, CEOs of Coinbase, Ripple, and Gemini sat in a row, quite a big setup. But looking closely, the CLARITY Act is stuck in the Senate, and the SEC has frozen the exemption for tokenized stocks. On one hand, they shout about a crypto golden age, on the other hand, legislation and administration are hitting the brakes hard—doesn't this feel like pure schizophrenia?
More subtly, before the meeting even started, OCC approved a banking license for World Liberty Fi, which is related to the Trump family. Is this an industry meeting or a family business promotion? Incredible. But the market is honest: $BTC dropped 3% last week, ETF net outflows were $390 million, and the ETH spot ETF also ended five weeks of net inflows.
Honestly, I've seen this kind of meeting too many times—photos, handshakes, slogans are inevitable, but the CLARITY Act won't pass, and the SEC exemption won't be released, so it's all for nothing. I still hold some $ETH short positions at a cost of 1885, a small loss, haven't moved for now.
Do you think this time they can negotiate something real? Or will it be all talk and no action again? 😅 I'm betting the bill won't move, or else I'll be eating my keyboard live.
#白宫会晤加密业，政策成果待观察 The TikTok you scroll through every day is hiding a transfer button in the chat box.
That app you can't stop scrolling every day is quietly turning into a bank card. Bloomberg dug into the installation package code of the US version of TikTok and found that the complete process for peer-to-peer transfers has already been embedded: in the private message chat box, the recipient can directly click to pay, the payer will see notifications and inbox alerts to confirm receipt of money, and when transferring, you can leave a message just like on Venmo.
In short, it's about embedding a transfer button in the chat box. The code is already quite complete, and the interaction logic is fully functional, but a TikTok spokesperson said it is not yet being tested in any market and is still in the early stages. The most interesting part of this is the contrast.
In recent years, countless people in the crypto space have been racking their brains trying to do the same thing: combine social interaction and payments so that value flows between acquaintances as easily as sending messages. Various wallets, social protocols, and tipping mechanisms have gone through countless iterations. But after all the on-chain efforts, the largest social platform quietly figured out this path on its own—and it didn’t even use blockchain.
TikTok Pay has actually been running for a while in Southeast Asia—Vietnam, Malaysia, Thailand can use it—but currently it only serves TikTok Shop for shopping payments. The newly uncovered P2P function means extending this payment capability from just buying things to sending money between friends, which is a completely different nature.
For those of us who watch crypto every day, this signal is a bit striking. The narrative of social payments was originally one of the cakes stablecoins and crypto wallets most wanted to bite into, always arguing that traditional transfers are too slow, too expensive, and cross-border transfers are even more troublesome. But when a giant directly embeds the button in the chat interface of over a billion people using a centralized method, the story that decentralization is more convenient instantly loses its appeal.
It’s worth mentioning that once such features are widely adopted, they will have a huge impact on the payment habits of young users. They already chat, watch live streams, and shop within the app, so adding a transfer button means bank apps might be opened even less.
Of course, this TikTok feature may not actually launch in the end; the spokesperson was vague, and there are many regulatory and geopolitical uncertainties. But the direction is clear: the next billion-user payment gateway might not be on-chain but in the chat box you use most. When that time comes, will we use stablecoins, or the button provided by the giant? This question is more urgent than many people think.Bitcoin ETF attracts $200 million but a product delists
Yesterday, the overall net inflow of Bitcoin spot ETFs was $189 million. BlackRock's IBIT alone took in $144 million in one day, and Fidelity's FBTC also grabbed $23.92 million. It looks like the story of institutions buying Bitcoin hasn't stopped at all. But in the same week, another Bitcoin ETF quietly completed its final journey.
Hashdex's Bitcoin spot ETF, ticker DEFI, ended trading on the NYSE Arca on August 17 and then started liquidation and delisting. From August 18, the fund began selling off its remaining Bitcoin, expecting to return cash to holders around August 24. As of the end of July, its asset size was only about $7.28 million.
Both track Bitcoin, yet on one side IBIT's historical cumulative net inflow surged to $61.4 billion, while on the other DEFI quietly exited with less than $10 million in assets. This contrast is quite painful. The ETF track is never for everyone; scale, liquidity, and operating costs are three barriers that small players basically can't overcome. When Bitcoin ETFs were first approved, more than a dozen products flooded the market, all wanting a piece of the pie. Now, a year later, only those backed by giants survive; the rest either merge or shut down.
DEFI is not the first to fall and likely not the last. The Bitcoin ETF track looks stable but management fee competition is extremely fierce. The top few have pushed fees very low, and funds are highly concentrated in BlackRock and Fidelity. Small funds have daily trading volumes as thin as paper, can't retain money, and just maintaining listing and compliance costs continuous burning of capital. If they can't endure, liquidation is the only option. Yesterday, the largest single-day net outflow was VanEck's HODL, which lost $16.92 million in one day; small products' bleeding never stops.
Interestingly, on the same day DEFI delisted, the total net asset value of the Bitcoin ETF sector reached $79.3 billion, accounting for 6.12% of Bitcoin's total market cap, with a historical cumulative net inflow of $52.28 billion. The pie is indeed growing, but those dividing the pie are becoming more polarized. Ordinary people see institutions continuously entering but don't see the tail-end products quietly being eliminated by the market.
Capital concentrating at the top is not unique to Bitcoin. US stocks and gold ETFs are on the same path, with winners taking all becoming increasingly obvious. For ordinary holders, choosing the product is more critical than choosing the track.
This reminds us that buying ETFs is not a blind buy. Products that are too small have poor liquidity and high premium/discount risks. If liquidation happens, it takes time to get the money back. Many think ETFs backed by regulated institutions are foolproof, but DEFI's liquidation shows regulation protects compliance, not scale. Just because "Bitcoin" is in the name doesn't mean it's as safe as Bitcoin itself.
So the question arises: as Bitcoin ETFs increasingly resemble a game dominated by the top players, whose exit liquidity will the funds chasing small and beautiful products ultimately become?Global crash but Bitcoin defies the trend, attracting $200 million
Early this morning, the Asian market couldn't hold up. Bitget market data shows the Nikkei 225 index fell over 3% intraday, marking another domino falling after last night's tech stock plunge in the US. Last night, the Nasdaq dropped 1.3%, the S&P 500 fell 0.7%, the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 5.6%, Nvidia dropped about 2.3%, and storage stocks like Micron, SanDisk, and Western Digital were hit hardest, with declines generally between 7% and 9%.
Even worse was today's A-share market. Dragged down by overseas adjustments, the three major indexes opened lower and continued to fall; the ChiNext index dropped nearly 5% by midday, the STAR 50 fell over 6%, and the combined turnover of the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets reached 1.62 trillion yuan in half a day, with more than 4,900 stocks declining across the market. Humanoid robots, storage chips, and CPO concept sectors led the losses, with over twenty related stocks dropping more than 10%.
According to past patterns, on such global risk-off days, Bitcoin usually falls as well because institutions deleverage and cover margin calls, selling all kinds of assets. But this time, Bitcoin's trend is completely opposite. Farside's data is striking: yesterday, the US Bitcoin spot ETF saw a net inflow of $189.3 million, with IBIT alone absorbing $143.6 million. This marks the second consecutive day of net inflows into Bitcoin ETFs. Ethereum ETFs also held strong, with a net inflow of $71.4 million, of which ETHA accounted for $64.7 million.
Looking at a longer timeline, the contrast is even clearer. Just a week ago, Bitcoin spot ETFs were in net outflow, with $390 million running out in a single week, led by Fidelity's FBTC. Now, from a single week of net outflow to two consecutive days of net inflow, institutional sentiment seems to have flipped. A few days ago, Wells Fargo and JPMorgan were reported to have each bought over 10,000 BTC in Q2, verbally warning about risks but not stopping their purchases.
Bitcoin's 30-day volatility has now dropped to 42%, narrowing the gap with the S&P 500 to the smallest in history, while the price remains stable around 65,000 with little movement. Meanwhile, the 30-year US Treasury yield hit a new high since 2007, with a bond market storm sweeping through the US, Europe, and Japan, and yen carry trades tightening. Bonds, stocks, and exchange rates are all repricing risk, but the crypto market remains low-volatility and sideways, as if waiting for some signal.
Interestingly, the trigger for this global adjustment is AI. OpenAI and Anthropic's revenues fell short of the most optimistic expectations, and crowded longs combined with increased shorts smashed the entire tech chain. Funds withdrew from AI concepts but some diverted into Bitcoin ETFs, a migration that is quite intriguing.
What really needs to be considered is how long this counter-trend inflow can last. The macroeconomic noose is tightening, and Bitcoin now stands at a crossroads, with ETF buying support on one side and the shadow of tightening liquidity on the other.
What do you think? Is this independent rally truly supported by capital, or just a calm before the storm? The toughest AI myth was shattered by a revenue report
Last night’s drop in the US stock market wasn’t about anything else but the AI trading that had been propping it up for almost a year. The Nasdaq fell 1.3%, the S&P 500 dropped 0.7%, and the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index plunged 5.6%. The hardest hit were storage and optical communication sectors, with SanDisk down about 9%, Micron about 7%, Western Digital about 7%, and core stocks like Nvidia and Broadcom also falling, while the optical communication sector declined even more.
What really unsettled the market wasn’t how much it fell, but the revenue figures from two leading AI companies. OpenAI disclosed to investors that Q2 revenue rose from 5.7 billion in Q1 to 6.7 billion, a quarter-over-quarter increase of only 18%, but losses continued to widen. On the Anthropic side, the annualized revenue run rate was reportedly 65 billion, which sounds scary but is below the previously optimistic market expectations of 70 to 80 billion or more.
This hit the most sensitive spot of the AI market. Over the past year, bulls were willing to keep funding GPUs, data centers, power, and cloud capital on the premise that OpenAI and Anthropic could continuously prove strong end-user demand. Now that revenue growth hasn’t met the highest expectations and losses are still expanding, some have started to recalculate the return cycle of this capital expenditure.
What’s more troublesome is the position structure. Goldman Sachs data shows that the short ratio of typical S&P 500 components has risen to the highest level since 2011, and Robinhood statistics also show a general increase in short positions on major stocks. On the other hand, there is still a large amount of long capital piled up in the AI infrastructure chain, and some high-valuation companies have become crowded short targets for hedge funds. With longs squeezed and shorts increasing, the market becomes especially sensitive to any bad news, and even a small crack can be amplified into a collective run.
This is actually not unfamiliar to our crypto circle. This year, AI has been the strongest competitor for capital inflow against Bitcoin, with funds flowing into US stocks and AI, leaving crypto somewhat neglected at times. Now that the strongest AI story is starting to leak, no one can say where the money will flow next. Do you think the money pulled out from AI will look back at crypto, or will it shun risk assets altogether? On the same day that tech stocks collectively plunged, 20,000 H200 units quietly entered the market.
From yesterday to today, two pieces of news almost landed back-to-back. The Financial Times, citing insiders, reported that China has begun to relax import restrictions on Nvidia's H200, with ByteDance and Tencent each receiving about 10,000 units in recent weeks, and several other tech companies likely to receive similar amounts soon. On the same morning, the A-share STAR 50 index fell 6.07%, the ChiNext index dropped 4.98%, and over 4,900 stocks in the Shanghai and Shenzhen markets declined.
What’s more puzzling is the sector structure. Storage chips, CPO, and MLCC were all among the biggest decliners, with names like Chipone, Shengmei, and Huahong all dropping more than 10%. The day before, the situation in South Korea was even worse: the KOSPI triggered a circuit breaker after falling 5% early in the session, Samsung dropped 6.7%, and SK Hynix fell 7.4%. The chip gate has just been slightly opened, and stocks selling chips, optical modules, and storage were the first to be cut down.
On the same day, there was an even more extreme contrast. Yushu Technology surged 486% in half a day after listing, with a turnover of 17.7 billion and a market cap briefly hitting $53.3 billion; meanwhile, in the A-share humanoid robot concept, Shangwei New Materials fell 18.75%, and more than twenty stocks dropped over 10%. On the same track, new stocks are scrambling for shares, while old stocks are being cut loose.
Looking back a few days, this chain is actually quite coherent. Mining companies rent out machine slots to AI, often with long-term contracts worth tens of billions over more than a decade; Anthropic was negotiating a credit line exceeding $10 billion before its IPO; OpenAI’s losses expanded in Q2. The direct trigger for the Korean stock plunge was Anthropic’s annualized revenue falling short of market expectations. Computing power, cards, and money are now tied together; any loosening at one end shakes these high-valuation hardware stocks first.
On our side, it’s actually the quietest segment. Yesterday, Bitcoin spot ETFs saw a net inflow of $189.3 million, with IBIT alone taking in $143.6 million, marking the second consecutive day of net inflows; Ethereum ETFs also saw $71.4 million inflows, with ETHA taking $64.7 million. Bitcoin has been hovering around 64,500 for several days, with volatility compressed to near recent lows. Having been neglected for so long, it didn’t shake along with the stock market’s wave of sentiment.
So, was the news already priced in, or does the market simply not believe this relaxation will last? If the mainline of computing power really starts to loosen, will capital next shun crypto even more, or will some of it circle back? What do you think?A new plugin claiming to aggregate information is actually spying on your Binance positions
A browser plugin called Kaito Pulse was just yesterday hyped by Kaito AI as a proud AI product for the crypto community. Its selling point is pulling your off-platform activities directly into your X timeline, so you can see on-chain updates you care about while scrolling through tweets. Sounds thoughtful, right? Kaito has been in the crypto space for years, building a loyal user base through information aggregation, and everyone assumed it was one of their own.
But today, it got exposed. Crypto analyst ultra audited its source code and found it does far more than just aggregate information. It uses hash algorithms to fingerprint your GPU rendering, hardware model, and hardware test sounds, then binds this unique combination to your X account. In other words, changing accounts won’t help; the device alone reveals it’s you.
Even scarier is what it collects. Your full browsing history, how long you hover over content in the feed, what you click, who you follow—all packaged and reported every thirty seconds, with heartbeat packets for activity detection. This is no longer a recommendation algorithm; it’s surveillance.
What chills me the most are the last two parts. It can actually read your Claude and ChatGPT subscription plans and usage consumption, even automatically visiting ChatGPT’s Usage page. It also monitors your Binance, automatically accessing the Positions tab, resending logged-in requests, and reading your wallet balance, futures positions, P&L, and deposit/withdrawal history. A browser plugin silently rummaging through your exchange assets.
The real danger is that it stitches three things together. Your X identity, your device fingerprint, and your exchange positions—originally three independent layers of information—are now linked by one plugin. Many crypto users think they’re anonymous on-chain, but once identity and positions are lightly tied like this, who you are, what positions you hold, and how much you’ve lost become open secrets.
I know some will say, you authorized it, it’s in the user agreement. But the problem is, during promotion, it only talked about convenience; no one saw “I will read your Binance positions” on the posters. Taking all the data the backend can get and casually calling it a product feature—haven’t we seen this trick in Web2 enough? Data is the new oil, but those who extract it never ask if you agree.
Kaito’s move has pulled back the veil on crypto AI. While we shout about decentralization and personal data sovereignty, we let our guard down with projects we trust. Next time you see a cool product that connects all platforms with one click, think carefully about what it’s really taking. A project that built itself on aggregating crypto attention has turned users’ attention into readable assets—this irony will keep us pondering for a while.The ONDO team quietly sold $30 million in one month
Over the past month, there has been an address on-chain continuously moving ONDO tokens to exchanges. When someone in the community finally dug up the data, everyone realized that this entity had cumulatively sold nearly $30 million.
This issue stands out because of ONDO's status within the community. It is considered a representative project that brings traditional financial assets like U.S. Treasury bonds and money market funds onto the blockchain. The issued OUSG is an on-chain product pegged to short-term U.S. Treasury bonds. The usual narrative is grand: institutions are coming, real-world assets are going on-chain, Wall Street money is flowing in. During BlackRock's tokenization wave, ONDO was repeatedly mentioned as a key target.
But the storytellers themselves acted first. Data shows that addresses associated with the ONDO team have allegedly sold about $29.94 million worth of tokens in the past month. In just the last ten hours, another associated address deposited $4.42 million worth of ONDO to Coinbase. Within a month, there were multi-million-dollar sell-offs followed closely by continued deposits, a pretty tight rhythm.
Insiders analyzing this data look not only at the amounts but also the timing. The project team selling intensively during the peak of the narrative versus quietly accumulating at the current low point sends completely different signals. The community has a good memory; one sell-off can fuel discussions for months.
Of course, the team selling tokens doesn’t mean the project is doomed. It could be treasury rebalancing, operational expenses, or early investors reducing holdings per agreements. These possibilities exist, and outsiders can’t see through them at a glance. But from a retail investor’s perspective, the picture is a bit contradictory: on stage, they preach long-termism and institutional adoption, while behind the scenes, tokens are being moved to exchanges.
What’s more subtle is the timing. Recently, RWA (Real World Assets) is one of the few sectors in the market still telling a growth story. While funds linger in other sectors, this concept is repeatedly hyped. The more loudly you shout the narrative, the more closely the core team’s every move is scrutinized. The more the narrative is institutionally endorsed, the easier it is for retail investors to let their guard down — which is exactly when on-chain wallets should be watched most closely.
The harshest aspect of on-chain data is that it puts words and actions on the same table. Words can be beautiful, but addresses don’t lie. Who exactly received those ONDO tokens and why they left is still unexplained. This kind of mismatch is nothing new in crypto; projects that claim to change finance often have wallet actions that are more honest than their whitepapers. This is easiest to overlook when the narrative is at its peak, but when the tide recedes, everyone looks back to settle accounts.
A project that brings real-world assets on-chain quietly saw nearly $30 million of its own tokens flow out in one month. Do you think this is normal treasury management, or did the evangelists pull out first? Ant Group refers to its financial division as a department that earns pocket money for artificial intelligence
Ant Group's recent strategy has left many people puzzled. The fintech giant that once prepared for a full IPO with a valuation soaring to 2.1 trillion yuan now internally jokingly calls its financial business the department that earns a living for its AI business. This is not a rumor from outsiders but was revealed by someone close to Ant Group. It sounds like self-mockery, but behind it is a real strategic shift.
Numbers tell the story best. Ant Group's overall valuation is now about 592 billion yuan, a drop of more than 70% compared to the 2.1 trillion yuan valuation before its 2020 IPO attempt. After the much-publicized full IPO plan was canceled, Ant Group stopped insisting on a single listing and instead split its business into three independent segments to test the capital markets separately.
The first to move was Ant International, which completed about $1.2 billion in Series A funding in July, with projected revenue of about $3.7 billion in 2025. Then OceanBase is seeking 2 to 3 billion yuan in Series A funding, with annual revenue already exceeding 1.4 billion yuan, growing about 70% year-over-year. Ant Digital Finance is also preparing for a Pre-IPO, expecting revenue around 5 billion yuan in 2025, with a target of 8 billion yuan this year. Since March 2024, these three businesses have operated independently, effectively breaking one large ship into three speedboats.
The real change is where the money flows. Since 2023, Ant Group has invested nearly 80 billion yuan into technology, clearly shifting focus from payments and fintech to AI and data elements. The originally most profitable financial business has become the cash cow supporting AI. A company that started with wallets now calls its most profitable legacy business a way to earn pocket money—this contrast is quite surreal in any organization.
Looking back, Ant Group's turning point was actually in 2020. That year, it was just one step away from going public but was suddenly halted, and its valuation has been declining ever since. Five years later, the once glamorous payment and financial story is no longer sexy; AI has become the new battlefield. Rather than chasing trends, Ant Group is forced to gamble its most stable cash flow on a more expensive future.
The market now generally believes that spin-offs and separate listings are more realistic than a full IPO. But each independent business still needs to prove it can attract customers; otherwise, the capital market doors won't open easily. Whether Ant Group's move today is a bold self-amputation or a passive slimming down, even they might still be watching.
What do you think? Can a company that started with finance really regain a 2 trillion yuan valuation through AI?#财报观察员：小米Q2财报出炉，是汽车救场还是手机拖后腿？
Before the earnings report, I said the thing I was most interested in about Xiaomi this time wasn’t the phones, but the cars. According to the earnings content, Xiaomi Group’s phone revenue in Q2 dropped 7.5% year-over-year. Rising costs of storage and other components combined with market competition mean that the phone segment is indeed dragging a bit in the short term.
But the car business paints a completely different picture: Q2 car revenue was about ¥23.9 billion, up 15.9% year-over-year, with deliveries of 104,200 vehicles, up 28.2% year-over-year.
Although the overall revenue declined, the car revenue shows that Xiaomi’s growth structure is really starting to change: phones are responsible for the base, while cars are beginning to take on the second growth curve.
However, what I’m most focused on now is no longer how much deliveries can still increase, but when the car business will truly start to make stable profits. Innovative businesses like cars and AI are still in the investment phase. If in the coming quarters they can continue to grow sales, improve gross margins, and steadily narrow losses, that will truly prove the formation of the second growth curve.
In the long term, I think the most interesting thing about Xiaomi is not just making cars alone. It’s about truly integrating phones + cars + AIoT + AI into one ecosystem. By then, the market may need to reconsider a question:
Should Xiaomi be valued as a phone company, or be revalued as a tech company with a "people-car-home full ecosystem"?
This is what I think makes this Q2 earnings report truly worth continuing to follow $XIAOMI The thing that has been called an air coin for ten years is now being written into the cash category.
A seemingly ordinary accounting proposal may carry more weight than many regulatory news items. The U.S. Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has proposed classifying qualifying stablecoins directly as cash equivalents, with the public comment period open until November 19.
The conditions are very specific. Reserves must be liquid, reserve assets must be disclosed annually, and they must be redeemable for U.S. dollars at a one-to-one ratio at any time. If these three conditions are met, it will be listed alongside Treasury bonds, commercial paper, and money market funds in financial reports.
We need to break down what this means. In the past, when companies held stablecoins on their books, accountants faced difficulties: some treated them as intangible assets, some classified them as other current assets, and others recorded them at fair value in a separate line. The same asset appeared differently across companies’ financial statements, making horizontal comparison impossible for investors. FASB itself said this proposal aims to clarify this inconsistency.
Those who have worked in finance understand the significance of the term "cash equivalents." It directly affects the total of cash and cash equivalents, impacts the current ratio, influences auditors’ assessment of your solvency, and affects whether banks grant you credit. A company holding 200 million in stablecoins looks completely different to outsiders if it’s recorded as an intangible asset versus as cash.
The timing is interesting. The stablecoin business has already reached a scale of $300 billion, but for the past decade or so, it has been an internal accounting unit within the crypto circle, far from formal financial reporting. Now, standard setters are proactively defining its place, indicating it is no longer a negligible corner asset.
However, the threshold itself acts as a filter. Annual reserve disclosure and one-to-one redeemability at any time are not met by all stablecoins. Whose reserve structure can withstand annual audits, whose redemption channels can hold up under stress—these answers won’t be found in whitepapers but only in accountants’ working papers. Once this standard is implemented, the previously blurred line between stablecoins will become very clear.
It’s also worth noting that regulatory and accounting authorities are moving simultaneously. The Treasury Department is setting compliance rules for stablecoins, while FASB is defining their accounting classification. One governs whether you can legally issue them; the other governs how they are recognized in others’ financial statements. With both tightening, only fewer categories will survive.
There’s another layer. Since stablecoins can enter the cash category, corporate finance departments’ motivation to hold stablecoins changes. Previously, purchases were for convenience in on-chain settlement; in the future, it may be for cash management efficiency—a completely different scale of demand.
The proposal is not finalized yet; the comment period lasts another three months. But the direction is already on the table. Do you think placing stablecoins alongside Treasury bonds in the cash category means they are finally recognized, or that traditional finance has completely absorbed them?Eight out of twelve capitulation indicators have lit up, yet large holders are quietly exiting
VanEck's "capitulation check" model consists of twelve boxes, and now eight of them have simultaneously lit up as extreme pessimism. Even more severe, in the past three months, none of these twelve indicators have avoided the panic selling zone; all have gone through a round.
The team monitoring this model is led by their digital asset research head Matthew Sigel and senior analyst Patrick Bush. Their conclusion sounds like good news: this round of correction for Bitcoin has lasted nearly eleven months, and the price capitulation phase is roughly over; the market is approaching or has already entered an accumulation phase. Referring to the past three bear markets, the average time from the top to the maximum drawdown is about 12.7 months, so they point the bottoming window to September through November.
The capital flow also supports this. The US spot Bitcoin ETF recorded nearly $300 million in net inflows on Monday, the largest single-day inflow since May 5. The price is hovering around $64,000, appearing calm on the surface as if nothing is happening.
But in the same report, they undermine their own case. Historical data shows that when eight to twelve indicators simultaneously signal extreme conditions, Bitcoin's average performance over the next 90 and 180 days is actually below the long-term baseline. In other words: all indicators lighting up does not mean the bottom is right underfoot; more likely, the tough days are going to drag on a bit longer.
What really caught my attention is another figure. In the past 30 days, long-term holders who have held coins for over a year have reduced their holdings by about 356,000 BTC, with total holdings dropping to around 11.84 million BTC, marking the first time in months that their share has fallen below 60%. While retail investors are still watching the capitulation indicators for a bottom, those veteran holders, who have long been considered a faith anchor, are already moving chips outward.
VanEck also said this bottom might be milder than previous ones, reasoning that ETFs have changed the market structure, institutions have entered, and there hasn't been a chain reaction like FTX, Celsius, or Terra. It sounds reasonable, but mild in other words means: no easily recognizable bottom, just a slow grind.
So now on the table are three conflicting things. The model says capitulation is almost done, on-chain data says old money is reducing positions, and ETFs say new money is coming in. Which one do you prefer to believe? Those who held for over a year are exiting first this time—did they smell something, or are they just handing chips over to institutions? That old crash-prone Solana has again pushed block production down to 350 milliseconds
At 8:40 this morning, Anza's CEO Brennan Watt dropped a line on social media: Solana is activating the first-ever slot time reduction upgrade on its mainnet, cutting block generation time from about 400 milliseconds to 350 milliseconds. It sounds like just a matter of tens of milliseconds, but for a public blockchain, this is equivalent to revving the engine up another notch.
Many might have forgotten that a few years ago, Solana was most criticized not for speed but for frequent outages. During peak times, the network would stall, and the community was often mocked by peers and retail investors. Later, the team spent a lot on architectural fixes to restore stability. Now it’s pushing speed again, essentially telling everyone it wants to completely overturn the old label of being fast but fragile.
Brennan Watt also put the ugly truth upfront. This upgrade isn’t just flipping a switch; there’s a transition period with many pitfalls. The most practical issue is that many constants in SDKs, like DEFAULT_MS_PER_SLOT, haven’t been updated to the new parameters. In other words, many applications’ underlying code still assumes a slot is 400 milliseconds, while the mainnet is already running at 350 milliseconds. The official team said they will release versions with updated values after the feature activation, but during the transition, developers need to add adaptation logic themselves, such as switching features at epoch boundaries, or services might fail due to mismatched timing parameters.
What’s more complicated is the activation mechanism itself. It uses delayed activation: the feature enters pending activation at Epoch E, is truly activated at E+1, and fully effective at E+2. In other words, from announcement to stable network operation at 350 milliseconds, it spans several epochs, and developers must closely monitor on-chain status and adjust bit by bit.
In the long run, the team wants to put such network parameters directly on-chain so clients can query them themselves without relying on hardcoded SDK values. But before that, they have to get through this step. Brennan Watt compared this process to Solana’s early days of tough but rapid iteration, implying the same spirit: get the job done first, fix problems on the fly.
For ordinary users like us, a few tens of milliseconds faster block production isn’t very noticeable. But for those doing high-frequency trading, on-chain gaming, or real-time settlement, every millisecond saved is real money. Solana is betting on leaving competitors further behind on this track.
There is, however, a question worth pondering: back then, its downfall was precisely because it pushed performance too hard. Now, just after the market has accepted its stability, it’s pushing the limits again. Is this confidence, or are old problems resurfacing? When Epoch 1020 lands, the answer might just be written on the chain.After South Korean retail investors retreated from the crypto market, the opening was immediately hit with a 5% drop.
Just after 9 AM Seoul time, the Korean exchange triggered the circuit breaker mechanism, freezing programmatic sell orders for five minutes. The KOSPI initially plunged 5%, Samsung Electronics fell 6.7%, and SK Hynix dropped 7.4%. These two are the flagship stocks of the Korean market and have been the most concentrated holdings among South Korean retail investors for over a year. Circuit breakers are not triggered every day; when they are, it indicates that selling pressure has exceeded normal turnover volume.
The trigger was the U.S. stock market the previous night. The three major indices all closed lower: the Nasdaq fell 1.32%, the S&P 500 dropped 0.69%, Nvidia declined 2.36%, Meta fell 4.47%, and SanDisk in the memory sector plunged 9.01% in one day. What shifted sentiment was not a policy but a number: Anthropic’s annualized revenue run rate reached about $65 billion, which sounds impressive, but many investors had expected over $80 billion. OpenAI’s situation wasn’t better; Q2 revenue was $6.7 billion, up 18% from Q1’s $5.7 billion, but losses widened and operating margin continued to decline.
An 18% quarterly growth is impressive in any industry, but in the AI sector, which is backed by trillions in capital expenditure, the market demands not just good but above-expectation performance. Falling short means valuations must be recalculated. Storage, optical communications, and chips—considered the hardest AI infrastructure—were the hardest hit sectors.
Here’s the interesting part. Over a year ago, South Korean retail investors were among the most aggressive in the global crypto market; Upbit’s trading volume surpassed their domestic stock market, and the kimchi premium once became a global market indicator. But recent data shows South Korean retail crypto trading volume has dropped by nearly 80% from its peak. The money hasn’t disappeared; it just moved elsewhere, flooding into semiconductor and AI-related stocks. Their reason is straightforward: the crypto market is too dull, with Bitcoin hovering around 64,000 to 65,000, and the 30-day volatility squeezed to 42%, narrowing the gap with the S&P to its smallest in history.
As a result, at today’s open, the supposedly more volatile sector they chased was hit with a 5% plunge in one go. Meanwhile, the much-criticized dull Bitcoin barely moved these past two days. Crypto concept stocks continue to follow AI sentiment: Coinbase fell 2.74%, Robinhood dropped 4.69%, but the coins themselves did not crash.
I’ve always thought the biggest cost for retail investors isn’t picking the wrong asset but migrating repeatedly between two markets. Each time, they move into the hottest asset, then clear out when the other asset cools down and is ignored. Popularity always lags behind the crowd chasing it by half a beat.
So what do you think? If this AI volatility continues, will the money that left crypto turn back, or will both markets get drained together?The institution that used to scare token issuance projects the most has now opened the door itself.
Last night, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) released a rule proposal called Regulation Crypto Assets. The most eye-catching provision is that digital asset issuances with a fundraising scale not exceeding $5 million can avoid the registration process under the 1933 Securities Act for four years. There is also a higher tier for issuances up to $75 million, which can get a one-year exemption period. The public comment period is sixty days.
My first reaction was a bit dazed. Over the past few years, many project teams have been chased by these registration requirements, and many have moved their offices to Singapore, Dubai, or the Cayman Islands just to circumvent that paperwork. Now, the institution that was once the biggest headache is proposing to loosen the rules.
Chairman Gary Gensler’s explanation is that this is a tailor-made issuance mechanism aimed at supporting innovation within the securities law framework. Commissioner Hester Peirce was more restrained, saying this is just the first step toward clarity, reasonableness, and enforceability. One calls it a mechanism, the other calls it just a first step — the difference is quite significant.
What’s really worth reading repeatedly is the safe harbor section. If a digital asset meets certain conditions and the project team no longer continues managerial efforts, that asset may no longer be classified as a security in the future. This sentence was the verdict the entire industry wanted to hear ten years ago. Previously, the core question regulators always asked was whether there was a group of people behind the token making money on behalf of holders. Now, at least a blueprint for an exit channel has been provided.
Why at this point? The CLARITY Act in Congress has stalled, and the legislative route is temporarily blocked, so regulatory agencies issuing administrative rules is faster. The proposal also states it will align with previous guidance from the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. In other words, no need to wait for legislation; let’s build the framework first.
But I don’t recommend everyone get happy just yet. The $5 million threshold is really small in the crypto world; a somewhat decent new project can exceed that in one round. What happens after the four-year exemption period ends is not clearly explained in the proposal. The phrase "no longer continuing managerial efforts" — who decides this and based on what evidence — is the most likely point of contention. If the team is still tweeting, still updating code, still managing the treasury, does that count as managerial effort? Federal exemptions can’t override state securities laws, nor can they control class-action lawyers waiting to file lawsuits.
There’s also an ironic contrast. On the same day, the three major U.S. stock indices all closed lower: the Nasdaq fell 1.32%, Nvidia dropped 2.36%, Meta declined 4.47%, and crypto-related stocks like Coinbase fell 2.74%, Robinhood dropped 4.69%. Regulators moved forward half a step, but prices didn’t give any respect. We’ve gotten used to this over the years: good news doesn’t necessarily bring a rally, but bad news always brings a drop.
What I’m more curious about is who really benefits. Is it the small teams that haven’t issued tokens yet and want to start legally, or the old projects that have long finished issuing tokens and are waiting for a way to clear their identity? During the sixty-day comment period, who will actually submit opinions?
What do you think? With this new channel, would you be more willing to participate in new projects? Five major crypto hoarding companies lost tens of billions this quarter, yet their stock prices rebounded
In the just-past earnings season, a bunch of publicly listed companies known for hoarding crypto delivered quite ugly financial results. Strategy posted a net loss of $8.22 billion in Q2, of which $8.32 billion was due to the fair value decline of its Bitcoin holdings; SharpLink lost $394 million; Metaplanet had a net loss of about $1.15 billion in the first half of the year; Bitmine accumulated losses exceeding $9 billion over the past nine months. Together, these five companies recorded a net loss of nearly $10 billion in Q2. Counting the entire first half, losses have surpassed $30 billion, almost entirely due to fair value write-downs of their Bitcoin holdings.
A year ago, such reports would have likely crushed their stock prices. But this time, the market showed no panic. On the day Strategy released its earnings, its stock actually closed higher. Since the June low, Bitmine has bounced about 36%, SharpLink has recovered over 30%, and even Metaplanet has risen 15% from its bottom.
This is the interesting part. Everyone had already done the math. Which company raised funds, bought how many Bitcoins, sold how many — all scrutinized daily on-chain. The Q2 losses were no secret; the earnings merely confirmed what had already happened. So the market’s calm on earnings day was somewhat unusual.
What truly helped these companies climb out of the trough is that they themselves started to get reasonable. Previously, the competition was about who raised more funds and hoarded faster. Now, KPIs quietly shifted to the amount of crypto held per share. Strategy’s Bitcoin holdings per share rose 5% quarter-over-quarter; Metaplanet’s Bitcoin per thousand shares increased 9.6% in the first half; SharpLink began emphasizing its ETH per share. In short, it’s no longer about scale, but about how much real value is packed into each shareholder’s share.
They also took concrete actions. Metaplanet set a rule: if market cap premium falls below 1x, it stops issuing new shares, preferring no fundraising over diluting existing shareholders; SharpLink and Strategy initiated buybacks. STRC, a kind of preferred stock, grew from 28 billion at the start of the year to 105 billion, with institutional investors voting with their feet, including Capital Group adding $1.92 billion against the trend. The most typical case is Strategy, which raised $8.4 billion in Q2 alone, piling cash reserves to $3.75 billion, enough to cover preferred dividends for over two years.
Losing tens of billions in one quarter but seeing stock prices rise instead of fall feels counterintuitive for anyone. But looking back, the losses are on paper, while the fundamentals remain solid. Those who say crypto hoarding companies are doomed might have missed that they are quietly learning to survive. What remains to be seen is whether this rationality can hold through the next major Bitcoin volatility window.Bitcoin lies flat for a day, yet someone liquidated 250 million
In the past 24 hours, about $253 million worth of crypto contracts were forcibly liquidated. During volatile market times, this number wouldn't be much, but today it's quite striking because the market is unusually quiet.
Bitcoin's 30-day realized volatility has dropped to around 42%, the smallest gap ever compared to the S&P 500's 18%. Traders are yawning when talking about the market; buyers and sellers are stuck in place, neither moving, and even South Korean retail trading volume has dropped nearly 80% year-over-year. Everyone thinks the market is just sideways, nothing much will happen.
Yet, it's precisely at times like this that money quietly evaporates. $253 million vanished in a single day. The contrast is that most of these positions weren't wiped out by big surges or crashes but were slowly worn down by thin liquidity combined with high leverage. The quieter the market, the thinner the order book; even a slight fluctuation can directly break leveraged positions without any buffer.
Why do people dare to leverage more when it's quieter? One reason is that short-term funds have shifted their risk appetite elsewhere over the past two years. The monthly trading volume of perpetual contracts for traditional assets on crypto exchanges surged from $52 billion in January to $268 billion in June, more than a fivefold increase in half a year. Those chasing volatility have left, but those remaining believe sideways movement is the safest, piling on leverage to squeeze returns from tiny price gaps.
This quietness itself comes at a cost. Companies and mining firms are quietly selling, suppressing the top; long-term holders keep quietly accumulating, supporting the bottom. With pressure from both ends, the price is stuck in a narrow range, but the order book is getting thinner. CoinDesk even calls the current Bitcoin market a dormant state, with trading participation and market depth both declining. The more dormant it is, the more vulnerable it becomes to a single needle prick.
I've seen this script too many times. Staring at that almost flat line, calculating that it won't move much anyway, so positions get piled on more aggressively. Then the market shakes slightly, and accounts go to zero first. The safer it feels, the faster the knife often falls.
Low volatility is never a shield; it just accumulates risk, waiting for the day when the thin order book can't absorb the selling pressure, and the shocks saved earlier come back all at once. Next time you see Bitcoin not moving for a long time, don't rush to treat it as an ATM; the most expensive lesson is often hidden in the most boring candlestick.Everyone says AI is the only main theme, but last night the strongest batch of stocks collectively plunged.
Last night at the US market close, the optical communication sector, known as the toughest AI infrastructure track, turned entirely red.
Optoelectronics fell 11.77%, Coherent dropped 11.76%, Ciena declined 9.94%, Lumentum fell 9.05%, Corning dropped 7.72%, and Myrle fell 7.65%. Even the ETFs bundling these stocks weren't spared; the Roundhill Optical Module ETF fell 8.27%, and the Pure Photonics ETF dropped 10.07%. Within one day, the entire sector lost nearly 10% of its value.
The strange thing is, just a few days ago, the market was still counting orders for these companies. The off-balance-sheet commitments of the nine major US tech giants total about $3 trillion, five times their annual capital expenditure; in August alone, US investment-grade corporate bonds hit a record $145.2 billion, with almost all the money coming from tech and AI companies. Everyone is telling the same story: money will flow through data centers, first to power and optics, then to chips.
Optical modules are the earliest and easiest link in this chain to realize value. Theoretically, they should be the most resilient. But they fell the hardest.
Looking next door, Bitcoin was still hovering around $64,500 yesterday, up 0.47%, and Ethereum at $1,912, up 0.5%. These two old players, criticized for half a year for lack of volatility, were actually the most stable last night. Bitcoin's 30-day volatility is 42%, the S&P's is 18%, the smallest gap on record. NYDIG says short-term funds have long since moved to chase AI stocks and perpetual stock products.
So the question is, how did the money that moved over there fare last night?
I've always thought this AI cycle shares a commonality with crypto in 2021: everyone is using future cash flows to justify today's valuations. The promises are real, contracts are real, leases are real, but promises don't equal payments made. Groq's valuation halved from $6.9 billion to $3.5 billion in just a few months, and Moody's and S&P are already warning about the $1.2 trillion in leases that haven't started being counted yet.
A single day's drop doesn't necessarily mean much; it could just be profit-taking or someone changing positions. But if even the earliest link starts to have its order quality questioned, every subsequent earnings report will be scrutinized under a magnifying glass.
On our side, this past half year has been repeatedly compared, saying crypto is too dull and AI is the new story. Now that the chips at the forefront of the story are starting to wobble, do you think the money will turn back, or continue deeper into the market? #闪迪回落逾9%，存储估值分歧加剧 A gambling table with a daily turnover of 100 million has started hiring its own Chief Legal Counsel
This morning, a personnel announcement was circulating in the group chat. At first glance, it seemed boring, but upon closer inspection, it had some substance.
sh0edog, the former Chief Legal Counsel of Magic Eden, known as Joe in the community, announced joining fomo as their Chief Legal Counsel. He entered the industry in 2016, previously worked at Fenwick West, and is still an advisor at Day One Law. His resume is solid even by traditional law firm standards.
He reported some figures in the announcement: fomo’s daily spot trading volume has surpassed $100 million, with over 61,000 daily active traders. It ranks 5th in the US App Store’s finance category and has raised about $95 million in total funding. He expressed confidence in the team’s ability to build a global financial social graph.
Here’s the interesting part. Applications like fomo haven’t had a gentle reputation in the community. Many coins on such platforms spike in a second and crash in a minute; users have complained about being exploited and about server outages at critical moments. Now, they have put a serious Chief Legal Counsel front and center.
When a company hires a Chief Legal Counsel, there are usually two scenarios. One is that they are moving to a bigger table—licenses, institutional funds, even going public—none of which can proceed without legal support. The other is that they have received some serious legal notices and need someone to handle them. Which one it is, outsiders can’t tell yet; we have to wait for the next move.
Either way, this will have a real impact on users of such platforms. Compliance almost inevitably brings tighter listing rules, regional restrictions, and stricter identity verification. The efficiency of grabbing new tokens will drop, fewer tokens will be listed, which is short-term bearish for those who rely on information asymmetry to get ahead.
Looking at the long term, the real way to bring in institutional funds and large market makers has never been hype but these seemingly dull compliance measures. A platform with a daily turnover of $100 million, if it can complete the legal framework, will have deeper liquidity and less slippage than now. This is good news for volume traders.
A practical point for operations: for tokens and ecosystems related to such platforms, the biggest fear in the news is not a bear market but the platform suddenly changing rules. So the focus is not on price but on announcements and changes in listing standards. When rules change, liquidity moves.
A highly speculative product starts to equip itself with legal counsel—do you think it wants to become legitimate, or that it has already been targeted?A new accounting regulation could make companies dare to put USDT on their books
The US Financial Accounting Standards Board has thrown out a proposal stating that qualifying stablecoins can be classified as cash equivalents, and companies need to disclose annually how much they hold.
A one-sentence news item, but it’s an earthquake in the finance department.
Previously, if a listed company put USDT or USDC on its books, it was awkward from an accounting perspective. It wasn’t considered cash and usually had to be stuffed into intangible assets or other assets categories. If the price fluctuated, impairment had to be recognized, making the financial statements look ugly immediately. This led many CFOs to have a straightforward attitude: can this money not be on-chain? I don’t want to explain a whole page in the notes.
Cash equivalents get a different treatment. They sit at the same table as bank deposits and money market funds, go directly into current assets, count towards the current ratio, and the audit approach is much simpler. It’s like giving stablecoins an ID card, so they no longer have to hide in the miscellaneous section.
The key is the phrase "qualifying." The proposal doesn’t open the door to all stablecoins; those that can enter this category must meet hard requirements like redemption, reserves, and audits, clearly separating licensed and credible stablecoins from the wild ones. For the whole industry, this is not universal benefit but stratification.
What does this mean for us watching the market? Companies will start daring to convert idle funds into compliant stablecoins and hold them, creating a stable capital inflow on-chain. The observation point is very specific: the total market cap of stablecoins. If the level rises, it means there is money waiting off-chain, usually first reflected in the buy order depth of stablecoin trading pairs; if the level falls, it means someone is cashing out and leaving, making the lower boundary of the range much more fragile.
One more thing: this level is not a starting gun; it’s a slow variable. Don’t expect BTC to react tomorrow just because the rule is out today. What it truly changes is the cost and willingness of capital inflow, which becomes obvious when looking back after a year.
To clarify the layers: in the short term, this news has little effect on price and may even be completely overshadowed by the day’s macro data. In the long term, this is a foundational change. As long as accounting is no longer awkward, companies will gradually increase on-chain settlement for daily receipts and payments, cross-border settlements, and supply chain payment terms.
After reading, I want to ask: if stablecoins on the financial statements equal cash, what will those who keep talking about decoupling risk use to continue their argument next?BlackRock recalculated over ten years and finally only dared to allocate two points
The world's largest asset management company did something very serious. BlackRock pulled out a rolling 10-year period ending in May 2026 to see what would happen if a bit of BTC was mixed into the classic 60/40 portfolio. The 60/40 portfolio is 60% stocks and 40% bonds, the standard pension formula for decades.
The calculated numbers are like this. The original 60/40 portfolio's Sharpe ratio is 0.81; adding 1% BTC raises it to 0.9, adding 2% raises it to 0.96. The 2% allocation version also gained 1.85% alpha, with a maximum drawdown of 20.9%, while the original was 20.3%.
The Sharpe ratio sounds fancy, but simply put, it's a cost-performance score: how much return you get for each unit of volatility you bear. Raising 0.81 to 0.96 means the same heartbeat brings more money. Alpha is the part beyond what should be earned, essentially free gains.
The real contrast is later. After the world's largest asset manager did the math, the answer was not to allocate 10%, not 5%, but 1% to 2%. And the drawdown only increased by 0.6 percentage points, indicating this small position is far from enough to wreck the portfolio.
I think this reveals the true face of institutions. They say BTC is a unique diversification tool, a currency alternative option, sounding like faith, but on paper it's just two points. This is not underestimating BTC; it's how risk control departments operate: add what can add points, but never give it the power to overturn the table.
What reference does this have for us traders? The first layer is the nature of the funds: the 1% to 2% allocation money does not watch K-lines; it won't run just because it falls below a certain level, nor chase in on a single bullish candle. This kind of money enters slowly through ETFs, supporting the long-term bottom, not short-term volatility opponents.
The second layer is more painful. Retail investors often have 70% to 80% positions in crypto, while institutions only dare to allocate two points after ten years of calculation. This gap is not a matter of awareness but a matter of surviving to the next cycle. The same asset, 2% allocation is asset allocation; 80% is risking your entire fortune. The volatility is the same, but the outcomes are completely different.
There is also an easily overlooked number. After adding 2%, the maximum drawdown only changed from 20.3% to 20.9%, the extra pain is almost negligible, but the return side gained 1.85% alpha. This kind of cost-performance ratio is hard to find in traditional assets and is exactly why BlackRock is willing to include it in their research.
In the short term, this news has no direct push on the market; it does not bring buying pressure. In the long term, it is a brick; the more such research is laid on the table, the lower the threshold for allocation funds.
So let me ask, what percentage of your total assets is your crypto position now, and how many times away is it from those two points? #贝莱德重申BTC仍具配置价值 Institutions call for a bottom in the pullback; long-term holders sold 350,000 BTC in one month
VanEck has laid out their chart. The chart has 12 indicators used to judge whether BTC has truly reached a surrender point. Currently, 8 of these indicators are lit up, and in the past three months, all 12 indicators have entered the surrender zone at least once. The research team’s conclusion is encouraging: this nearly 11-month-long pullback may be nearing its end, and the market might have stepped into an accumulation phase.
But the same report also hides another set of numbers. In the past month, long-term holders have sold about 356,000 BTC, and their controlled supply ratio has dropped below 60%.
This is interesting. The indicators say the chips have been mostly shaken out, but on-chain data shows the old money is moving out. Putting these two statements together, who should we listen to?
My understanding is that the surrender indicators measure the pain level, not the direction. They only tell you that most people are already deeply in loss, which doesn’t mean a rebound will happen tomorrow. The batch of old addresses holding large amounts of coins actually likes to distribute when others are calling the bottom; this isn’t the first time this has happened.
Looking at the market now: BTC is around 64,700, oscillating between 58,000 and 66,500 since early June, about 48% below the October 2025 high of 126,300. This kind of range-bound movement for over a month is the most frustrating for swing traders—false moves up and down cause losses on fees and funding costs every time they chase.
One variable must be noted. The US spot BTC ETF just recorded its strongest single-day net inflow since early May, meaning institutional real-money buying has returned. This runs counter to the long-term holders’ distribution—one side is accumulating while the other is distributing, naturally pinning the price in the middle and preventing movement.
So the short-term reference is to watch the ETF flow. If the flow stops, the goods sold by long-term holders won’t be absorbed, and the lower bound of the range will be repeatedly tested. The long-term logic is different: coins moving from early addresses to ETFs and listed companies’ accounts essentially means a chip structure upgrade, a process that never completes in just a week or two.
There’s another detail easily overlooked. The long-term holders’ share dropping below 60% means more coins are available for sale at any time, increasing floating supply and thus the capital needed to push the price up. This also explains why, despite ETF inflows returning, the price hasn’t immediately jumped like in the previous cycle.
My own simple approach is not to guess direction within this range but to wait until the range is truly broken before acting. Whichever side loses momentum first is the real signal; the number of lit surrender indicators is just background noise.
Do you trust those 8 lit surrender indicators more, or the on-chain record of 356,000 coins sold by long-term holders?The era of huge profits from state-owned enterprises selling Tokens is coming to an end
On July 30th, in Jiaxing, a state-owned urban construction enterprise that has repaired roads, built bridges, and managed gas utilities took the stage at a press conference. Someone in the audience asked a question everyone wanted to know: why is it your urban investment company selling Tokens?
This company is called Jiaxing Urban Investment Development Group. They launched the Yangtze River Delta Jiaxing Token Operation Center. Simply put, for the past twenty years, their core business was government land provision, urban investment in road construction, and enterprises moving into buildings. Now, they are personally entering the market to sell AI computing power Tokens.
The head of the operation center put it bluntly: they are just transporters, integrating the models of four large-scale computing power centers—Runze, Alibaba, China Telecom, and China Mobile—acting as a wholesale model provider. They offer a unified API entry, unified measurement, unified settlement, unified policy deductions, and unified security audits. Enterprises can access over a hundred large models with a single integration. The goal is simple: to make AI capabilities as accessible and convenient as water and electricity.
What’s most worth pondering about this is not the technology, but the logic. Over the past thirty years, China’s infrastructure has followed a strict rule: any new infrastructure recognized as a public service follows the same path. First, private capital explores the market, then state-owned platforms take over, and finally it becomes a municipal public utility. Water, electricity, gas, broadband—none have escaped this pattern.
This time in Jiaxing, computing power has reached the stage of state-owned enterprise takeover. The urban investment company’s trump card is solid: the city’s computing power scale ranks first in Zhejiang, with over 6,000 industrial enterprises above designated size and more than 200 AI technology startups. Building roads aggregates scattered travel demands into a toll road network; selling Tokens aggregates scattered AI demands into a measurable computing power network. Different themes, but the method is exactly the same.
Moreover, the urban investment company is not the only player wanting to sell Tokens. This spring, the three major telecom operators almost simultaneously announced their entry into the Token market. Shanghai Mobile directly launched a general service offering 400,000 Tokens for one yuan, even allowing phone bill payments. The operators’ urgency to pivot is understandable, as traditional data traffic business growth is expected to fall below 1% by 2025.
There is a rather sobering judgment in the article: the day urban investment companies enter the market may also be the peak of Token profits. When state-owned capital turns the track into a public utility, the space to profit from reselling original Tokens will become increasingly squeezed, valuations will be anchored, and the real money will depend on who embeds Tokens into industrial scenarios.
This makes me think of a more fundamental question. When selling Tokens shifts from grassroots entrepreneurs and exchanges to bridge-building urban investment companies and the three major telecom operators, is this market really expanding, or is it being redistributed? Are those small players still profiting from information asymmetry ready for this change? What is Avalanche Chain aiming for by appointing a former regulatory official as president?
The company behind Avalanche Chain quietly changed its leader last night. Avalanche, the developer of Avalanche Chain, Ava Labs, announced a major personnel reshuffle on social media by its founder Emin Gün Sirer. The most notable change is the official appointment of Charley Cooper as president of Ava Labs. This name is familiar to industry veterans; he previously served as Chief of Staff at the CFTC, the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission, making him one of the few who understands both regulation and blockchain. Meanwhile, the former president John Wu, who had been aggressively pushing Avalanche Chain towards institutions and traditional enterprises, has stepped back to become a senior advisor.
Cooper is not an outsider parachuted in. Besides his CFTC background, he has long been active on the crypto front lines and understands how policies are implemented. During John Wu’s tenure, he signed partnerships with several traditional institutions and subnets. Now that Wu has stepped aside, the day-to-day operational authority has effectively been handed to someone more familiar with Washington. Over the past few years, Avalanche Chain has launched many subnets beyond the mainnet, aiming to have enterprises or governments run their own chains, but there are actually few major clients running them. Putting a former senior regulator in the president position sends a pretty clear signal.
In recent years, the relationship between Layer 1 public chains and Washington has mostly been tense or even adversarial, with everyone trying to evade censorship and circumvent rules. Now Avalanche Chain is doing the opposite by bringing in someone who helped set those rules into the core management team. Sirer said in the announcement that Cooper will bring operational discipline, regulatory experience, and an institutional perspective to translate the technical foundation into broader real-world adoption. In other words, the technology is sufficient; the next battle is whether they can get through the doors of big enterprises and pass regulatory hurdles.
At the same time, Lydia, who had been serving as interim CFO, has been officially appointed as Chief Financial Officer, while Sirer remains CEO with the long-term direction unchanged. Interestingly, this timing coincides with the new CFTC chairman publicly stating that the anti-crypto forces have suppressed innovation for too long and that regulation is turning a new page. On one side, regulatory tone is warming; on the other, a leading public chain is putting a former regulator front and center. Both moves seem to be stepping to the same rhythm.
So the question is: by bringing a former regulatory official to lead, is Avalanche Chain truly aiming to tackle the tough institutional market, or is it just trying to gain narrative advantage? How much real adoption in terms of actual money and usage do you think this move can bring to Avalanche Chain?$SPCX Commercial Space Theme ETF
Although SPCX closed lower, its decline was significantly smaller than that of storage, nuclear energy, and leveraged semiconductor benchmarks on the list, showing relative resilience. The relative strength has not yet spread to aerospace constituent stocks and transaction support, so it is not enough to confirm an independent market; if the sector continues to hold steady and high-beta technology stops falling, we can further observe whether funds shift to SPCX.
$SNXX Nuclear Energy and Uranium Industry ETF
SNXX is among the top decliners today, with the selling pressure on the nuclear energy theme even exceeding that of most technology instruments, indicating that funds are withdrawing from previously crowded energy growth trades. If uranium industry chain-related benchmarks do not stop falling simultaneously, a single-day low rebound is unlikely to change the retreat structure; going forward, the breadth of the sector should be observed first, rather than just the price of SNXX itself.
$MU MU is moving down in sync with SNDK and DRAM, with the storage chain experiencing a broad pullback from individual stocks to thematic instruments. MU's decline is slightly smaller than the other two, which only temporarily indicates that the leader's support is somewhat better and does not mean the industry has stopped falling; if all three continue to weaken together, funds are still revising down storage cycle expectations.People who shouted that they only believe in Bitcoin have turned around and started selling Ethereum.
The person who has been saying for over a decade that Bitcoin is the only one has recently quietly changed his tune. This time, Cash App, through the payment company MoonPay, has integrated Ethereum, Solana, Ripple, and Tether. From now on, users opening the app can not only buy Bitcoin but also directly access these non-Bitcoin assets that he once publicly dismissed. A rule he held onto for over ten years has been loosened by his own hand. Many thought he was just stubborn, but it turns out the platform he controls really only sold Bitcoin for many years.
Calling this an exception is no exaggeration. Jack Dorsey has always been the most hardcore Bitcoin purist in the circle, even earning the label of Bitcoin maximalist from outsiders. The payment and blockchain companies he controls, as well as himself, have almost exclusively talked about Bitcoin for over a decade. In the early days of crypto entry points, they only offered Bitcoin—no other coins were even considered. He has publicly expressed more than once that he only trusts the Bitcoin chain; everything else, in his view, is a distraction, noise, and not worth spending time on. Dorsey even said he wouldn’t spend time or money on any other chains besides Bitcoin. This wasn’t just talk; it was written into the company’s direction.
That’s why this move is especially striking. Someone who once categorized Ethereum and Solana as not worth his time is now allowing his hundreds of millions of users to buy these coins with one click in the app. What’s more intriguing is that he didn’t personally get involved in custody for these coins but instead used MoonPay’s channel, preserving face while still doing business. He still says he only builds Bitcoin infrastructure, but in practice, he gives users what they want, completely separating appearance from reality.
Many forget that Dorsey’s investment in Bitcoin goes far beyond words. He runs a full Bitcoin node himself, pays open-source developers year-round, and his companies have produced Bitcoin mining chips and cold wallets. This level of purist faith is rare in the entire community. He has also tried to solve everything with Bitcoin—from the Lightning Network to decentralized social networks—investing significant resources to prove Bitcoin is sufficient. But users chose flashier alternative chains with their feet. Because his foundation was so strong, this concession carries significant signaling meaning: even the most pure purists are bowing to demand, showing that the narrative of Bitcoin as the only seed is actually quite fragile in front of real users.
Behind this is users voting with their feet. In recent years, the narrative of Bitcoin’s dominance has loosened. Stablecoins on Ethereum, meme coins on Solana, and Ripple’s regulatory comeback are all competing for Bitcoin’s attention. Cash App has hundreds of millions of users; if it didn’t open up its entry point, users would just turn to Coinbase and Robinhood, which have long been multi-coin platforms. No matter how stubborn Dorsey is, he can’t withstand the real loss of capital. More realistically, Bitcoin trading used to be the company’s main revenue source, but after growth plateaued, relying on one coin alone can’t sustain growth. Supporting multiple coins is business, not sentiment.
Over the past year, multi-chain and stablecoins have fragmented traffic. The real usage of stablecoins like Tether in cross-border payments far surpasses Bitcoin. By integrating Tether, Dorsey is implicitly acknowledging the value of stablecoin entry points. Someone who once said Bitcoin is the internet’s native currency is now helping users buy Tether in the app—a huge turnaround. He once criticized Solana for being too centralized and looked down on Ripple; now both are invited into his app.
For ordinary users, having more options in a regular app means more freedom of choice. But for longtime fans, this shift is somewhat disillusioning. The person you believed in ultimately compromised for traffic. Faith, after all, can’t beat daily active users and revenue. When even the most die-hard purists start selling Ethereum, how much of the so-called Bitcoin-only faith is really left?CashApp Tears Open Altcoin Buying Channel for 680 Million Users
Saw a message this morning that made my heart skip a beat. Block's payment app Cash App has quietly integrated MoonPay. Eligible users in the U.S. will no longer be limited to buying BTC and USDC; they can now directly purchase mainstream altcoins like ETH, SOL, XRP, and USDT using their balance, and even top up wallets like Ledger, MetaMask, and Uniswap. Previously, many saw Cash App simply as a gateway to buy Bitcoin, but now this channel has been extended to altcoins, a change far more significant than it appears on the surface.
Why is this worth watching? Cash App backs 680 million users, so even if only a small fraction switch from buying BTC to altcoins, the incremental buying volume won't be trivial. More importantly, the significance of the gateway: the threshold for ordinary people to buy crypto has been lowered again. Before, you had to download several apps to access these coins; now, a single balance button solves it. Don't underestimate this channel shift. The last wave of retail investors was driven by exchange ads and hype calls; this time, with giants issuing cards, even the psychological barrier to trading crypto is removed. Buying altcoins becomes as easy as ordering takeout.
For the market, this retail gateway expansion might not immediately push prices up, but it changes the marginal buying channel structure. BTC's siphoning effect will be diluted, and some new money will flow directly into mainstream altcoins like ETH and SOL. For traders, watch for a signal: whichever chain's spot trading volume starts to be driven up by these gateway funds will see short-term capital move first. Volume doesn't lie; when gateway money flows in, order book depth thickens first—this is a more reliable signal than any hype call.
Of course, don't get carried away. Gateway opening doesn't guarantee price rises; MoonPay still charges fees, and real money entering is a slow variable. In the short term, ETH and SOL spot support will be steadier than smaller coins because big funds still prefer mainstream coins. Small coins have poor liquidity, making entry easy but exit difficult. The long-term logic is different: the more retail gateways, the more elastic altcoins might be in the next cycle compared to the last, but that's a matter of years, not short-term timing.
I also thought of another layer: this giant move is actually competing with exchanges for retail gateway business. In the future, the first stop for ordinary people entering crypto might not be Binance but the payment app already installed on their phone. Once giants control the channel, the flow distribution in the crypto world will reshuffle. This directly relates to our positions: where the gateway is, the next wave of incremental funds will flow there. Seeing the channel clearly ahead of time is more useful than staring at minute charts.
What concerns me more is this: when buying altcoins becomes as easy as buying a cup of coffee, will the same group of people get harvested in the next bull frenzy?The person who made the coin reach $46 million didn't earn a cent themselves
A few days ago, no one expected a domestic short animation called "Niu Lai" to suddenly become so popular. Nine days before its release, the box office was only ¥7,169, but by the evening of August 17, it had accumulated to ¥13.33 million, and Maoyan even raised the final forecast to ¥89.21 million. Even more surreal, a meme coin named "Niu Lai" on the BSC chain once surged to a market cap of $46 million. The market was as volatile as the movie; on the day rumors of delisting spread, it surged 139% in 24 hours, but by August 18, it fell back over 22%, causing dizzying swings.
Normally, the first person to issue the coin should be the one who profited the most from this trend. But on-chain data reveals a different story.
The very first address to issue the "Niu Lai" token was a wallet newly created on August 12, which only paid $4.5 in gas fees and started issuing tokens six minutes later, even earlier than the movie trending on social media. This address issued two "Niu Lai" tokens within six minutes, followed by "Xiong Zou" and "Ban Dao Ti" tokens. Strangely, for the hottest "Niu Lai" token, this address has no buy or sell records at all, meaning it didn't earn a penny from this coin.
So what did it actually earn? When issuing the fourth token "Ban Dao Ti," this address bought 37.7% of the supply in one go, then sold it all off in twelve transactions within two minutes, cashing out over $10,000. Almost all its profits in the past month came from those two minutes.
The real beneficiaries of "Niu Lai" are likely another address. The main trading pool was created by another wallet, backed by a professional market maker who has handled 4,861 transactions and is still continuously adding liquidity and collecting fees. There is no fund flow between this market maker and the token issuer's address. In other words, the people publicly issuing the tokens and the professional market makers behind the scenes might be different groups.
Even more chilling is the opening moment. Sniping bots bundled transactions to grab 33.9% of the supply at once, then dispersed it across dozens of addresses to disguise as retail holders. No one can say for sure when these bots will collectively dump their holdings.
A small movie that no one expected to succeed propelled a meme coin worth tens of millions of dollars. In the end, the token issuer didn't profit from the main coin; the money was made by professional players hidden behind liquidity. Retail investors rushing in off-screen face a pile of bot-held tokens that could be dumped at any time. So whose bull market is this "Niu Lai" really?Unlisted companies have already been made into perpetual contracts
That IPO you can't even buy by queuing up, its price has actually been speculated on another screen for a long time before it officially goes public. Last year, a certain star company's stock price nearly doubled on its first day of listing; those who won the IPO lottery woke up laughing, while those who didn't could only stare blankly.
Hyperliquid and a platform called trade.xyz recently jointly wrote a letter to the US SEC, formally suggesting the regulators study something called Pre-IPO perpetual contracts. Simply put, it allows companies like SpaceX and Cerebras, which haven't gone public yet, to have continuous tradable prices on-chain in advance. You can't buy their stocks, but you can bet on their valuation's rise or fall, and this price runs 24/7 nonstop.
The most striking part of this letter isn't the product itself, but a set of data. They said this model has already been tested on five companies: Cerebras, Quantinuum, SpaceX, SK Hynix, and CXMT, with the deviation between the IPO opening price and their on-chain price only ranging from 0.44% to 7.23%. Pricing that professional investment banks take months to figure out can be approximated by the on-chain market using perpetual contracts in just a few hours.
What’s even more painful is the direction. Although the deviation is small, the on-chain prices are generally higher than the final issue price, indicating that these companies were priced cheaply at IPO, meaning the issuers raised less money. Previously, only insiders knew about this, but now a crypto exchange has put it right in front of the regulators.
They also casually proposed a set of rules: how to classify the product, how to disclose information, how high the listing threshold should be, how to prevent manipulation, and whether retail investors can participate. It’s clear they’re not just trying to launch a product, but want to legitimize this as an asset class.
This is no longer an isolated case. Recently, we’ve seen OKX launch MOONSHOT pre-market perpetuals, Coinbase create perpetuals for US stock indices, and Nasdaq itself adding trading hours. An even more astonishing figure is that the monthly trading volume of traditional asset perpetual contracts on crypto exchanges rose from $52 billion in January to $268 billion in June, more than a fivefold increase in half a year. The pricing power of stocks is quietly being moved to a place it originally looked down on.
Whether the SEC will approve is unknown. But when the prices of unlisted companies can be market-priced around the clock, the old IPO method of closed-door price negotiation will become increasingly hard to fool people. What’s worth watching next is how the CFTC and SEC respond to this letter—whether as encouragement for innovation or as a borderline regulatory evasion—this may decide whether this type of product can survive.
For us, maybe in the future, we won’t have to wait for the company to ring the bell to express bullish or bearish views before the listing.BitBox disclosed two serious firmware vulnerabilities yesterday and recommended all users upgrade to version 9.26.5. The official statement also said that so far there have been no reports of these vulnerabilities being exploited or any user funds lost. One of the issues is quite interesting: an attacker cannot remotely steal your coins. They must first trick you into installing a fake BitBoxApp, then have you unlock the device, only then do they have a chance to install malicious firmware onto a real hardware wallet. In other words, the technical vulnerability is only half of the attack chain; the other half is still human. After the security announcement, I am actually more cautious about "urgent upgrade" emails. Scammers love to use real news to create time pressure: the version number is real, the vulnerability is real, only the download link is fake. Because users just saw the news, they are even more likely to believe it. A safer approach is not to refuse updates, but to update through a different path: enter the upgrade portal from the already installed official app; if you must download, type the official website address yourself, do not click links from emails, private messages, or search ads; recovery phrases should only be entered on the hardware device, never on any webpage or with customer service. The most important takeaway this time is not "hardware wallets are not secure," but: Security updates fix the code, update paths protect you. When you receive an email saying "serious vulnerability found, please upgrade immediately," do you click the link directly or open the official app yourself? Before it even went public, the bank had already extended a loan of tens of billions
A piece of news in the early morning made many people rub their eyes. Anthropic hasn't even rung the bell to go public yet, but it is already negotiating a credit line exceeding ten billion dollars with the lead banks. Each lead bank is asked to contribute about $1.25 billion, and other major participating banks each contribute $1 billion, adding up to a figure larger than the market value of many publicly listed companies.
This company behind Claude has long been hyped to a sky-high valuation. Yet it still hasn't released any public financial reports, but banks are willing to advance money first. The logic is simple: AI is currently the most trusted growth story, and those lending to this story are betting that it will be able to repay after going public, and also betting they can get a slice of the IPO pie. More subtly, this is no longer the venture capital play; it is proper bank credit, essentially feeding a company that has yet to prove profitability with debt.
Interestingly, the timing of this money coincides with the quietest period for Bitcoin. Data from a few days ago showed Bitcoin's 30-day realized volatility dropped to about 42%, the smallest gap ever compared to the S&P 500. The market seems asleep, with buyers and sellers unable to move each other. Meanwhile, the monthly trading volume of perpetual contracts for traditional assets on crypto exchanges has surged from just over $10 billion in January to more than $260 billion in June, a more than fivefold increase in half a year. Short-term funds are flowing into stock perpetuals and prediction markets, and Korean retail investors have withdrawn about 80% of their trading volume from the crypto space.
On one side, the crypto market is so cold that it barely stirs any volatility; on the other, an AI company has already taken on $10 billion in debt before going public. The money hasn't disappeared; it has just changed tables. While we watch every transfer of on-chain whales, Wall Street is wildly leveraging a revenue-less expectation. When the AI narrative cools down, will these leverages backfire? No one dares to guarantee.
What’s even more worth pondering is that Anthropic’s $10 billion is not an isolated case. Recently, estimates showed that the off-balance-sheet commitments of several US tech giants add up to nearly $3 trillion, about five times their annual capital expenditure. Most of these bills are irrevocable. When AI revenues truly can’t keep up with the burn rate, who will break first? No one knows yet.
So here’s the question. When AI absorbs all the market’s attention and cheap capital, are our positions sitting at the right table, or have we already been quietly marginalized? When this AI credit frenzy subsides, where will the money go first—Bitcoin, or somewhere else?Ethereum Foundation disburses $5.5 million this quarter for ecosystem development
For those holding ETH, there's news worth a glance today. The Ethereum Foundation just released its funding report for Q2 2026, distributing $5.5 million in one quarter towards ecosystem building, zero-knowledge proof research, and code security audits. This money isn't just given away; it's paving the way for the upcoming Glamsterdam upgrade. This isn't the first time funds have been distributed—it's a quarterly routine, though most people don't bother to check the details.
Many people don't grasp the concept of the Foundation's funding. Simply put, this is equivalent to the central R&D fund of the ETH chain continuously injecting capital. Wherever the money flows, that technology is pushed forward. This quarter's focus is on ZK (zero-knowledge proofs, a cryptographic technology that hides details while verifying authenticity) and security audits, indicating the team prioritizes foundational security and scalability. On a bigger scale, ETH is currently competing with many new public chains for developers and capital; developers choose based on which toolchain is more convenient, which fees are lower, and which is more secure. The Foundation's investment in ZK and security this quarter aims to protect its technological moat and avoid falling behind.
The Glamsterdam upgrade is the next major event for ETH. The Foundation's funding tilt towards this signals a commitment backed by real money—the roadmap isn't just talk. For us holders, this ongoing investment is the confidence in long-term value; the chain isn't resting on its laurels, which keeps the story going.
However, there is a clear contradiction. While the Foundation is heavily funding R&D, it still holds a massive amount of ETH from the original crowdsale, and the market often wonders when it might sell. Funding is building; selling coins is draining. When both happen simultaneously, community sentiment fluctuates. Whether the money is enough or well spent is hard for outsiders to judge.
In the short term, this funding news is lukewarm for price impact and won't immediately drive a rally—don't expect it to be a catalyst. To see real effects, we have to wait for Glamsterdam's launch and test whether throughput and fees improve qualitatively. In the long run, sustained technical investment is ETH's trump card against other public chains. As the ecosystem thickens, capital will naturally vote with its feet. We look at chains to see who is seriously working for the long haul.
So regarding this quarterly funding, do you think ETH is quietly doing big things, or just spending money to maintain presence? Are you willing to hold your ETH through this upgrade journey?The crypto regulator personally confronts the anti-crypto camp
Mike Selig, the new chairman of the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), recently made a bold statement. At a public event, he directly named a long-standing anti-crypto force—a group of pessimists and delayists who have been stifling innovation for years. Now, the CFTC is turning a new page to open what he calls a new financial frontier for innovators. It’s surprising to hear such strong words from the head of a regulatory agency that is supposed to remain neutral. After all, nowadays, a regulator’s statement can either lift an entire sector or snuff it out overnight.
Selig oversees a significant portfolio, including Bitcoin and Ethereum futures, various derivatives, and prediction markets. In recent years, the crypto industry has faced many obstacles at the CFTC. Prediction market companies like Kalshi and Polymarket fought long legal battles with regulators just to barely survive. Interestingly, right around the time Selig called for a new chapter, the White House’s planned crypto industry summit excluded these two prediction market companies from the invitation list. On one hand, the CFTC chairman is loudly embracing innovation; on the other, the White House is shutting the same group out. This contrast is quite thought-provoking.
The timing of these remarks is clear in context. The Trump administration shifted overall toward a pro-crypto stance, during which the CFTC established an Innovation Advisory Committee that included executives from Coinbase, Ripple, Gemini, Robinhood, Polymarket, and Kalshi. Selig’s statement essentially sets the tone for this shift. But for ordinary players like us, what regulators say is one thing; what really affects our positions are the implemented rules. Whether prediction markets become legal and whether contract trading thresholds loosen—these are the real deal. The "new financial frontier" Selig talks about might translate into lower trading thresholds and clearer rules for our accounts. It’s easy for regulators to put on a friendly face, but actually codifying rules into law is always a tough battle.
Looking back, the CFTC’s attitude toward crypto has been a roller coaster over the years. It was relatively welcoming when Bitcoin futures launched but later cracked down on unregistered platforms and heavily suppressed prediction markets. Now, the head publicly confronts the anti-crypto camp. Whether this is a genuine shift or just rhetoric remains to be seen, depending on whether real rule relaxations follow. It sounds good when a regulator says they want to protect innovation. But when crypto prediction market companies are blocked from the White House in the same week, do you really believe that door has been fully opened to us?The most favored fund quietly moved over 100 million HYPE into the exchange
Last night, On-Chain Detective uncovered a transfer that made people’s hearts skip a beat. Multicoin Capital, an institution regarded within the community since last year as the top hardcore bear on HYPE, transferred 172,700 HYPE tokens into Coinbase Prime. Based on the current market price, this batch of tokens is worth over 100 million USD, and the total HYPE held by this fund is roughly 127 million USD.
HYPE’s status in the community over the past two years has been somewhat unique. It is backed by Hyperliquid, a decentralized perpetual exchange, and through a mechanism that uses trading fees to buy back and burn tokens, it has carved out its own narrative among public chains. Multicoin has been heavily invested from early on and has publicly expressed recognition of this economic model, effectively tying its reputation and position to it.
Calling it the top hardcore bear is not an exaggeration. Over the past six months, whenever the Hyperliquid ecosystem is discussed, Multicoin’s name is always brought up as a faith benchmark. They not only publicly support HYPE but also back it with real money. A fund that incorporates HYPE into its investment logic suddenly transferring such a large amount to an exchange custody account prompts the community’s first reaction: Is this a sell-off or just a simple repositioning?
No one can say for sure right now. Coinbase Prime itself is an institutional custody and trading channel; moving tokens there doesn’t mean immediate selling. It could be for market making, staking, or portfolio adjustment. But the market fears this kind of ambiguous movement the most. HYPE’s price in recent months has been supported by faith, and any large holder moving tokens to an exchange is seen as a potential selling pressure signal.
What’s interesting is the contrast. The same people who hype HYPE as the next-generation trading layer are quietly moving tokens to the exchange. Retail investors see positive narratives, but the ledger shows real money moving positions. Whether this is routine long-term holder behavior or smart money quietly reducing exposure, no one can say for sure now.
What’s even more worth pondering is the timing. The Hyperliquid ecosystem has been quite hot recently, with stories about the AQAv2 mechanism and stablecoin reserves still being told, and HYPE’s price hovering at relatively high levels. At times like this, every move by a major fund is magnified and interpreted. You might say it’s strategic positioning; I could say it’s profit-taking. The truth might only become clear with subsequent on-chain activity.
What to watch next is when the funds in Coinbase Prime move. If they flow from the custody address to the open market in a few days, that’s a solid signal of reduction; if they just sit quietly, it’s most likely a normal portfolio adjustment. On-chain data doesn’t lie, so we just need to keep an eye on it.
What do you think? Is this Multicoin adjusting its position, or did someone get wind of something early?Retail investors can bet on stock prices before IPOs, and this time they are being allowed to do so
A seemingly new concept is submitting materials to the SEC. Hyperliquid Policy Center and tradeXYZ jointly wrote a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission proposing the introduction of a product called Pre-IPO Perpetual Contracts (IPOP), which allows investors to bet on a company's stock price through perpetual contracts before the company officially goes public. It does not give you shares or voting rights, only price exposure. Once the company actually goes public, the product automatically ends; essentially, it is a cash-settled derivative.
What deserves the most attention is that this is no longer theoretical. tradeXYZ has already launched 5 IPOP markets on Hyperliquid, covering names like Cerebras, SpaceX, SK Hynix, and Changxin Memory, all of which are not yet public. In some cases, the on-chain market's pre-IPO prices were not wildly different from the later official opening prices; Cerebras was even 89% higher, effectively revealing the issuer's and underwriters' pricing in advance and piercing the opaque pricing window of the primary market.
Once this is approved, retail investors can bet on a company's valuation before the bell rings, without waiting for allocations from investment banks or competing for IPO shares. But this is also what worries regulators the most: price manipulation, information disclosure, and leverage limits are all new challenges. Therefore, the letter lists many rules for the SEC to consider first, aiming to allow even retail investors to participate within a clear framework. The underwriting fees that traditional investment banks earn from information asymmetry are precisely the part most shaken by this transparent pricing.
For us, if pre-IPO perpetuals really take off, it means lowering the threshold of the primary market, allowing retail and institutional investors to compete on the same contract. In the short term, this is still a proposal far from implementation, and participation requires clear rules. But the direction is clear: the traditional pre-IPO pricing game is being gradually pried open by on-chain perpetuals. Once this door opens, there is basically no turning back.
In a bigger picture, IPOP is actually a facet of the tokenization wave. When stocks, commodities, and private equity can all be broken into tradable fragments on-chain, the traditional financial issuance system with its layered markups faces pressure to be bypassed. Whether the SEC accepts this letter is another matter, but the proposal itself shows that on-chain pricing is moving from the fringe to the main table. This change is slow, but once the direction is set, it is hard to reverse.
Do you think these contracts that allow betting on stock prices before IPOs are an opportunity or a new way to exploit retail investors?PUMP's first golden cross since listing drives revenue to a new high
Pump.fun, which was written off throughout the bear market, has quietly rebounded recently. Its platform token PUMP has just experienced its first golden cross since listing, with the 50-day moving average crossing above the 200-day moving average for the first time. Technical analysts see this as the first signal of a trend reversal. Even more solid data is the revenue: Pump.fun's seven-day income surged to $11.52 million, the highest weekly revenue since February this year, ranking fourth among all crypto protocols, only behind Tether, Circle, and Canton. It even outpaced Hyperliquid, whose circulating market cap is more than twenty times larger.
Backing this recovery is real cash buyback. The team’s contract stipulates that for every dollar earned, half is automatically used to buy back and burn PUMP tokens. Just last week, $5.52 million worth of tokens were burned, with a cumulative total of $429 million burned, wiping out 28.58% of the total supply. In the week of August, fee income reached $10.74 million, a 7% increase week-over-week, marking the best week since late January last year. The platform also cut transaction fees on Solana to zero, clearly aiming to use its revenue advantage to wage a price war against competitors like GMGN and Axiom, attracting daily active traders to new highs through token burns and zero fees.
The most counterintuitive part of this story is that while everyone thought meme launchpads would be dead in this bear market, Pump has survived by burning tokens and waiving fees, temporarily silencing the doubters. But don’t get carried away—PUMP is still 68% below its high of 0.0088 last year. The golden cross is just a technical signal and doesn’t guarantee a stable trend; rebounds in bear markets are often deceptive.
For short-term traders looking to ride this wave, focus on weekly token burn volume and open interest in perpetual contracts—these two are the key to this rally. If the burn rate slows, the story will falter. Also, this buyback-supported valuation model essentially buys time with revenue, but whether it can hold depends on the overall market sentiment. Looking at the bigger picture, Pump’s recent moves reveal the survival logic of the meme sector. Pure narrative tokens without real revenue have long been abandoned by the market; those that survive are projects that can monetize traffic and reinvest profits back into their tokens. Pump relies on transaction fees, a solid business, which makes it a different species from meme tokens that only spin stories. The bear market doesn’t eliminate memes themselves, but rather the unprofitable ones.
What’s your take? Is PUMP’s rally a true reversal or just a dead cat bounce? The tech leaders' meeting invited giants but excluded prediction markets
The White House has recently been organizing two tech industry events: one invited crypto giants, while the other excluded prediction market companies. According to Axios reporters, the White House plans to hold a tech leaders event tomorrow with Trump, where heads of crypto companies like Coinbase, Ripple, Gemini, and Robinhood are on the guest list. However, prediction market platforms Polymarket and Kalshi did not receive invitations, not even for observation.
This is interesting. Both are crypto-related, but exchanges and blockchain companies are treated as honored guests, while prediction markets are left out. It's worth noting that at another crypto innovation conference scheduled for next week, Polymarket and Kalshi are members of the newly established CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee. The treatment on both sides is like night and day. One event is a tech showcase, the other a policy forum; prediction markets only appear at the latter, indicating that regulators' attitudes toward them are far more complex than they seem — they want to use them but also fear them.
Simply put, prediction markets are very sensitive. They turn politics, elections, and various events into contracts for betting, naturally stepping on regulatory red lines. Regulators want to court the crypto industry to show a good image but fear prediction markets becoming tools that influence public opinion, so they simply keep them out of the circle for now. Trump's own relationship with these platforms is also delicate — he wants crypto votes but won't give them a platform, a contradiction especially evident in an election year.
For participants like us, this signal is worth pondering. The U.S. attitude toward crypto is clearly loosening, but which parts are loosening and which are tightening is very clear. If you want to bet on Trump-related event contracts, don't just watch the excitement; think carefully about where the policy winds are really blowing so you don't get caught up in the hype and end up taking the last hit. The pricing of these contracts is easily influenced by large funds, so retail investors need to be even more cautious.
Looking back, the crypto industry's relationship with the White House has taken a big turn in the past two years. From being singled out to now being honored guests, there have been several rounds of negotiations in between. The fact that prediction markets are singled out shows regulators still have reservations about certain crypto forms. This differentiated treatment reminds us that policy benefits are not evenly distributed; you have to see clearly which clouds will really bring rain.
Do you think the White House truly dislikes prediction markets, or is it simply afraid they will disrupt this show? Is this the bottom? The facts are clear—but don't expect a V-shaped reversal
BTC has halved from its peak, retail investors are exiting en masse, the fear index has recovered from extreme fear to 45, whales are accumulating again near BTC 60000, ETH sellers have dried up to nearly a decade low, and new addresses have grown counter-trend by 75%. These characteristics are highly similar to the bottoms at the end of 2018 and 2022.
But the macro backdrop is completely different: US Treasury yields are soaring, the new Fed chair is hawkish, the Middle East situation is chaotic, and veteran bulls like Strategy have started net selling. The suppressive factors have not eased.
Conclusion: This is a bottom area, not a V-shaped bottom. It is more likely to grind repeatedly around the 60000 range, and the duration may be longer than expected, grinding until everyone loses patience before choosing a direction.
Trading strategy:
Short-term support for BTC is 64000; support for ETH is 1900.
· Hold above support → go long, valid pullbacks, build momentum for rise
· Break support and fail to rebound → go short, seek bottom downward
Key discipline: Do not chase highs or sell lows, place orders around key levels, admit mistakes and stop loss.
Currently in a phase of confirming pullback after a rally, direction is unclear, watch more and trade less. If support holds, try light long positions; if broken, exit decisively. Patience is more important than judgment.
$BTC $ETH A bank holding 1.8 trillion quietly increased its position in MSTR
The Royal Bank of Canada, managing assets worth 1.8 trillion USD, recently quietly added a position in the secondary market. It increased its holdings by 46,000 shares of the Bitcoin treasury company Strategy (formerly MicroStrategy), valued at about 4.45 million USD at market price. After the purchase, the bank holds a total of 385,000 shares of MSTR, with a position value of about 37.2 million USD, increasing its shareholding ratio by 13.5% compared to before.
What’s interesting about this is the contrast. The Royal Bank is one of Canada’s largest traditional financial institutions by asset size, usually far from the crypto world, yet now it is putting real money into a company that uses BTC as its core reserve. Strategy’s stock price is highly correlated with Bitcoin’s movement; buying it essentially means betting on BTC’s long-term direction, which means an established bank is indirectly holding Bitcoin exposure through stock channels. More subtly, the timing they chose is exactly when BTC has halved from its peak and market sentiment is at its coldest—while others are fearful, they are adding to their position.
Looking at a longer timeframe, this continues a trend that started last year. Corporate treasuries buying Bitcoin is no longer just Strategy’s business; from Zhihui Technology to Metaplanet, publicly listed companies incorporating BTC into their balance sheets is becoming a configuration move accepted by traditional capital. Even university endowments have paused reducing Bitcoin ETF holdings, indicating that institutions are shifting from retreating to observing or even replenishing. This slow but steady rise in exposure is more tangible than any hype. According to public disclosures, the Royal Bank’s holdings are still a tiny fraction among bank stocks, with symbolic significance far outweighing the amount.
For those of us following trends, these institutional moves are slow variables—they don’t determine tomorrow’s price moves but indicate where the money is flowing. In the short term, watch the 4-hour average cost line and volume; in the long term, accept the fact that traditional financial institutions are gradually loading BTC into their asset portfolios through various legal channels. When major banks stop quietly adding positions and start openly bullish, that will be when the exposure is truly full.
Data-wise, the Royal Bank’s cost basis for this MSTR purchase is around 97 USD per share, while Strategy’s 430,000 BTC on hand has already appreciated several times over on the books. For a bank, a 37.2 million USD position is just a drop in the bucket of its total assets, but the posture behind this money is more important than the number. The signal it sends is that even the most conservative deposit institutions are beginning to treat crypto treasury stocks as allocatable assets, not untouchable forbidden zones.
Do you think mainstream banks are adding positions because they sense the bottom, or are they just testing the waters with allocations? The White House initially named crypto but then backtracked, kicking prediction markets out the door
A few days ago, news circulated that Trump was going to hold an innovation meeting for the crypto industry at the White House, specifically inviting leaders from Coinbase, Ripple, Gemini, Robinhood, and two prediction market companies, Polymarket and Kalshi. These big players are members of the newly established CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee, and the plan was to discuss policies around fintech, crypto assets, and prediction markets together.
However, last night an Axios reporter revealed a detail that changed the whole tone. The White House is indeed holding this tech leaders event tomorrow with Trump, and many tech giants will attend, but none of the prediction market companies received invitations or will be present.
This is quite intriguing. Just recently, Polymarket and Kalshi were on the attendee list, but right before the event, they were quietly excluded. Ironically, the heads of these two companies are members of the CFTC Innovation Advisory Committee, yet now they can’t even get into their own agency’s meeting. It’s unclear whether this reflects internal disagreement within the White House or if someone doesn’t want the prediction market sector to ride this spotlight. Outsiders can only speculate.
The meeting was originally scheduled at the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House, with a fairly serious atmosphere. CFTC Chair Mike Selig was expected to attend, and Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen and Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo might also come. The event’s profile is not low, yet the two companies most relevant to prediction markets were quietly cut out.
Interestingly, just days ago, South Korea classified Polymarket as illegal gambling and blocked access. On one hand, the U.S. White House wanted to invite them; on the other, an allied country outright banned them. The prediction market sector is being pulled in two directions simultaneously.
Polymarket and Kalshi essentially allow users to bet on event outcomes, from elections to policy implementations, naturally operating in a regulatory gray area. This White House meeting was originally seen as a signal for crypto and prediction markets to enter the mainstream together. Now that prediction markets have been singled out and excluded, the signal has instantly reversed. I suspect the real focus is still on traditional crypto assets, stablecoins, and AI—topics seen as more respectable. Prediction markets are too sensitive and easily interpreted as the government endorsing gambling, so they were removed.
So the question is, during the time Polymarket and Kalshi are kept out, will U.S. regulation of prediction markets tighten or loosen? After this White House meeting, will the industry be reassured or will prediction markets be pushed further to the sidelines? We’ll keep watching.